Experiencing performance related issues in Lightroom 4.x

[BCormier]

Anyone else notice that lightroom 4 is slow? Ligtroom 3 always ran fast on my system but Lightroom 4 seemlingly lags quite a bit.

My system is:

2.10 ghz Intel Core i3 Sandy Bridge

8 GB Ram

640 GB Hard Drive

Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bit

Message title was edited by: Brett N

[DavePinMinn]

Yeah, I thought I remembered this from before, that LR has other stuff going on that ACR doesn't have to do...

In any case, it APPEARS - and as always, take this with a huge shaker of salt - that by getting rid of the temp files, and fiddling with the lightroom folder, I DID get some improvement...  For a WHILE.  After approximately an hour it seemed like develop was back to being just as slow to open images......

It also APPEARS that initially, after doing the above stuff, it ran better WITHOUT starting it from the batch file that only used 3 cores...

Is the slowing down after a bit (30-60 minutes) indicative of a something not being cleaned up properly?  I do notice that as I use LR, my memory usage always increases.  It doesn't ever seem to go down, but it rarely gets above about 2.5 GB or so of memory.  Usually starts at a bit over 1GB.  Unfortunately, I normally have to start CS6 somewhere in there and I presume going back and forth must do something 'cause with those two open I can EASILY get to the 10GB (yes, 10), or more.

[areohbee]

davepinminn wrote:

Is the slowing down after a bit (30-60 minutes) indicative of a something not being cleaned up properly?

Probably indicates something not getting cleaned up, or something getting messed up.

PS - Memory leaks may not, in and of themselves, cause slowdown until memory becomes scarce. However, they are always an indicator of abnormal behavior, something is amiss, and Lr is allocating more memory even though it shouldn't need to, and the underlying cause for the memory leak may cause a slowdown, before the memory constraint itself kicks in.

Rob

[A_C_G]

I can't find the post, but am sure it was in the last week.

Victoria Brampton mentioned 'negative cache'.

I tried it and I am pretty sure it has made my LR 4.1 easier to use and am almost totally sure that my Export to jpg was much faster.

If some kind soul could find the post by VB it might be worth sufferers making a try with it.

Tony

[areohbee]

A C G wrote:

I can't find the post, but am sure it was in the last week.

Victoria Brampton mentioned 'negative cache'.

I tried it and I am pretty sure it has made my LR 4.1 easier to use and am almost totally sure that my Export to jpg was much faster.

If some kind soul could find the post by VB it might be worth sufferers making a try with it.

Tony

Not sure where the post is, but here is what you do:

create config.lua text file and put this line in it:

-------------------------------------------------------------

AgNegativeCache.enabled = false -- false kills the ram caching of recently visited images in dev module.

-------------------------------------------------------------

then save in folder for lightroom app-data, then restart Lightroom.

You can tell if you've done it right by enabling the loading message in Develop module view options (if not already), then toggle the selection of 2 different files in develop module - back and forth... If it always says "Loading" when you switch, then it's working (cache is disabled).

If this doesn't help, i.e. improve performance somehow, then delete the config.lua file (and restart Lightroom), since it's better to cache negatives unless it's causing a problem for you. You can tell caching is enabled and working for you if switch back and forth between two files in develop module and it doesn't say "Loading" after the first time.

lightroom app-data folder on windows is:

C:\Users\{user}\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\Lightroom

It's a similar place on Mac.

Rob

[SavagePhoto-lItHqa]

backed up catalogs and uninstalled lightroom. Feels good.

[DavePinMinn]

I applaud you!  Unfortunately, the 800 pound gorilla doesn't care.  It got your money, so if you choose not to use their product 'til V5 they're ahead 'cause they don't have to listen to you whine about problems....  It would have a MUCH greater impact if all of us that have issues with LR4 could demand the money back.  Anybody out there figure we'll ever smarten up enough not to keep contributing to the Adobe annuity when they keep putting out products like LR3 - remember all the issues? - and LR4 - noticed the lack of response from Adobe even acknowledging they're aware of a problem?

As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."  We (including me 'cause despite KNOWING their history of releasing products with major issues, I bought the thing), keep supporting the gorilla...

[areohbee]

SavagePhoto wrote:

backed up catalogs and uninstalled lightroom. Feels good.

Good for you. I've always said, the best software to use for whatever is the one that runs the best on your machine.

So, what's next? Giving up photography altogether, or do you have another raw converter?

[SavagePhoto-lItHqa]

   The best place to spend your money is with people and companies who care enough to put out a quality product. Adobe thinks that they are too big to crumble and that is what will break them. Rob .... Do you work for adobe or get some ki9nd of kickback? If so now is the time to start working on your resume. The freeware and other paid competition are getting really really good.

[areohbee]

SavagePhoto wrote:

Rob .... Do you work for adobe or get some ki9nd of kickback?

No. I have no stake in Adobe, nor so I care whether you or anybody else does or does not use Lightroom. I think one reason Adobe can get away with what they do is that they don't have much competition, or should I say *any* serious competition, at least not on the Windows platform, that I'm aware of. C1 ya think? - do tell...

I adore PV2012 because Lr4 runs fairly well on my system and I'm getting great results. If it was choking to death, or I couldn't figure out how to use it, I would be complaining and or seeking an alternative.

(actually it would have to be pretty bad for that, because I have thousands of hours invested in plugin development and use dozens of plugins regularly as part of my workflow. - still, the point stands).

So I ask again: now that you've uninstalled Lightroom, what are you using to process your photos? I'm curious, and I'm sure people who are as fed up as you would love to know which competition you consider "really really good".

Rob

[Keith Reeder]

SavagePhoto wrote:

If so now is the time to start working on your resume.

Dream on. You're hugely overstating your own importance if you think that your decision reflects the opinions of the majority of Adobe's (and especially Lr's) userbase.

The freeware and other paid competition are getting really really good.

Like Rob, I'd like to know which software you're talking about. I'm completely converter agnostic; use, or have used, pretty much everything out there; and I know of no other converter that provides Lr's results or bang for the buck.

[glugglug]

If Lightroom was designed from the ground up to be what it is, we wouldn't see the seam between library & develop

When I had my business I had a library and a darkroom. I did not store and index images in my darkroom just as I did not do my printing in my library. Lightroom reflects that division between tasks as far as I can see.

Suits me.

[DavePinMinn]

I agree with Rob about Adobe.  My reference to the 800 pound gorilla is that Adobe doesn't have any meaningful competition and thus MAY be acting in a manner less optimal for the customer base than would a company that HAD to ensure that their product was superior to their compeition.

At one time, I had hope that a photo editor that was being worked on at Microsoft (yeah, I know a lot of us don't like Microsoft), would provide significant competition.  Some components I was shown did things 7 years ago that are only now showing up in Photoshop.  I don't know what happened, but it appears to have gone quietly by the wayside...

I believe the best thing that could happen to us as consumers would be a real, fanny-kicking, spectacular set of tools to compete with Adobe.

But, reality is what it is, and here we are, months into this new release, with pages of topics dedicated to performance issues, and still not even an acknowledgement from Adobe that they're aware there's a problem...  I haven't gotten to the point of removing LR, and won't since I've found ways to work around the worst of the problems - by using Bridge, mostly - but it would sure be nice if somebody from Adobe that lives in a room with a door on it stood up and said SOMETHING...

[andreas603]

since we're bantering.... Dave, you nailed it....we need a fanny kicking competitive threat... the few out there excel at different aspects (I personally have tried Apterture and Capture One) but not as many as LR has- but it depends on your focus... LOVE the rendering and thethering speed of Cap One but it lacks editing features and an intuitive process and at nearly triple the price of LR not efficient for me to switch.... I'm personally at a cross roads...this is a slow time of year for me so I'm not dying but because I've upgreated to Canon 5D MIII, I have to use LR4 (dont get me started on the DNG thing)... I'm hoping Adobe does something by Sept to speed this dog up otherwise I may have to switch to CO.

At the end of the day, I honestly believe that this is about business at Adobe and return to shareholders....they look at their overall product portfolio, see where the rev is coming from and maximize for shareholder return.  Why would they spend too much time on a product that costs $75 bucks that has no meaningful competition and its existing customer base is locked in (forced to upgrade) if they bought an SLR that is less than 6 months old... They know we are here..they know about the problems....its a calucated risk that this willl blow over and not damage their brand.  Its won't and shouldn't stop any of us from pushing and complaining or trying to help each other.... My hope is that someone like Phase One steps up and takes a run at LR and begins to chip away at their marketshare...but sadly, I'm afraid it feels like its about has realistic as a competitor stepping up to Comcast and offering me an alternative cable solution

I would go back to LR3 in a heartbeat if ACR v7 was supported there

[bob frost]

From: "davepinminn

But, reality is what it is, and here we are, months into this new release,

with pages of topics dedicated to performance issues, and still not even

an acknowledgement from Adobe that they're aware there's a problem... I

haven't gotten to the point of removing LR, and won't since I've found

ways to work around the worst of the problems - by using Bridge, mostly -

but it would sure be nice if somebody from Adobe that lives in a room with

a door on it stood up and said SOMETHING...

They have said something, but as has been pointed out several times, this is

NOT the forum where Adobe responds to users; this is a User-to-User forum.

On the other forum where Adobe does respond, there is a response from Adobe

to a similar thread:-

<http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/do_not_upgrade_to_lr4_until_speed_issues_are_resolved?do=reply&utm_content=reply_link&utm_medium=email&utm_source=reply_notification&what=reply_9500266#reply_9500266>

Bob Frost

[CSS_Simon]

andreas603 wrote:

since we're bantering.... Dave, you nailed it....we need a fanny kicking competitive threat...

[snip]

At the end of the day, I honestly believe that this is about business at Adobe and return to shareholders....

I think Adobe is getting a fanny-kicking, but not in the photographic market.  Adobe is losing market share for video and rich media web content (i.e. Flash), in favour of HTML5 content. 

So will Adobe hunker down, and milk the CS/LR cash-cow, where it has no significant competition?  Avoid innovation and risk: just keep it going, and just far enough ahead of what competition there is to maintain market share?  There are signs of that - trying to move customers to a recurring revenue cloud-based model, without actually having to innovate too much. 

On the other hand, LR4 is pretty innovative in quite a few respects. 

[Charles Putnam]

To get somewhat back on topic, even Matt Kloskowski admitted in his Lightroom seminar that LR4 runs slow.  He also noted that Adobe DOES read the posts/monitor these forums (and sometimes even responds).

That said, I'm personally a a point where I'm moving back to Aperture and will use ACR in PS CS6 for those photos that have heavy shadow problems.  Just wish I could get my $$$ back from Adobe for the purchase of LR4.

[SavagePhoto-lItHqa]

my statement about updating the resume was simply an observation. I have been using Adobe products since photoshop first came to PC.  I have seen them take more and more of a "hands off" "we know what's best for you" approach. This latest issue is the most obvious with Adobe telling us that there isn't a problem with LR4.x .  The Adobe of as little as 5 years ago would have been more interactive and acknowledging of the issues.

As for alternative software

Captue One - Paid

Rawtherapy -  Free

both provide excellent and in some areas better results than LR and ACR. I dont care to elaborate on this since I hate the old Mac vs PC or Nikon vs Canon (or film vs digital) debates.

only speaking for myself - LR is really an excellent catalog but far from the best. I have found numerous other options each with their drawbacks (just as LR has its drawbacks). I do need the features of PS (which include ACR) so I know I need to keep that so all I am really missing is a catalog. I think in many ways this route is better because I get a much better catalog (in beta now but VERY VERY Sweet) and the same level of raw processing as I have with LR and I am in my own way telling Adobe that I am unhappy enough to devote this much time and effort to find an alternative. When a real alternative to Photoshop comes out I may also consider that. I know I am only one person but I know I am not alone. If enough people do the same Adobe might just get the message.

So what brought me to this point. Adobe tech support running me in circles and basically telling me that the slowness is in my imagination. I would much rather hear "we are aware of the situation and are looking into a resolution. " than telling me I don't have a problem.

[bob frost]

andreas603 wrote:

  Why would they spend too much time on a product that costs $75 bucks that has no meaningful competition and its existing customer base is locked in (forced to upgrade) if they bought an SLR that is less than 6 months old...

Not locked in - convert images from a new camera to dng and you can use an older version of LR.

Bob Frost

[andreas603]

I knew someone would talk about DNG.  Not a practical option for many of us

[bob frost]

From: "andreas603

I knew someone would talk about DNG. Not a practical option for many of

us

Just curious - why isn't it practical?

bob Frost

[skornreich]

Did a quick teat today

I did a quick comparison to my older 2009 Mac Pro 2.66Ghz with 16gb ram, same SSD setup on both my Mac and my Win7 box.

I did an import of 39 D800/E 14 bit NEFS 1:1 previews

On the Mac Pro it took 6 minutes 34 Seconds

On the PC it took 4 minutes 41 Seconds.

So in all some improvement, I was hoping for twice as fast as my 3 year old mac, but not quite there.

My i7 3770 chip is running at 3.4ghz then it has 3.9ghz turbo mode, not sure it running at that speed though.

I opened up resmon.exe to see what was going on, first off as far as I can tell LR will only use up to 4gb of ram, at least during the import process and then I noticed all 8 cores of the CPU all at around 100% so I guess it does use all the cores.

So would more cores = better performance? or is it a matter of raw CPU speed?

[DavePinMinn]

Yes, along with Matt Kloskowsky, Jared Platt also commented during his CreativeLive seminar.

[Guest]

DEAR ADOBE -

READ OUR COMMENTS AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE SPEED ISSUE! I'm at the point of using explatives. If any of you developers have to use LR4 on a daily basis as a photographer, you can't be happy either.

From what I'm reading here and hearing from my friends, I can't imagine that 10% of heavy LR4 users are happy right now. I've read the "solutions" that users have come up with. Some are helpful, but none come close to dealing with the speed problem.

ADOBE: respond somewhere that all of your users will find your response. It took 20 minutes to read through the responses to realize that there hasn't been an acceptable fix.

I know this sounds pissy, but what do you expect?

Sincerely,

Erked

[SavagePhoto-lItHqa]

I have gone so far as to uninstall LR. I am building a new computer today and LR will not even get installed there. As a pro I cannot use amature software and that is what LR 4 is right now. FYI I am using Bridge with ACR - It look a bit of getting used to but I am just as fast now as when using other ver of LR. I use actions and scripts in to do some post and so my workflow is actually faster over all. The only thing I miss from LR is the cataloging and there are many good options out there. a free one that I like and will soon support off line images (thumbs and ranking...) Daminion. I hope you find a solution that works for you!!!

[howmanypigginnamesdoitry]

I think it's disingenuous to call Lightroom amateur software. I agree

it's not very well coded and V4 is particularly slow, so I also

uninstalled it and tried to get a refund. However, that's about

versioning I think rather than quality, because V 3.6 remains the best

software of it's type available to anyone.

Try V3.6, there really isn't anything better out there imho