• Global community
    • Language:
      • Deutsch
      • English
      • Español
      • Français
      • Português
  • 日本語コミュニティ
    Dedicated community for Japanese speakers
  • 한국 커뮤니티
    Dedicated community for Korean speakers
Locked

Experiencing performance related issues in Lightroom 4.x

Community Beginner ,
Mar 06, 2012 Mar 06, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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

Views

519.4K

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines

correct answers 1 Correct answer

Community Expert , Dec 18, 2012 Dec 18, 2012

It's now impossible to see the wood for the trees in this whopping 43-page long thread.  Many of the original 4.0-4.2 performance issues have since been resolved, and it's impossible to figure out who is still having problems, and what they can try.

I've started a nice clean thread to continue this discussion for 4.3 and later. http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1117506  Thanks to Bob_Peters for the suggestion.  I'm locking this one, otherwise it'll continue to get increasingly unweidly, but please f

...

Likes

Translate

Translate
replies 1716 Replies 1716
Enthusiast ,
Mar 06, 2012 Mar 06, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

keep the positive pressure on to Adobe and hopefully LR4.01 comes out and it flies like an eagle

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Enthusiast ,
Mar 07, 2012 Mar 07, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Lightroom 3 never really sped up for me from 3.0 ro 3.6: I've got a now aging i920 with 12gb ram. Lightroom was always reasonably painful to use.  (And to Rob Cole - who said that 1/2 sec per clone stamp was fine - I think a practical definition of slow is that if you end up being quicker than the computer.  Waiting? then its slow.  I find in photoshop there are very very few things I need to wait for).

I kept asking exactly what hardware adobe were using for their development.  Dual Xeons? SIngle Xeons?  WOrkstations?  How much ram?  It would be good to know because it would give the rest of us a basis for comparrison.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Engaged ,
Mar 07, 2012 Mar 07, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I'm beginning to wonder if I'm on the same planet...LR4 in develop is very snappy here, virtually as fast as LR3.  In fact, I have had exactly zero of the very few problems I experienced in the LR4 beta.  For me, so far at least (he says crossing his fingers) LR4 has been a very well executed update.  I still have a few more plug-ins to check but all of my Nik and Jeff Friedl plug-ins work without issue.

27" iMac i7; 2.93GHz QuadCore CPU; 16GB DRAM; ATI Radeon HD 5750 1GB RAM

All of my test images have been raw files from my 7D converted to dng as I imported them.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Mar 07, 2012 Mar 07, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

good on you if you're not having any speed issues. maybe you are right, we're on a differernt planet.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Contributor ,
Mar 07, 2012 Mar 07, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Slider responsivness is very sluggish in LR4. For me that was a problem since LR1. Also, if you have made many local adjustments and are "zoomed in", even panning is very slow and you can see tling in screen redraw. LR could be so much better, if it was as fast (on screen) as Capture One with OpenCL enabled.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Mar 07, 2012 Mar 07, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Too bad they didn't include an option to use either process, I.e. switch from 2012 to 2010......  Definitely seems to be the 2012 and not all sliders.  Using the histogram is more responsive than the sliders.  ???  I like the final output BUT after a shoot with a 1DMkIV, 1DMkIII, and 5dMkII. (soon 5dMkIII) of 2,000 - 3,000 RAW images....way too slow.  Adobe HELP!!!!!

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Mar 07, 2012 Mar 07, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Yes, you can switch the different processes.

That option is in the "camera calibration" panel.

But why upgrade if you use the old process?

Too bad they didn't include an option to use either process, I.e. switch from 2012 to 2010...... Definitely seems to be the 2012 and not all sliders.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Mar 07, 2012 Mar 07, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

The upgrade is not solely for new features... I am upgrading one camera to a 5DMkIII  and Adobe will usually not let older software versions use the newer camera raw.  Thanks for the tip.  I REALLY want the new process to work like the old as I like the results.  I shoot dance events and usually have a large number of large raw files so a slower adjust response is a major issue.  As stated before, Dell i7, 12 gigs Win 7 Pro, 3 tb internal, NVida 2 gig ( latest drivers), dual monitors...  LR3 was always quick....  Hoping Adobe does something for 4.1.  I do have Capture One Pro 6 & the new Corel (old Bibble Pro 5) but always preferred LR3 as my RAW converter.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Mar 07, 2012 Mar 07, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Yes, you can switch the different processes.

That option is in the "camera calibration" panel.

I just double-checked, comparing LR3 and LR4 using the old process.

The old process eases the CPU-load somewhat, but still the interface is much less responsive.

I tried moving the clarity-slider on the same image.

On LR3 the numerical display follows dragging of the slider more or less instantaneously. When changing the numerical value with the cursor up/down button the number changes in increments of 1.

On LR4 (old process) the display jumps about 10-15 units when moving the slider. When using the cursor buttons, the number jumps up or down in increments of 5 or 6.

To me this is pretty much unusable.

MacPro 8core 3GHz, OS 10.7.3. manipulating NEF-files from Nikon D3 (12MP)

Too bad they didn't include an option to use either process, I.e. switch from 2012 to 2010...... Definitely seems to be the 2012 and not all sliders.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Mar 07, 2012 Mar 07, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

@j.scriba: I just tried to reproduce what you described with the Clarity slider. I see no difference in speed or behavior (granularity/step of updates) between 3.6, 4.0-2010 and 4.0-2012. Each did the same thing and at pretty much the same speed. I'm going to try on a PC with less RAM and will chime in later.

EDIT: BTW, this is operating on Nikon 16MP NEF files (from the D7000).

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Mar 07, 2012 Mar 07, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

OK, I just installed and tried it out on my i7-quad 8GB laptop, a fairly new machine. Same result. Just as fast as 3.6, I don't notice any hicups. I wonder if I got lucky because I have new machines (no more than 1 month old)

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
May 02, 2012 May 02, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I am new to LR, so LR 4 is my first version. Before that i worked with PSE.

I am not sure if there is a conclusion by now what causes LR4 to run so slow on many computers. It does sound though that there are a number of users who experience good performance, mee included. As i said, i cannot compare to LR3, but i do not see any significant lag in image refresh when i move sliders.

Like others speculated maybe there is a problem with graphics drivers? I use Win7 64bit 12GB RAM, dual ATI 5400 graphics cards. It appears that most of the users who see "normal" performance have ATI graphic cards.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
May 02, 2012 May 02, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I'm using ATI graphics drivers and my performance sucks.

L3 was very good on my machine and L4 has been horrible.

I HOPE Adobe fixes this pronto!

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
May 02, 2012 May 02, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I can't see them fixing it as it appears to be completely random. I've just ordered a new system (not just for Lightroom) and I am not holding my breath, but I am really hoping it works.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
May 02, 2012 May 02, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

It's not random; there is a pattern and it's widespread.

I'm going back to 3.6 for now...I can't take it.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
May 02, 2012 May 02, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

This is pathetic.

I uninstalled LR4 and reinstalled LR3 and it's LIGHT GREASED LIGHTNING compared to LR4...no pauses, no waiting....faster than crap. I didn't realized how messed up LR4 was until I just went back and compared.

Until this is cleared up...I'm sticking with LR3.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
May 11, 2012 May 11, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

But have you updated it to the 2012 processing yet? I think earlier on in this thread someone mentioned that was when they experienced the lag/issues.  I noticed that same thing with mine.  When it offered to update my photo processing to the 2012 I decided to give it a try for the first time.  This is the only time I experienced the lag. I think this is what the issue is.  Prior to doing this, my other photos had no problems being edited in the 2010 processing version. I hope it gets fixed soon.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
May 11, 2012 May 11, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I've done it both ways...2010 and 2012 and 2010 is better but it's not good...lags, choke ups....not responding....waiting.....waiting...screen redraws that are painfully long.

I'm back on LR3.6 and it's LIGHTNING FAST....GREASED LIGHTNING....no comparison...not even in the same universe.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
May 11, 2012 May 11, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I agree. but I don't want to go back and forth between the "same" software. I understand your frustration. I guess I didn't notice it as much because I just recently tried to edit a set in the 2012 version for the first time. definitely frustrating.

Sent from my iPhone

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
May 11, 2012 May 11, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Lol...Nobody wants to go back and forth...myself included but there is no way to get editing done in any timely fashion when each mouse click is several seconds to 20 seconds long! I'd MUCH rather pretend that LR4 didn't come out while they work out the coding bugs.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Engaged ,
May 11, 2012 May 11, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I wish I knew what the problem was -- it is very strange -- myself and many others have no problem at all.  I have both 4 and 3.6 available to me and I can see no difference in time in develop, with the sliders, with refreshing etc.

So this is not something inherent in the basic design, it "basically" works just fine.  Something is occurring for some people -- the interesting is what is the "something"??

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
May 11, 2012 May 11, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Same for me, I see no real difference between 3.6 and 4.1RC, in fact if you

forced me, I'd say 4.1RC is faster on my machine. It has to be a bug that

only affects certain configurations, and ironically, the higher the specs

on the machine, the worse it seems. I makes me very curious.

Almost seems like a task scheduling issue or race condition when there are

multiple cpus or more than 4 cores involved.

My setup is very modest, mid 2011 27" iMac, 3.1GHz i5 and 12GB RAM.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
May 11, 2012 May 11, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

my setup is considerably slower than yours.

I have a

2011 MacBook Air 11.6"

Core i5 1.6ghz

256GB SSD

4GB RAM

Intel HD Graphics 3000 364mb alotted

and it does this to my system. I updated my catalog and optimized it. For

me, I only started to notice the lag once i clicked on the option to update

photo processing to the 2012 process. Then everything got considerably

slower. I want to open the catalog back up in my 3.6, but I'd have to redo

all my edits. It's really frustrating. I shouldn't have selected the 2012

process option. I think that's the key point for me.

I use it on my

Mac Mini 2011

2.5Ghz Core i5

500GB HD

4GB RAM

ATI HD graphics card. I think it was the 4650, not 100%. But it is

definitely better than my macbook air's graphics card and it's discrete

(dedicated).

I still get the same kind of lag on that as well... Don't know what the

difference is... I think it's the fact that I selected process using 2012

process. not 100% sure though. I'll leave the deductions to the Adobe

Techs to figure out. I'll provide whatever info I can. I just want the

problem fixed so I can continue on with my editing. I didn't buy LR4 to

only have to go back to LR3. know what I mean?

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
May 11, 2012 May 11, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Does it matter that I'm running OS X 10.7.3? What version of OS X are you

all running? Did you stay on Leopard/Snow Leopard?

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
May 18, 2012 May 18, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I also wonder if any of you are shooting the new Nikon D4? It has taken hours to edit a shoot that would take way less time shooting with the D700. LR 4 IS slow, no doubt, but with the D4 files it's barely usable. I can't shoot tethered with the D4 either. Sure seems like Nikon released it too soon! Their "people" said I should use Nikon software for editing! Does anyone out there actually use their software for editing? Seems crazy.

I'm runnin LR 4 on a macpro with osx10.6.8

Lynne

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines