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

[areohbee]

No magic bullet(s).

There's scads of things you can try - some have found some relief from some of them, others: not so much.

But, you gotta scour the forum(s) for them.

One option: hope Lr4.2 is better for you (Lr4.1 is pretty darn zippy for me: win7/64...).

Sorry I'm not more help,

Rob

[A_C_G]

Victoria Brampton mentioned a week ago she was going to collate some of the work arounds into a blog.

I have just looked at her forum. I can't see them.

Does anyone know if they got published?

Tony

[DavePinMinn]

Cool.  Hopefully, we'll have some consolidated bunch of things to try soon...

BTW:  I haven't seen this particular symptom, but I'm sure it's been mentioned in here...  Even AFTER rendering 1:1 previews, LR4.1 is still perceptibly slow to display when using loupe view in the library AND when moving from image to image in Develop.  Again, it's a LOT slower than V3 was.  When walking through a series of images that'll be put together as an hdr group or focus stack, it's really disconcerting because you go from image to image and nothing changes for at LEAST a second, generally even longer. 

Anyhow, for the time being I've gone back to doing all the initial processing in Bridge - labeling, rating, renaming, image examination, and I'm just using LR for storage.

[Victoria Bampton LR Queen]

A C G wrote:

Victoria Brampton mentioned a week ago she was going to collate some of the work arounds into a blog.

I haven't forgotten, but I'm getting conflicting information left, right and center.  I think I'm nearly as confused as you are at this stage!!!

[DavePinMinn]

Just remember, Victoria, we're NOT laughing at you, we're laughing WITH you!

At this point, I've looked through a bunch of stuff, and I have NO idea what to do...  LR4 is acting SO differently than 3 did, that I"m not even sure where to start... 

Again, BTW:, at the moment I've got a catalog with 214 images, imported as .dng, created just for this, and I rendered 1:1 previews.  In the Library module, putting the main monitor in loupe view, when I look at a series in 1:1, it takes between FOUR AND FIVE SECONDS to finish loading.  I thought the whole point of rendering the 1:1 previews was so they'd be "instantaneous", but that definitely isn't happening.  And these are just regular 12 megapixel images from a Nikon D300. 

[Bob_Peters]

Victoria Bampton wrote:

A C G wrote:

Victoria Brampton mentioned a week ago she was going to collate some of the work arounds into a blog.

I haven't forgotten, but I'm getting conflicting information left, right and center.  I think I'm nearly as confused as you are at this stage!!!

I have absolutely no answers for you, Victoria.

I honestly suspect there is something amiss in the guts of Lightroom.  It is not using all cores all the time as I would have expected.  I have personally seen this behavior on the following systems,  all running OS X (10.7.4):

(1)  MacPro 1,1, 9GB RAM, dual 2-core, 2.66 GHz Xeon processors; 128 GB SSD, 2 1TB Seagate

(2)  MacPro (2012 release), 16 GB RAM, 6-core, 3.33 GHz Xeon,  128 GB SSD, 2 1TB Seagate

(3)  MacBook Air (mid-2011), 4 GB RAM,  2-core i5, 128 GB SSD

(4)  MacBook Pro (Retina display), 8 GB RAM, 2.6 GHz 4-core i7, 512GB SSD

[Bob_Peters]

davepinminn wrote:

Just remember, Victoria, we're NOT laughing at you, we're laughing WITH you!

At this point, I've looked through a bunch of stuff, and I have NO idea what to do...  LR4 is acting SO differently than 3 did, that I"m not even sure where to start... 

Again, BTW:, at the moment I've got a catalog with 214 images, imported as .dng, created just for this, and I rendered 1:1 previews.  In the Library module, putting the main monitor in loupe view, when I look at a series in 1:1, it takes between FOUR AND FIVE SECONDS to finish loading.  I thought the whole point of rendering the 1:1 previews was so they'd be "instantaneous", but that definitely isn't happening.  And these are just regular 12 megapixel images from a Nikon D300. 

How many cores were active at a given time when you zoomed to 1:1 in the Library module?

[DavePinMinn]

I just fired up LR to check...  I walked through images in loupe mode and kept them loading.  Watched the performance monitor...  All 8 threads are "active" doing something, but only one shows the REALLY high usage as I keep "loading" images.  But, moving through images I can push a 4GHz i7 to 85+ percent busy...

[kieran-mullen]

The external module for converting raw to dng seems faster than lightroom.

[A_C_G]

Thanks Victoria,

"I think I'm nearly as confused as you are at this stage!!!"

I knew I could rely on a down to earth answer from a fellow Brit.

And I second that comment that we are laughing with you, Victoria. At times like this a sense of humour comes in handy.

Tony

[Victoria Bampton LR Queen]

Better to laugh than to cry!

I'm not even so sure it's always something on the computers themselves.  I was talking with my business partner over the weekend, and he's noticed significant performance issues on one particular camera (a 5DMk3) but other cameras of the same model (so more 5DMk3's), with the same mix of high ISO etc., are as fast as LR3.  It's a situation that most users wouldn't notice as they're only processing their own photos, whereas he's processing for a number of professional photographers, so we get a mix of high end cameras.  I'm wondering whether there's a difference in firmware, perhaps a camera setting or extra metadata that's tripping LR up... who knows!  The investigations continue!

[A_C_G]

An interesting new thought, Victoria.

As you say most of the threads are from posters trying new computer configurations on the same camera. Few will have tried different cameras on the same installation of LR.

Tony

[Ashvin_Ghisyawan]

Since I re-installed my Mac and install the LR4 as a full version and not as a upgrade, it seems to be a little faster.
But still not as fast as LR3 of a software like Photomechanic.

Kr,
Ashvin Ghisyawan

www.totaalfotografie.nl

[Guest]

I'm glad I'm not the only one.

LR 4.1 is pathetically SLOW. SHAME ON YOU ADOBE!

I just bought the full upgrade from LR 2, which was MUCH faster.

I'm a Professional photographer and LOVED LR 2. It was a DREAM for editing, and that's what I needed it for EDITING.

I do anywhere from 3 to 6 big shoots a week, shooting anywhere from 50 to 700 images a shoot. I need to come back to the studio and edit the 700 images down to 50 to 100 to give the first edit to my editors or clients.

LR 2 was great as this process was quite speedy and efficient. When carefully sifting through 500+ images, you'd be VERY surprised how much a lag of 5+ seconds on each image is (LR4)

I upgraded to LR4 thinking the algorithms of the image qulaity would be MUCH better, not thinking LR 4 would triple my workflow time. Time is money and after having LR 4 for only a week or so, I feel almost duped. I feel I traded in a Honda for a BMW but got a Yugo instead.

Here's my little contribution as I'm DESPERATELY trying to speed this thing up;

In Prefs, in interface, in filmstrip dialog prefs, I un-checked all boxes except the first one (ratings & picks) the theory being, the fewer demands on each photo will reduce process time per image. But its slow as hell.

I'm close to asking for a refund.

I'm on an Apple Mac Pro (dedicated Photo machine, I only use LR and PS on this) Running Snow Leopard

2 x 2.8 quad-core Intel Xeon

10 gigs DRAM

No other apps open

Eric Striffler

www.striffler.com

[DavePinMinn]

I can empathize with your performance issues.  When I put my original note in, I had to edit out all the screaming 'cause I figured it wouldn't do any good.  Adobe got screamed at when they released V1 and performance was atrocious.  They got screamed at when they released V2 and performance was dismal.  They REALLY got screamed at when they released V3 and it wasn't just Windows machines that sucked...  Macs didn't run for stink either.  They've always excused miserable performance with the rationale "well, there are thousands of configurations of Windows machines.  We couldn't test them all."  But, when the Macs, with maybe a half dozen configurations sucked, that excuse didn't work too well...

And now we've got V4, and we're going through the same thing again......

In my opinion, this is the standard problem with the 800 pound gorilla.  A monopoly such as Adobe has breeds the kind of problems we keep seeing in every "major release" (in the case of V4, I don't think the addition of two sections that'll be used by a microscopic percentage of photographers qualified it for "major release", but again, the 800 pound gorilla gets to charge for what should be maintenance releases).  Since their isn't any reasonable alternative, they can release software with problems that adversely impact thousands of their customers. 

Anyhow, I reckon we'll all just hang out and hope SOMEBODY at Adobe cares enough to at least investigate the problems, but given their past performance, I don't believe it's a high priority.

[bob frost]

A few more tips:-

In Library and Develop, turn off the Navigator panel and Filmstrip if you are not using them. They all have to be updated and use valuable resources. If you don't use the Histogram, turn that off as well.

Don't put resource-intensive stuff like Lens Corrections in a preset. Leave it till later in your Develop process.

Similarly with spotting; leave that until near the end, and if you have loads of spotting to do, do it in Photoshop instead of LR, after you have finished Developing in LR. There are limits to what parametric editing can do easily. Of course, if you have a big fast machine, it may be able to cope with all that recalculation easily, but smaller or older machines may struggle with loads of edits.

Make sure any presets you use have been updated for LR4. Don't use old LR3 presets unless you are using 2010 process.

Bob Frost

[andreas603]

thx bob..you posted 2 min before I did and I didn't see this...good info

[areohbee]

Most abnormal problems are due to:

1. hardware drivers.

2. software services.

3. wonky files.

Trying a new hard disk elminates *all* wonky files.

With an absolute minimal system configuration, you can rule out a ton of stuff: previews, prefs, cache, virus/anti-virus, backup services, wonky catalog, high-end graphics driver, wacom pads, external drives. *Everything* I just mentioned has been the main or sole cause of *some* people's problems with Lr4.

Snide? - No, and I don't appreciate you giving me a bad time for trying to help you. Being pissed off is no excuse for being rude!

Rob

[andreas603]

"Buy new hard disk (and cheap graphics card, if your motherboard doesn't have graphics), remove old hard disk, disconnect all non-essential hardware,  format hard disk, install minimal OS & Lightroom, cease all non-essential software services. Delete all plugins & presets. Import one photo into new catalog. So far so good?, try another photo..."

maybe its just me but that isn't scarcastic?  The OP simply asked for a summary of work arounds that have helped.  Perhaps I'm the only one that needs to clarify what I mean by 'work around'... Bob's post/response is a work around.  Your post was a rant

[areohbee]

My post was what I would do if I were having the problems some people are reporting. If my suggestion doesn't suit you, then, well, I'm not sure how to finish that sentence - do something else I guess.

[Geoff the kiwi]

If any of you haven't read this, please do!

Thank you.

[bob frost]

From: "andreas603

maybe its just me but that isn't scarcastic? The OP simply asked for a

summary of work arounds that have helped. Perhaps I'm the only one that

needs to clarify what I mean by 'work around'... Bob's post/response is a

work around. Your post was a rant

To be fair to Rob, I suggested the other day that someone who said they had

tried everything else should now backup their OS, install a clean OS, and

only install LR with a new catalog and just import a few files to see

whether the problems are still present.

I've done it myself in the past. The possible combinations of

software/hardware that don't play nice together are almost limitless. So if

a clean start solves the problem, then adding other stuff back in one by

one, may show where the problem lies. Adobe and the other firm can then get

together to sort it out.

Bob Frost

[john beardsworth]

Bob, you left off File > Optimize Catalog

[bob frost]

From: "johnbeardy

Bob, you left off File > Optimize Catalog

I also left off - Check that any virus checker you use is not checking your

catalog and previews each time they are accessed. You can usually go into

the virus checker and tell it not to check the folder where your catalog and

previews are stored. Some virus checkers slow things down more than others.

Bob Frost

[rpavich1234]

I'll stick with no gain until the pain is removed from LR4