can you perform in Lightroom before performance latency is seriously affected.
I recently returned from the middle east with about two months work to catalogue and edit and about 150 of my images had been affected by a serious sensor contamination. This meant that the images in this range that I wanted to use, needed some mega-amounts of spotting to be done. By the time the spotting was completed, the latency lag was so bad that I had to make a tiff copy in order to complete the editing.
I have to say that I was extremely disappointed with Lightroom's inability to cope with this kind of workflow.
What? Lightroom is a professional image PP application, therefore arcadyBron can expect reasonable performance when it undertakes quite routine tasks. What he doesn't expect is a lecture from someone telling him that he should have cleaned his sensor.
"Mega-amounts" might not be quite routine. There just might not be quick ways to do certain things. I don't know the engineering of spotting, but I'm guessing it might be adjustment-dependent and thus incur multiplicative types of time/cpu costs. I wonder if turning off spotting while doing other adjustments might be a "workaround" of sorts. Otherwise, maybe spotting, sharpening, at first, then roundtripping thru Photoshop?
However: The reason for spotting in Photoshop, is that sensor dust tends to stay largely in the same place. At least for a time. It is therefore only necessary to spot a single frame and then sync the edit out to the other affected frames. Thereafter, some minor tweaking of source position on a few spots in some frames will complete the task.
This is normally very efficient, but not with this amount of contamination. Lightroom was struggling severely less than two thirds of the way through the operation.
Strangely this is not a CPU loading problem. Logging the system during the process showed that the CPU never reached more than 20% load and memory use was well below 50%.
For those of you with a technical bent, the edit workstation uses an Intel i7 8700K processor clocked at 4.3gHz. 32gB of RAM clocked at 2.8gHz and the software and scratch disks are all running from a Samsung 970 Pro M.2 SSD on a PCIe bus.
This is a known problem. Lots of spot healing and/or lots of brushing causes LR to slow down. In terms of speed, you'd be better off doing the spot healing in Photoshop. You can try turning off the GPU acceleration, this will speed up the spot healing, but may slow down other actions.
I refer you to my previous reply on why I use Lightroom for spotting.
Does anyone know why Lightroom slows down as the edit count increases? Is it something that Adobe are working on? Is there any way to discuss the issue directly with Adobe?
While I can't explain it in detail, each time you make an edit, the entire compilation of edits on that photo must be re-applied to the unedited photo, thus the more edits you apply, the longer it takes. Edits like spot healing and brushing take more CPU horsepower than an edit like exposure. This is different than Photoshop, where each edit is applied to the result of the previous edits, and so the CPU horsepower needed is just to apply one edit.
No one knows (except Adobe, who won't tell us) if Adobe is actually working on this at this time, although I would be surprised if they are not working on it. You can leave feedback directly to Adobe at Photoshop Family Customer Community
As I said in a earlier reply, CPU power isn't really the issue. The machine I'm using is about as high end as it gets at the moment in terms of workstation specs and the CPU load is barely peaking around 20% during an edit session.
Video rendering which this machine is also used for is much more CPU intensive and even that does max out the processor of this machine.
My previous message was poorly written and explained. If your GPU acceleration is turned on in Lightroom, CPU won't max out or come close to it because the GPU is now doing the spot healing, and this is a known cause of slowness. Did you try the spot healing with the GPU acceleration turned off?
Not that this reply really deserves a response, but the sensor was cleaned immediately the problem became clear. There were still some 150 frames that had been taken between the guilty lens change and the end of the shoot however.
13
Replies
AdChoices