Lightroom 3.3 Performance Feedback

[Tom Hogarty]

Please use this discussion topic for your feedback on Lightroom 3.3 RC and the final Lightroom 3.3 release when it becomes available.  The Lightroom team has tried very hard to extract useful feedback from the following discussion topic but due to the length and amount of chatter we need to start a new, more focused thread.  Please post specifics about your experience and be sure to include information about your hardware configuration.

Regards,

Tom Hogarty

Lightroom Product Manager

[thewhitedog]

For better color gamut and color space control you would do well to process the image in Adobe Photoshop. There you can use a color space like Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB with a wider color gamut. Be sure to set your color preferences (under Edit>Color Settings) before you open the image in Photoshop; generally speaking you want to set Photoshop to Preserve Embedded Profiles. And if you open the image (assuming the original is in RAW format) in Adobe Camera RAW rather then Lightroom, you can set the color space and bit depth in ACR before you open it in Photoshop. Changing an sRGB image to Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB won't buy you anything because the image will already be clipped to sRGB. Unless, of course, you add saturation to the image in Photoshop to artificially expand the gamut. Another factor may be the color space of the camera used to take the picture. Many cameras default to sRGB. Higher end cameras will usually give you a choice of at least two, sRGB and Adobe RGB.

It's true that all but the very best monitors cannot capture the full range of the Adobe RGB color space. Still, your image may look bright and highly saturated on screen, depending on if and how it's calibrated. Whether you can print an image as vividly as you see it on screen will depend on a lot of variables, including the kind and quality of printer used, the type of inks and the paper on which it is printed - and the skill of the person doing the printing. In this regard it's generally true that you get what you pay for.

The best way to insure a close match between what you see on screen and in print is to calibrate your monitor for print output. This will usually be significantly different than the default profile of the monitor. Bear in mind as well that the way a monitor creates color and the way a printer does are substantially different. A paper print will almost always look less luminous (bright) than the screen version, again depending on printer, inks and paper.

Remember that Photoshop has been used for twenty years to print photographs so it has had plenty of time to develop sophisticated workflows for printing. While Lightroom is improving rapidly, it's still a relatively young product. There are bound to be some things that Photoshop still does better. Printing is probably one of them.

[Sean McCormack]

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Especially for any kind of batch printing, or for contact sheets for that matter. Soft Proof in Photoshop is absolutely basic, and not entirely accurate.

[Jeff Schewe]

thewhitedog wrote:

There are bound to be some things that Photoshop still does better. Printing is probably one of them.

Then you really don't know how to print out of Lightroom.

Granted, you can't soft proof (yet) but you can take your toned and color corrected image, open in Photoshop for retouching and manipulations and then soft proof and save then print from Lightroom–which is what I do because to be frank, Photoshop's Print dlog is rather primitive...it's actually trying to play catch up to Lightroom's Print module...

[thewhitedog]

That depends on what you mean by "primitive." Admittedly Lightroom has some bells and whistles not yet included in Photoshop (perhaps intentionally for a reason - or two?). But the issue was color management. What I said about color space selection is absolutely accurate - Photoshop has options not available in Lightroom. The original question had to do with color gamut, for which Photoshop has better management tools. You can, of course, assign a color profile to an image as you export it from Lightroom, but, unlike with Open in Adobe Camera RAW, those options are not available when you move from Lightroom directly to Photoshop via the Edit In dialog. So which procedure you use depends on perhaps subtle differences in your intent, but there are differences just the same that can affect the final printed output, especially if you're not careful about your color space settings in Photoshop. The Photoshop default is sRGB. If you want to work with the widest possible color gamut, you have to change that - or be sure that Photoshop does not apply an sRGB profile when you open an image in it coming from Lightroom.

That said, I don't pretend to be an expert printer. No doubt there is much we could learn from each other, but this is not the forum thread for an extensive discussion of printing. I was responding to a specific question; though it was slightly off topic, it was Lightroom related and deserved, in my opinion at least, an answer.

[Sean McCormack]

those options are not available when you move from Lightroom directly to Photoshop via the Edit In dialog

They're in the External Editing preferences

[thewhitedog]

Thanks Séan. I guess it's all in knowing where to look. As it happens, I had already set (and forgotten that I did) Lightroom to use 16 bit ProPhoto RGB, which the note to the right says is the recommended choice for processing directly from Lightroom. Likewise, I'm using the uncompressed TIFF file format because, though compression can save space, it takes extra time, which can add up if you're batch processing to Photoshop.

[Sean McCormack]

PSD needs to write the preview layer as well for Lightroom, which makes it bigger when saved. Bear in mind that when you 'Edit in Photoshop', it's actually Camera Raw that opens the file in Photoshop, not Lightroom, and the file doesn't actually exist until you save it (unless you don't have a recent enough version and are forced to generate the file with Lightroom).

[thewhitedog]

Thanks again, Séan. That adds clarity to a point I was a little fuzzy on. While I had supposed that the file wasn't "real" until it was saved, I hadn't realized that it was Camera Raw that was handling the process. Makes perfect sense now that you spell it out. Could you elaborate, if you have time, on the business about PSD and the preview layer in Lightroom and how this differs from using TIFF?

[Jeff Schewe]

thewhitedog wrote:

That depends on what you mean by "primitive."

Backwards? Limited? Not really updated to professional printing standards? That frank enough?

If you want to print 10 images from Photoshop, you have to open each of the 10 images, makes sure they are all the correct resolution, and go through the PS Print dlog 10 times (and get each and every setting correct) and properly set the print driver correctly 10 times. In Lightroom, you select the 10 images, select a Template and hit Print. What part of Photoshop's print dlog is more advanced than Lightroom's?

If you go from Lightroom to Photoshop, yes you need to set the prefs for external editing...a one time settings. And yes, Photoshop needs to be properly set in terms of color settings (not sure you are correct re: PS's "Default" setting...who would use PS at "Default"?)

It's pretty easy to change PS's Color Settings so there are no issues going from LR to PS and back. That's kinda LR & PS 101 ya know?

It's ok to complain about "real issues" in Lightroom, printing ain't one of them as LR is more advanced than PS.

[thewhitedog]

Wow, Jeff. Combative much?

You are implying that Photoshop does not include the Lightroom printing options because the engineers at Adobe are too stupid to "modernize" the program. This shows more attitude than insight. On the other hand, because I don't think the folks at Adobe are stupid (except perhaps when it comes to Flash), I presume they left the Lightroom "enhancements" out of Photoshop on purpose, for what seem to them to be perfectly good reasons. Not knowing what those reasons are doesn't justify casting aspersions. A more constructive approach would be to posit some reasons and then debunk them as best you can. For instance, they may have left those options out because it would add more complexity to an already very complex program. You might then argue that the added complexity would be worth the added convenience. They could respond that that's what Lightroom is for. And so on. See? A rational discussion without acrimony. For what it's worth, I think Adobe staff would be inclined to respond more readily to a rational argument than to a diatribe.

[Jeff Schewe]

thewhitedog wrote:

You are implying that Photoshop does not include the Lightroom printing options because the engineers at Adobe are too stupid to "modernize" the program.

Not too stupid, they simply ran out of time...I know what the engineers for PS CS5 "wanted" to get in but they simply ran out of time. And seriuosly, between PS and LR, Ligtroom is the innovator...

And just to be perfectly clear, I've been personally involved in the Lightroom Print module (the ability to set resolution to 720 PPI is all mine) and the output sharpening in Lightroom (not available in Photoshop) was a project I was personally involved with (from my role at PixelGenius).

No bud, this ain't an argument you can win...sorry.

Move along...these are not the droids you were looking for...

[thewhitedog]

Your arrogance won't win any arguments, either, nor friends for that matter. Rather, I would say, you epitomize the expression "a little knowledge is dangerous." In this case, right or wrong, your condescension undermines your credibility.

[Jeff Schewe]

thewhitedog wrote:

Your arrogance won't win any arguments, either, nor friends for that matter.

Not my problem...more like yours...and I ain't looking for friends.

Ya see, I have actually worked directly on the LR Print module with the engineers (and helped incorporate a product I have been involved with, PhotoKit Output Sharpener) into Lightroom. You?

I doubt it (otherwise I would know about it).

So...when I talk about LR 3.x's Print module, I'm speaking from a position of knowledge (not arrogance nor attitude). Sorry you can't grok that...

PS CS5's Print delog is less than it could have been. The problem was time. Since Lightroom doesn't have the same baggage as Lightroom. LR can be more nimble (and as a result, more modern).

You really need to get past PS as god...(note the small "g") when it comes to printing.

So, ask yourself, are you leaving something on the table with YOUR attitude?

Yeah, pretty much...you could learn something (if you were so inclined).

Otherwise you can presume I don't know what I'm talking about...but, actually, I do...

There are things that need to be improved in LR 4 (the "next version") but printing ain't one of them (except for the lack of soft proofing).

[thewhitedog]

Jeff, while interesting, this argument with you is in no way productive. I can exchange insults with the best of them, but such disputes are little more than an exercise in vanity. So, at this point, I will resist the temptation to reply in kind to your latest sally. I admit it's hard not to take the bait you proffer so enthusiastically, but alas I must decline.

As it happens, though, I have learned quite a bit on this forum from people who are interested in teaching an sharing. And I have made a point of acknowledging their help. As well, I have been able to assist a few people in return. But these exchanges have all been civil, without gratuitous insults and unnecessary put-downs. In my experience an atmosphere like this, of mutual respect, is by far the best for teaching and for learning.

[bob frost]

Jeff Schewe wrote:

There are things that need to be improved in LR 4 (the "next version") but printing ain't one of them (except for the lack of soft proofing).

Hi Jeff,

One more thing needed in printing - drop shadows! I asked for it ages ago - LR does it in the Slideshow but not for prints. I have to do it in CS5, using a droplet from LR, but then I end up with a psd to store - just for the sake of the dropshadow round the print.

Please add this one (as well as softproofing).

Thanks,

Bob Frost

[CWoldberg]

Jeff Schewe wrote:

...

There are things that need to be improved in LR 4 (the "next version") but printing ain't one of them (except for the lack of soft proofing).

There's always room for improvement. I'd like to be able to filter images, in grid view, that have been recently printed. I'd also like to be able to format and position metadata, such as caption, on the print.

[nat_s]

About the Final 3.3 release:

I installed it last night, and boy is it slow! I feel like I'm using 1.4 again, seriously.

I really noticed it when I was exporting a bunch of photos after doing some minor adjustments on them. I exported 140 photos with my watermark on them (default LR watermark, just my copyright, nothing fancy). The were all 800x600, 72 dpi, so they were pretty small files. The first time I tried it took over an hour to get to 36% exported. At that point my whole system got hung up and I had to reboot. The remaining photos took another hour to export after I rebooted.

I'm running Vista on a dual core pentium 3.6GHz, with 4 gigs of RAM. I had zero issues with 3.0 through 3.2 (all ran way faster than 2.7), but now this version literally sucks. I can't continue using it as-is; I need it for my photography business. Please fix this issue soon as I have no idea how to go back to 3.2.

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

Nat...just uninstall 3.3 and re-install 3.2.  You should do that anyway to see if you can replicate the problem.  I've have no such problems with 3.3RC or 3.3 final.  Maybe you have a corrupt catalog or something.

[Guest]

Nat - just another confirmation of what Lee Jay said - I was having horrible problems with 3.0, 3.2 was better and 3.3 seems even more stable. If you can't replicate the problem by going back to 3.2, you may want to reinstall 3.3 and give it another shot.

I'm FINALLY starting to enjoy going back into LR with 3.3

[Farlco]

I have been using Lightroom 3.3 for 3 days now on the same system that I have used 3.2 on for the last 6 months (MacBook Pro) and have had a number of serious performance issues.  In particular when exporting files, it slows to a crawl - it also seems to affect Photoshop's performance drastically too - to the point where I can't effectively use it.  This is a deal-breaker, I will need to revert to version 3.2 as it truly is crippling my workflow, beware.

[JayS_In_CT]

FarlcoD wrote:

I have been using Lightroom 3.3 for 3 days now on the same system that I have used 3.2 on for the last 6 months (MacBook Pro) and have had a number of serious performance issues.  In particular when exporting files, it slows to a crawl - it also seems to affect Photoshop's performance drastically too - to the point where I can't effectively use it.  This is a deal-breaker, I will need to revert to version 3.2 as it truly is crippling my workflow, beware.

FarlcoD,

There is a separate thread going on export perfomance issues with a request from Dan Tull of Adobe to run a diagnostic test if possible.  Some others are seeing export issues as well.

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/762825?tstart=0

Jay S.

[dwterry]

I'm still just getting my feet wet with 3.3 (having been using LR since 1.0), but I've noticed a drastic slow down in the Library Loupe view.

Prior to 3.3, I could generally flip between images in the film strip pretty quickly as long as I was in Library mode (Develop mode has always been slower and, from what I've read, for good reason).

But with 3.3 ... it now seems as if Library mode is at least as slow as Develop mode.  This is making it much more difficult to rapidly compare and rate images prior to going into develop mode.

Background info:  Using the Canon 5D Mark II (yes, the raw files are huge).  The raw files are on one physical hard drive, the cache and catalog are on another physical hard drive (both are internal SATA drives).  Core i7 processor with 8G of memory.  (edit to add: running Win7 64-bit)

As I said, performance with 3.2 in Library mode was acceptable. This is a change in 3.3.

[ttoivonen]

Lightroom 3.3 has utterly slow import. And it gets worse when importing to NAS as DNG.

Any tips or ideas to speed up the import are greatly appreciated!

Here's my setup:

iMac i7 w/ 8 GB RAM, 2 TB standard HDD from Apple, running Snow Leopard with latest updates

Buffalo TeraStation III 2 TB NAS

1 Gigabit network

CF card reader

35 raw images  (CR2) on Transcend 133x 32 GB CF

Photos taken with Canon 7D (CR2 raw size approximately 24 MB)

Lightroom 3.3, 120 000 images in library

And here comes the problem...

Here are the transfer times for the import of 35 test images to HDD.

• CR2 from CF to HDD in LR3.3 as CR2: 1 minute 7 seconds (1,9 seconds per image)
  
• CR2 from CF to HDD in LR3.3 as DNG: 3 minutes 0 secons (5,1 seconds per image)

So DNG conversion takes almost two minutes...

How about converting imported CR2 files on HDD to DNG?

• CR2 from LR3.3 to DNG: 1 minute 25 seconds  (2,4 seconds per image)

So I get rid of 30 seconds. wonder where LR3.3 spends that time...

Let's try this same import to NAS.

• CR2 from CF to NAS in LR3.3 as CR2: 4 minutes 34 seconds (7,8 seconds per image)
• CR2 from CF to NAS in LR3.3 as DNG: 6 minutes 56 seconds  (11,9 seconds per image)

Still almost same DNG conversion time (2:20), slower transfer rate to NAS, which is sort of expected...

...but it is telling that copying those 35 images takes almost 3 minutes 30 seconds with LR3.3 (4:34-1:07=3:27 and 6:56-3:00=3:56).

Doing standard file transfer from HDD to NAS then to see the real file transfer rate...

• CR2 from CF to HDD: 0 minutes 45 seconds   (1,3 seconds per image)
• CR2 from CF to NAS: 1 minute 12 seconds  (2,1 seconds per image)
• CR2 from HDD to NAS: 1 minute 0 seconds  (1,7 seconds per image)
• DNG from HDD to NAS: 0 minutes 55 seconds  (1,6 seconds per image)

So at worst the transfer of those 35 images as CR2 takes 1 minute 12 seconds. How come LR3.3 wants to use 3 minutes and 27 seconds for the same operation? That's 2,8 times longer! And compared to DNGs from HDD it takes LR3.3 more than 4,2 times longer for file transfers!

Basically for best performance to get DNGs to NAS under these conditions I should...

• Import images as CR2 to LR3.3: 1 minute 7 seconds
  
• Convert CR2 to DNG in LR3.3: 1 minute 25 seconds
• Move DNG from HDD to NAS: 0 minutes 55 seconds
• Re-import (add) DNG from NAS to LR3.3: 0 minutes 9 seconds
• TOTAL TIME: 4 minutes 36 seconds (7,8 seconds per image)
  

Doing same in LR3.3 from CF to NAS as DNG would take 6 minutes 56 seconds (11,9 seconds per image). That's 2 minutes 20 seconds extra and takes 50 percent longer.

I would easily waste that 2+ minutes in just clicking the menus (or getting another bottle of beer) to do all four phases described above. But consider import of 1000 images? Using just LR3.3 takes 4,1 seconds longer per image. That's 1 hour 8 minutes extra for a set of 1000 images.

Overall this is telling me that I should stick with CR2 on HDD for everything but archive, which I do not exactly like. DNG is open raw format that's likely to last long into the future, and NAS with RAID lets me sleep my nights well in case I decide to edit images days, weeks or months later than the original photo shoot.

Couple recommendations to Adobe to improve LR performance:

• Let Lightroom utilize all 8 cores on when converting CR2 to DNG.
  
• Improve file transfer solutions to NASes. Something is wrong there...

Now as You read this far, do You have any ideas for more optimal solution to my issue?

How about Your import times?

Cheers,

Timo

[thewhitedog]

Before version 3, Lightroom was not intended as a file management application. I assume Adobe got a lot of feedback on the issue because the file import procedure was among the most dramatically changed elements in the upgrade. It's not surprising this would add a lot of overhead to the process of importing images. At one time Bridge was a part of Photoshop; Adobe broke it out as a separate application precisely because of these kinds of overhead issues. At a guess, the new import procedures in Lightroom 3 are, shall we say, immature and in need of further refinement. But there are things you can do to speed things up.

Perhaps the most significant factor in image import performance in Lightroom is the preview size settings. The larger the specified size of the preview, the longer images will take to import because Lightroom has to render those previews as the files are imported - this is in addition to the standard thumbnails created at the same time. Conversely, after import, the smaller the imported preview, the longer it takes for Lightroom to render the image in Loupe view when you select it.

In general, previews are managed in two separate locations. In the Catalog settings, under File Handling, you can set the size of previews in cache; if you look at these settings you will see quite a few options. Naturally, the higher the preview size and quality, the longer it will take Lightroom to write files to cache. Beyond this, the preview size is set for specific imports in the import dialog. At the top right-hand side of the import window is File Handling; the first item there is Render Preview, with a pull-down menu offering four options. You can speed up the import process by choosing Minimal; however, once imported minimal previews will take longer to render in Loupe view and in the Develop module. When importing from a camera or flash card you will also have the option to import additional copies to a separate location for backup purposes. This automates the backup process but, of course, takes additional time.

There is a third preview size control in the Lightroom preferences under File Handling: in the Import DNG Creation box you can determining the size, if any, of the accompanying JPEG preview. And, if you really want to slow things down, check the Embed Digital RAW File box. This will almost double the size of the DNG file, but is there, I suppose, for folks who are really insecure. (?)

My recommendation for your particular workflow would be to import your pictures in their original RAW format (without selecting the backup option). Then do some basic processing, deleting any "bad" images. Once you have winnowed the group a bit, you can then export the remainder as DNG files for archive purposes.

I think part of the problem is that those of us who have been using Lightroom for a long time may assume we know how to use the program effectively. But Lightroom 3 includes some very significant "improvements" that we may not fully understand. The solution is to do some reading on the new version of the program. I like - and can recommend - Scott Kelby's books on the subject because he explains things quite well and includes step-by-step instructions on the various processes and procedures in Lightroom. His latest is "The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom3 book for digital photographers."  The first section, on importing images, is almost a hundred pages long now, which, in itself, is a good indication on how much Lightroom 3 has changed.

[ttoivonen]

Thank you for your comment!

Just to clarify: times in my example above did not count for LR preview rendering, so it does not matter whether previews are minimal, standard or 1:1. Also just in case someone thought so: I do not take separate backup in the import options.

There is a third preview size control in the Lightroom preferences under File Handling: in the Import DNG Creation box you can determining the size, if any, of the accompanying JPEG preview.

I did, however, test the DNG import from CF without embedded JPEG previews (original raw is not embedded nor was):

• CR2 from CF to NAS in LR3.3 as DNG with full size JPEG preview: 6 minutes 56 seconds  (11,9 seconds per image)
• CR2 from CF to NAS in LR3.3 as DNG without JPEG preview: 5 minutes 20 seconds  (9,1 seconds per image)

Quite an improvement. Filesizes shrink by about 10 %. Processing time is reduced by 23 %.

Now in my "optimal" solution I also changed JPEG previews from medium to none, but did not recieve significant improvement. About three minutes per 1000 imported images...

• Import images as CR2 to LR3.3: 1 minute 7 seconds
  
• Convert CR2 to DNG in LR3.3
  
  • with medium size JPEG preview: 1 minute 25 seconds
  • without JPEG preview: 1 minute 22 seconds
  • IMPROVEMENT: 3 seconds
• Move DNG from HDD to NAS
  
  • with medium JPEG preview in file system: 0 minutes 55 seconds
  • without JPEG preview in file system: 0 minutes 51 seconds
  • without JPEG preview in LR3.3: 0 minutes 54 seconds
  • IMPROVEMENT: 4 seconds
    
• Re-import (add) DNG from NAS to LR3.3: 0 minutes 9 seconds
• TOTAL TIME: 4 minutes 29 seconds (7,7 seconds per image)
  • IMPROVEMENT: ~0,2 seconds per image

Still faster than doing everything in LR3.3... but only by 51 seconds (~1,5 sec/image). Still this process is 27 minutes faster for 1000 images than doing everything in LR3.3.

My recommendation for your particular workflow would be to import your pictures in their original RAW format (without selecting the backup option). Then do some basic processing, deleting any "bad" images. Once you have winnowed the group a bit, you can then export the remainder as DNG files for archive purposes.

I guess this has to be the way. If I want to get to work  straight away, it definitely means importing CR2 to HDD (and render 1:1 previews). That operation leaves me so much more time to work actually on the photos. It takes only 25 % of the time of getting files to NAS as DNG. Also working on files in LR3.3 is faster from HDD than from NAS.

Then later after doing intial (maybe all) processing, I would convert files to DNG without JPEG previews and finally move files to NAS. That I'd do directly in LR3.3 to get rid of additional import move (time lost 2 minutes / 1000 images) as this would likely be a background job. For the remaining 75 % time there would be time reductions as fewer files would need to be transferred to NAS.

Sounds a lot better...

I think part of the problem is that those of us who have been using Lightroom for a long time

Since 1.0.