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

[PhilBurness]

Lee Jay wrote:

PhilBurness wrote:

Indeed, and if the testers are asked to uninstall previous versions prior to testing, then who tests the upgrades, and how much testing do upgraded systems get?

Let's say you, Phil, get an early version of 3.4.  That version is designed to upgrade your 3.0 to 3.3 installation.  So you just install it and it does its job upgrading you to 3.4 (early beta).  Next, you get a slightly newer version of 3.4.  Like the last one, it's designed to upgrade your 3.0 to 3.3 installation, but you don't have 3.0 to 3.3 anymore, you have 3.4.  3.4 isn't designed to upgrade 3.4.  So what do you do?  You uninstall 3.4 (early beta) and install the slightly less early beta you now have.

If you're smart, you're doing this on a machine that isn't in your critical workflow, just a machine you use for testing, otherwise, early releases can do all sorts of ugly things and your workflow could be seriously impacted.  So, let's assume you, Phil, are smart.  You receive several more early betas which cause you to uninstall and then re-install on your test machine.  Finally, you get what you expect to be the release version.  You install it on your test machine and everything seems fine so you go ahead and install it on your work machine, allowing it to upgrade that system as would any general user.  Now you've tested the upgrade process both ways (direct upgrade and uninstall/reinstall), and from both an early version and from the release version, and you've done it on two different machine.

The process is roughly the same for any software from any company, and I've done this myself from companies other than Adobe that release early betas to the general user community (engineering software is often done this way).

Lee Jay,

Yep, I understand the logic, but the point is in the last sentance of your third paragraph,

Now you've tested the upgrade process both ways (direct upgrade and uninstall/reinstall), and from both an early version and from the release version, and you've done it on two different machine.

Why, if the process outlined above has been followed by so many testers has it taken from v3.0, through v3.3 and the work done by Samoreen to determine a probable link between previously installed versions and the current running version that is causing performance problems for some?

Has Samoreen also identified a flaw in the testing process above? because, if he is right, then the testing outlined above did not detect this problem and therefore requires some work, unless Adobe wish to preclude all installations with an uninstall of previous versions...

Phil

[PhilBurness]

Lee Jay,

One other point, surely Adobe are using some sort of version control on their software, so going from 3.4.x to 3.4.y should be possible?

So when you say going from 3.4 to 3.4, you mean 3.4.something to 3.4.something-modified?

Phil

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

PhilBurness wrote:

So when you say going from 3.4 to 3.4, you mean 3.4.something to 3.4.something-modified?

A lot of companies will make at least one, if not more than one build per day.  They might all be builds of the same version.  If you look in your Lightroom info screen, you'll see a six-digit build number.

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

PhilBurness wrote:

Why, if the process outlined above has been followed by so many testers has it taken from v3.0, through v3.3 and the work done by Samoreen to determine a probable link between previously installed versions and the current running version that is causing performance problems for some?

First of all, we don't know that it's true yet, and second it could be for a very few "some" and require more conditions that just having previous versions.  I have LR on four machines, all quite different, all Windows, all with many installations, and I'm not seeing any new or unreasonable issues with performance right now.  In other words, many installations could be a necessary but not sufficient explanation for the issues of some people's installs.  Let Dan chew on it.  He's a bright guy with all the access and tools available, but the holidays always put a damper of everyone's productivity especially since Adobe is closed.  I'm sure he appreciates actual helpful comments and notes such as those we are discussing, but he (and the rest of the team) still needs time to find a root cause before it can be fixed.

[thewhitedog]

Again this seems to be a Windows only problem. I had no trouble on my Mac running the beta of Lightroom 3 alongside version 2.7. I didn't get rid of LR 2 until after I'd used the version 3 final for a week of so. And all I've ever done to uninstall Lightroom is drag the application to the trash. Still, it's not clear where Lightroom 3 stores all its resources. Other Adobe applications set up version specific folders in the user/Library/Applications Support/Adobe folder. But there is only one Lightroom folder in this location and all the assets except my user presets seem, by date, to be associated with earlier versions of Lightroom. This had the advantage that I did not need to migrate my custom settings from one version of Lightroom to the next, as I've always done with Photoshop. But Adobe seems not to be following its own standards and practices in regard to Lightroom. If there is a similar divergence on Windows, then it's no wonder Lightroom 3 cannot seem to walk and chew gum at the same time.

[Guest]

The Lightroom 3 beta was fully capable of runnning side by side with Lightroom 2.7 on Windows machines. This was not "a problem" for any Windows users I know (myself included). 

Stephen

[Samoreen]

Stephen,

swyost wrote:

The Lightroom 3 beta was fully capable of runnning side by side with Lightroom 2.7 on Windows machines. This was not "a problem" for any Windows users I know (myself included). 

Stephen

We are trying to determine the origin of the performance problems for those who are hit by them. We are gathering facts. Nobody told that different versions of LR could not run side by side. The fact is that starting with the 3.2 upgrade some people (including me) started to have so severe problems with LR that it was no longer usable. Another fact is that - in my case - uninstalling, cleaning up and re-installing solved the problem. Which tends to demonstrate that - again, in my case - the problem is not a hardware or OS configuration issue because I didn't change anything to the system (beside the registry cleanup of LR entries) and because I even didn't reboot after uninstalling, cleaning up and re-installing. The cure was immediate.

I continue investigating this issue because

1. Since I have a developer background, I'd like to understand what happened and maybe I'm able to upload valuable information to the development team.
2. It would be nice to find a way to help those who are still struggling with these performance issues.

[thewhitedog]

Obviously it was capable, since some people reported being able to make it work. Nevertheless, Adobe warned against installing more than one version on Windows because, by default - if you didn't change the install location - the beta installer would overwrite your existing copy of Lightroom - if it was still in the default install location. This was not the case in OS X, where the Lightroom beta installer set the app down right next to the previous version, assuming it, too, was in the default location. It's not unreasonable to assume that even with different versions of the application in separate directories in Windows, that some files in other locations might be overwritten as will. Some of the reported problems with the Registry suggest this was in fact the case, at least in some instances.

[JayS_In_CT]

Tom Hogarty wrote:

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

Tom,

I'm not 100% sure this thread hasn't digressed in some areas, as did the other discussion thread, but it does seem folks have tried to bring some technical clarity to their posts.  Since you started this new thread though, I think it would extremely helpful to all of us (and encouraging) if yourself or someone like Dan T. etc., could provide some regular update on areas where Adobe thinks they may have a lead or handle on certain performance issues. It's tough when you're having one of these issues to only hear the voice going only one way.

I truly believe that the makeup of most of the folks on this forum are those that truly want to make LR better and have a very vested interest in its success.  That said, having more of a two way dialog between the community and Adobe I think would be a great asset to both sides.  I know the team is probably very busy working on this and future items, but having someone as a communications link would be very beneficial I believe.

Thanks in advance...

Jay S.

[Ian Lyons]

Tom,

I'm not 100% sure this thread hasn't digressed in some areas, as did the other discussion thread, but it does seem folks have tried to bring some technical clarity to their posts.  Since you started this new thread though, I think it would extremely helpful to all of us (and encouraging) if yourself or someone like Dan T. etc., could provide some regular update on areas where Adobe thinks they may have a lead or handle on certain performance issues. It's tough when you're having one of these issues to only hear the voice going only one way.

Jay,

Tom has been on leave this past few weeks and Adobe are now closed until the New Year. So, I wouldn't build my hopes up about a reply.

[JayS_In_CT]

Ian Lyons wrote:

Tom,

I'm not 100% sure this thread hasn't digressed in some areas, as did the other discussion thread, but it does seem folks have tried to bring some technical clarity to their posts.  Since you started this new thread though, I think it would extremely helpful to all of us (and encouraging) if yourself or someone like Dan T. etc., could provide some regular update on areas where Adobe thinks they may have a lead or handle on certain performance issues. It's tough when you're having one of these issues to only hear the voice going only one way.

Jay,

Tom has been on leave this past few weeks and Adobe are now closed until the New Year. So, I wouldn't build my hopes up about a reply.

Ian,

Thanks for the update, but whether it's Tom or someone at Adobe who may pick it up, I think the point remains true.  I didn't think I'd get personal reply from Tom.  🙂  and no offense to the Community Professionals.  I just believe that if you seek information (which is good and why I believe Tom started this thread), that have a two way street can benefit us all.

Happy Holidays..

Jay S.

[Thomas JS Kane]

Hi

Apologies if I am putting this in the wrong place.

I have just upgraded to 3.3 on a PC running XP.  I find that in the print module when I want to select another icc, when I select "other" nothing happens until I press escape when the program returns to the last profile used.

Any help would be appreciated

Sean

[Sean McCormack]

You be better putting this as a new topic Sean. This is a rather fast moving and unrelated thread.

[dwterry]

I'm still having tremendous slow down issues while in Library mode.  It always happens after importing - AFTER it has finished generating previews.  LR 3.2 did not have this sluggishness.

Background info: I''m using the Canon 5D Mark II.  YES the images are huge.  I'm often importing 500-600 at a time.  I always let the previews finish generating before I try to do anything with Lightroom.  The images are on an internal SATA hard drive.  The catalog is on a separate internal SATA drive. 

Last night I imported my images.  And as I began working my way through the library to rate the images ... the delay between images was huge (hitting the left and right arrow keys to move between images).  It was often SEVERAL SECONDS between images which makes it hard to flip back and forth to compare  and adjust ratings.  (something I never had a problem with using LR 3.2 or LR 2.x or LR 1.x for that matter - I've been with you from the beginning)

Just to be sure previews were built, I selected all images in library mode and then told LR3.3 to regenerate the previews.  It quickly scanned all of the images - apparently determined that none of them had to be rebuilt (since it had just finished the import process) and finished the scan in mere seconds without having done anything.

I gave up and exited LR3.3 thinking I'd come back later and do the work.

But then on a whim, I decided to re-launch LR3.3 and see if anything changed.  And indeed, it appeared to be much faster moving between images after closing and re-opening the application.  Weird.

Anyway, please add the above to the data points in determining the performance issues.  I'll probably try the exit/restart strategy again on my next photo shoot.

[thejeremiah]

Lightroom 3.3 does seem to do almost everything slower, from loading previews (even images which have already had the 1:1 preview pre-loaded), to it's ability to respond to local adjustments while using a Wacom.

The thing I like the very least about this upgrade to 3.3 as been that I have lost all of my presets.  ALL of them.  From my develop presets to watermarks, it's all gone.  Unsatisfactory.

[areohbee]

My guess is that your presets are still on your disk but Lightroom is looking for them in a different place now.

Did you also lose preferences?

Have you tried to find the preset folders/files on your hard disk?

The default location can be obtained via the presets tab in preferences, but I always keep mine with my catalog.

[thewhitedog]

While I never lost any of my custom presets when I upgraded Lightroom from one version to another, what puzzles me is that none of the dozens of Lightroom 3 presets are present in the default Develop Presets folder; all that are there are some old presets from 2007 and my User Presets folder; this despite the fact that this folder is where the Show Lightroom Presets Folder button in the Presets preferences takes me. I cannot find the Lightroom 3 presets anywhere on my hard drive. While this is not exactly a problem, it is a puzzle.

[areohbee]

Yeah, the factory presets are not 'zactly in a folder - they appear sortof automagically or somethin. There have been other threads about it...

[thewhitedog]

@ Rob: Thanks for the suggestion. I went digging and found a reference with a link to an article (http://www.pixiq.com/article/getting-rid-of-default-lightroom-develop-presets) in an external publication about removing the presets that describes their current location - which is way down deep in the Lightroom application. I suppose Adobe moved them there to make them more difficult to tamper with. Interestingly, the procedure for removing the presets is far more complex on Windows and requires a resource editor. FYI: the reason commonly given for wanting to remove the default presets is because the list is so long in the Library module that it makes it tedious for people to find their custom presets. They are not in separate lists as in the Develop module. I don't use the Library module for editing so this is not an issue for me; I was just curious where they had gone. Please excuse this off topic ramble; since Rob was kind enough to point me in the right direction I wanted to thank him.

[Sean McCormack]

Yeah, I wrote that because there of the number of people complaining about them. It's really a pain having to use a resource editor on PC, but at least it can be done. It feels funny seeing that as a Pixiq link after being Lightroom-blog.com for so long.

Usually when presets go missing, it's because someone has 'Store Presets With Catalog' ticked in Lightroom>Preferences>Presets (Mac) / Edit>Preferences?Presets (PC) checked. At least it's the first thing I would check.

[thewhitedog]

Sorry Seán. I lost track of the source in the chain of posts. And I neglected to even notice your name on the article on Pixiq. Should have given you credit. And thanks. Hope this makes up for the oversight. And for anyone wishing to trace my path to Seán's solution, the Adobe forum thread I found the link on is at http://forums.adobe.com/message/3366599#3366599. Pixiq, I take it, is a new site, given the word beta after the name. Seán has another useful article there titled Five Lightroom Myths, http://www.pixiq.com/article/5lightroommyths. Pixiq seems to have a lot to offer, but there's no mission or purpose statement, about us page or anything to inform the new visitor what the site is intended to be or to do.... I take that back, there is a link - at the very bottom of the right-hand column on the home page. Apparently, though, whoever designed the site was afraid to slight any of the contributors, so they put everything but the kitchen sink on the home page. Though the web site author knows how to code, they seemingly don't know how to design.

[Sean McCormack]

No slight was taken, hence the

Pixiq are part of Lark Publishing, a photography book division of Sterling. It's beta for a reason, as you've noted. When it was pitched to me, it was a central blog site for popular photographers. I was convinced enough to give it a try. As for whether or not it's worth it, time will tell.

[thejeremiah]

Sean, yes, "store presets with catalog" is chosen in preferences.  Deselecting that has, in fact, brought all of them back.  I find this strange.  Am I misunderstanding why the option to store presets with catalog exists?  I wonder why user presets aren't usable while stored with catalog or what storing with the catalog even accomplishes now.  Maybe I'm just being ignorant.  Hmm.

Thank you, nonetheless!

[Sean McCormack]

It keeps them with the original catalog. Personally I don't use this and just back up my presets via Dropbox.

[areohbee]

thejeremiah wrote:

I wonder why user presets aren't usable while stored with catalog...

I addressed this in a personal message to you - tryin' to keep this thread clean for Dan Tull ;-}