Lightroom 5.6 Slooow!!

[ciphermedia]

Just downloaded & installed Lightroom 5.6. It seems to be running really slow, taking 5 - 8 seconds to see any response to some commands in the develop module. For example, if I hold down the option key whilst adjusting the white levels, the on-screen response seems to lag markedly. It's a bit inconsistent as to when it happens - sometimes it's fine, sometimes it's reallly slow.

Am running on an iMac 2.7 GHz core i5 with 32 GB of ram. Never had any speed issues before with previous versions.

Wondering whether anybody else is having problems with 5.6?

[Donna_Hixson]

I have run into some very weird performance issues with Lr 5.6, as well. Working on a brand new tricked out to the max 27" iMac 3.5GHz / 32 GB /1TB SSD / OS X 10.9.4 - 2 new 3TB Lacie thunderbolt and 2 new 3TB OWC USB 3.0. Using Lr on large 24 mega pixel Leica M240 files, with lots of applied masks in radial filter, gradient filters and adjustment brushes, the more masks and algorithms applied, the slower the performance, to a point of continuous waiting and beach ball spinning. I have optimized the catalog and purged the cache, multiple times. At first the issues appeared on the Lacie thunderbolt drives. Then we switched to the OWC drives and all was well, the performance was like a hot knife going through butter, until eventually the same slow down and delays occurred on the OWC USB 3.0 drives.  Any additional suggestions?

[~IanB~]

question: do you (those with LR5 dramas) import new files from the card reader/camera or do you down load files to bridge/windows first and then import into LR5?

I thought I fixed my dramas but after importing 300 12mg Lumix lz200 files  from the card to LR the drama returns.

To try anything; I removed the files from LR (stuffed up the 'save folder as cat' .) and imported the files from window; and no more dramas!!

Yesterday I added more lumix and canon 5D11 files via windows and although too early to say but no dramas.................YET

It seems to spot remover/radial/brush tools are the problem; however I did use the spot removed as PS clone tool on this file AFTER Edwardian Shoot 2014 July -done 1 jpg-2 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! And the original BEFORE LR5. Edwardian Shoot 2014 July - DSCN1334 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! The file was imported from windows after being emailed to me

anything and everything has to be considered to solve these dramas.

I will add the lappy is working MUCH better since running the vacuum cleaner over the understand.

[robertotaylor]

I always transfer photo files from my camera to Windows first and then import them to LR and I've been having a ton of problems.

[Eugene Master]

Earlier in this thread, it has been stated that heavily processed photos are the problem - and such processing does involve large amounts of masking, and large numbers of spot healing/cloning/etc. The reason (from my understanding) is that each time you apply an edit, Lr has to recalculate and reapply all the previous edits. If you happened to apply a giant mask to the background of a 25mb photograph - then Lr has to recalculate every pixel each time you apply yet another change to the photo. My understanding is that Adobe is working to remedy this issue.

For now, the best advice I can offer is to reduce your edit-intensive steps by setting up the shoot more efficiently. Or if that's not an option, then try to save your edit-heavy steps for last. Get the majority of the light edits out of the way like DNG conversion, white balance, tone, cropping/straightening, keywording and culling out bad shots. Leave the brushing, and especially any major masking, for last.   Also, for large masking, consider using Photoshop for destructive editing. Use Lr for edits that you may need to reverse in the future (color/tone/noise/etc...). If there's a large crease on your backdrop in 200 photos - just get rid of it in Photoshop - you'll never need it again. Processing it out in Lr will simply slow the program down (for now).

This is all assuming you provide Lr plenty of memory, a fast scratch disk, and clear your cache as necessary. Standard Adobe optimization suggestions here.

[iszunia]

I do, what you write here, especially whole Spotting job I use to leave at the end. I know only one step more, which I have to do: return to Capture One…

[iszunia]

I have had problems with freezing Lr 5 from the first version of Lr5. That still happens, especially after several use of Spot Tool.

One day I observed, Lr is not trying to use more than half of the RAM (in other words, Lr was ignoring second bank of the two existing RAM), what was strange to me, because Ps CC and Lr 3.6 & Lr 4.x used RAM without any problem that time.
I checked the RAMs and decided to swap banks each other. After that Lr starts to use whole RAM and work, especially after installing 5.4. But the same, after use several Spot Tool instances (from 5.4 a little more than before), especially not that point but irregular spots and spots covered other spots, Lr freezes as usual.

Lr 5.6 applies whole job doing before to the files a little quicker (e.g. while opening the catalog or photo in Develop Module), but any move in the history on the file with Spot Tool gives the same dramatic waiting time to see result (30 sek is average) and I observe artefacts (black boxes) during apply in that place, where bars overlays calculating photo. What I think is the problem of the app with graphic card and with this Spot Removal Tool. I did not the same with old version of Lr, but I have the same card and other hardware. So, find the guilty

So, what I think, Lr 5.x is really strange app hardware sensitive and has bad behaviour, performance issue included.

[stlkayaker]

I am also having issues since upgrading to 5.6 in regards to slowness in the develop module.  All I am doing is a simple crop adjustment and straighten.  Once I have set the crop and go to do the straighten LR spins for 5-8 secs with pegged cpu; after I straighten and select done, same thing happens before returning the image.  I am on a new macbook pro; am using imported jpg's from CF card.  I have deleted my preferences file and still have the same issue.  No LR sync to mobile is enabled.  My workflow time has gone up by hours and I cannot afford to keep working like this.

Any help Adobe would sure be appreciated.

[ptorbert]

I see that most people here are having issues in the Develop module.

I have delays of between 5-10 seconds and CPU spikes of up to 172% in the library module when simply selecting a new image by clicking or using the arrow keys. I'm running 10.9.4 on a MBP Retina 13 with 8GB of RAM. This happens on any of the folders in my single large (150,000 images) library. When I load up any of the image folders in Bridge, image switching is instantaneous. Anyone have any experience with such slowdown by merely switching images? I have a delay of about 4-5 seconds switching modules, which I've come to expect, but I can't imagine why merely switching images is causing such a problem.

Thanks for any help anyone can offer me!

[areohbee]

Phillip Torbert wrote:

I have delays of between 5-10 seconds and CPU spikes of up to 172% in the library module when simply selecting a new image by clicking or using the arrow keys.

Thanks for any help anyone can offer me!

Always, when Lr is behaving ridiculously slooooooow, it's due to something about your system (hardware/software/data) Lr doesn't like, or vice versa if you prefer. In your case, I have no idea what. Video driver? Have you tried renaming prefs file and/or other critical Lr data files to see if they are "depositing sludge" (so to speak)?

[~IanB~]

just an interesting note: Lr has been running OK for awhile until I added more small 12mb raw files from the Lumix 200 last night. For some reason it went pair shape again. Seemed to battle adding key words (??). i usually add a basic one or two keys and then do some editing, sorting, deleting before getting more serious with keywords. Last night I added most keywords before editing, sorting, deleting.  (??????)

I didn't have too much drama with some recent 5D11 raw files

[~IanB~]

LOL I posted the above; went back to LR and noticed 'solo mode' was off, but still ticked (??) Computer shut down fixed it but .............

we have to  or go crazy!

[Eugene Master]

When you import new photos, Lr will generate small/medium previews to use in the Library module. When you switch to Develop module, it will generate a full sized 1:1 preview on each image that you open. So it could be possible that you're switching between photos so fast that you activate multiple preview generations and thus your computer slows down.    Part of my work flow is to import and immediately convert to DNG, and then generate 1:1 previews immediately.  This is done in the Library module. Select all the photos you want to work with, select Library --> Previews --> build 1:1 previews.  For 500 20mb-sized photos from my Canon 5d m3 it usually takes no more than 10 minutes to generate all of them.  Make sure to dispose of them after you're done editing by repeating the same steps except selecting "delete 1:1 previews" - or set Lr to auto-delete every 30 or so days (usually this is enabled by default).

The same thing happens to photos already in your catalog. If you are trying to rapidly scroll through 30 large photos you took 3 months ago (especially while in the develop module), the 1:1 previews were already probably automatically deleted. So each time you open the photo to see it full size (especially in Develop), Lr will generate a new 1:1 preview. Same scenario applies - if you're scrolling too fast, you could be triggering multiple previews to be generated and that can lock up your computer for a bit. If these photos are all-over your hard drive, then your drive is trying to write as a scratch disk while trying to read the photos to generate the previews.

Solutions? Try to generate previews for files you want to develop, prior to developing. Also consider using DNG's with embedded preview data to speed up generation for previews.    

[areohbee]

A few notes which might help clarify:

* DNG's embedded preview is not used by Lightroom, other than initial display before any other preview is available, if it exists (like any other file type). After import, DNG library views come from Lr library preview cache, like any other file's. In fact, the embedded preview will grow stale (or be forever absent) if not explicitly updated by manual invocation of the menu command to do so (or via DNG preview updating publish service).

* DNG's fast-load data is just the ACR cache data embedded in source file instead of stored separately. It will help a tiny bit when developing for the very first time only (I mean every time, but if not available first time, they have to be created) to have those available in the DNG, or in the ACR cache. The ACR cache entries will also be created when building 1:1 previews (e.g. during import), and are NOT removed when 1:1 preview is removed (or ever, short of purging the ACR cache..).

Conclusion: DNG has no advantage performance-wise over non-DNG file types. But if you use DNG, embedding fast-load data will help first time development loading speed, a tiny bit. Likewise, if not using DNG, then building 1:1 previews (e.g. upon import), so the cache entry is created, will help first time development loading speed, a tiny bit.

The only time DNG's fast-load data has a significant advantage over ACR cache entry is when you sent it to someone else for development, since their system won't have to re-create the ACR cache data.

To be clear: ACR cache (or DNG fast-load data) should make only a tiny difference. If it's making a big difference, then something is "amiss" (wonky..).

(embedded previews make no difference, other than initially - as mentioned)

PS - Lr does not create or initiate creation of a 1:1 library preview when selecting photos in the develop module. It creates a "for develop module only" view each time you select a photo in develop module, whether 1:1 library preview exists or not. Therefore, creating 1:1 previews in advance won't help develop module performance (unless it's never been done before, in which case ACR cache entries will also be created, which does help a tiny bit). Also, if you select photos in rapid succession in develop module, it aborts creation of dev view it's working on, before initiating creation of the next, thus you can't backlog them.

[~IanB~]

observation from today

>uploading some photos [only 40

>>before adding keywords to the new files I decided clean up a small section of keywords  which basically killed the lappy [400 file>>17 k/words reduced to 4 keywords]

>>let Lr/lappy sit for 5 minutes to catch up but that didn't help (still in library mode)

>>turned lr off/on [5 minutes]; library/keywording better but not perfect.

Dramas may have something to do with the library/keywording/finding old files via k/words (???)

Just a thought.

[Eugene Master]

I like your explanation of how DNG's function. I was simply looking at it from a hardware point of view. When I converted my 10k of CR2 files to DNG, I gained about 7gb or so of free space on my drive. For Phillip's case with 150k photos (assuming they're all RAW) I' sure he would save a ton of space on his drive. The smaller the files, the faster the drive will be able to read them. Even if each individual file is not that much smaller, collectively, his drive will need to read less data in the long run. Therefore it should help just a little bit. Then again, it could be unnoticeable just as you said. That's why it's just something to consider.

[areohbee]

Logical fallacy: It's not my machine since Photoshop and others work fine.

To make a long story short: Lr is different..

(and when one says "your machine" it includes "the data files on your machine", since problems are often due to wonked data which is tripping up Lr).

That said, there is a large set of users who never want to mess with Lightroom - they use Bridge for management and ACR/Photoshop for editing. That way, they don't have to bounce back and forth. Just note: ACR has essentially the same constraints as Lightroom, development-wise, so in many ways it's the same thing: at what point do you break away from ACR's non-destructive editing and venture into the pixel-editing domain.

Whatever works I say..

R

[zooskifilms]

Ok, ok, so it must be my machine and my data. Sounds like a delicate piece of software, how much time does one spend trying to determine if it's the machine or the non-destructive editing?

It's absolutely the non-destructive editing! I'm actually agreeing with you, don't use Lightroom for heavy edits, it is not worth it. With Photoshop I always start with ACR and perform edits without lots of masking. I do the masking in Photoshop along with touch ups. I can always get back into ACR from there.

It's clear now........

[areohbee]

I get your aggravation, and I'm not trying to suggest any course of action - merely trying to inform..

If it were me, and I couldn't get it to work well, I'd buy a new machine (if I hadn't recently), or try a different software.

Not sure what to say, that I haven't said already.

Good luck, and if it's any consolation, you have my empathy and sympathy..

R

[D.A.Wagner]

Empathy and Sympathy accepted. For me, I do what I have to and I get the job done. It's what I do for a living. However, for many LR users, who either don't have Photoshop or find Photoshop a great mystery, LR is it for them. So it seems that, for the moment, no one at Adobe is interested in solving this challenge. From where I stand, Lightroom could be a remarkable program, if it weren't for that one issue holding it back.

[zooskifilms]

Thanks Rob. There is a good deal of frustration, but we find ways to muddle through. And its actually not that bad, Photoshop does it for me. I will try a few more tests to see if it is my machine, did you list out your machine specs already? I'd like to compare.

[areohbee]

You're welcome zooskifilms.

zooskifilms wrote:

did you list out your machine specs already? I'd like to compare.

Well, unfortunately, specs don't mean much, unless your machine is just underpowered, but most recently built/purchased computers have enough oomph that the other bottle-necks (and bugs) start to kick in. Unfortunately, I don't have a good feel for what those other bottle-necks are, except in the cases when something is just interfereing somehow or another - I've seen monitor profiles cause severe slow-downs, and USB phones, and wonky data in prefs file.. - stuff that make you go hmm if ever you discover.. Another culprit is caused by or evidenced by excessive memory consumption, but it's still a mystery why the same things can over-consume memory on one system but not another. Very complicated stuff it is..

FWIW - I'm running an AMD quad-core (Phenom II/965), 3.4GHz, 8GB ram. I get good performance (no severe problems, except when memory gets over-consumed), although I think some people get better.

PS - I think the root cause of most (severe) Lr performance problems (I mean, beyond what is expected based on design/implementation) is good ol' fashioned bugs in Lightroom. But most bugs can be gotten around with enough finessing, still I agree with all who say Adobe could stand to fix more bugs (and optimize implementation etc) to improve performance.

Rob

[~IanB~]

it's hard to understand; been going well until today. lappy/lr just doesn't want to cooperate or talk to each other. Not new files; not doing much to any files, or a better way to say it, I'm doing less today than in the past week or so. No keywording which I have found a drama at times

yep; hard to follow so who could possible understand it.

Come on Adobe; time to get on top of it. It's sooooooo frustrating

And Rob: I totally agree with your last paragraph

[ZoeAdobe]

Totally agree. LR 5.6 is dreadfully slow and gets painfully more and more choked up as session progresses. Have latest processor, RAM etc etc and  did all the suggested optimization. Methinks bugs too. It would be nice if Adobe just said that they acknowledge the issues and they are working on fixing instead of leaving us feeling hapless and mystified.

[Mika Kylmäniemi]

Specs don't mean much - that's true. I just upgraded my old Macbook Pro (2.4GHz i5, 8GB RAM, 250GB SSD) to a new 13" Retina-model MBP (2.6GHz i5, 16GB RAM and 256GB SSD) and started off with a new catalog. After a few images (less than 20) the crop tool started giving me the beach ball again which I thought might be a catalog-specific issue but I was wrong. I've applied only a standard setting (noise reduction, curve, lens profile correction) to the images, no cloning or anything that would make sense. I think this started with LR 5.4 and still remains as a problem. I might have to adjust my workflow to PS-specific for a while.

[~IanB~]

just of interest win/mac. I copied a small cat to the macAir after having  drams in the ASUS and it wasn't long before the Mac slowed to a crawl

Now the ??. Did I just copy the drama to the mac or was the drama already in the Mac? I haven't used the mac much.