Welcome Dialog

Welcome to the Community!

We have a brand new look! Take a tour with us and explore the latest updates on Adobe Support Community.


LR CLASSIC 10.3 is VERY SLOW

Engaged ,
Jun 25, 2021 Jun 25, 2021

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

This is the first time I have ever felt to the need to comment on LR's slow performance. I've been noticing this for several days. I have a late 2020 27" iMac with Radeon Pro 5500 XT 8 GB graphics. When I'm in the develop module moving between the basic, color grading, detail and other drop down tabs it is ridiculously unresponsive. There's at least a one second pause before any setting responds. I'm a 9 year LR user and I've never seen it this laggy. 

TOPICS
Mac, Performance

Views

414

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines

correct answers 1 Correct answer

LEGEND , Jun 25, 2021 Jun 25, 2021
Please do not attach screenshots, many members absolutely refuse to trust attachments. Also that is not as efficient as the IMO proper procedure. Please use the insert photo button. That being said. One thing that stands out looking at your screenshot is the default Camera RAW CACHE setting of 5 GB. Way too low for most catalogs. Bump that up, More like 70 GB. That will effect performance in the Develop Module . see: https://digital-photography-school.com/10-tips-to-improve-lightrooms-speed-and-performance-without-additional-hardware/...

Likes

Translate

Translate
LEGEND ,
Jun 25, 2021 Jun 25, 2021

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Please do not attach screenshots, many members absolutely refuse to trust attachments. Also that is not as efficient as the IMO proper procedure. Please use the insert photo button.

 

That being said. One thing that stands out looking at your screenshot is the default Camera RAW CACHE setting of 5 GB. Way too low for most catalogs. Bump that up, More like 70 GB.

 

That will effect performance in the Develop Module .

 

see: https://digital-photography-school.com/10-tips-to-improve-lightrooms-speed-and-performance-without-a...

 

 

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Community Professional ,
Jun 25, 2021 Jun 25, 2021

Copy link to clipboard

Copied


@GoldingD wrote:

Please do not attach screenshots, many members absolutely refuse to trust attachments.

 

Don’t attachments work better now that the forum software displays picture attachments in a pop-up window, instead of downloading them?

 


@GoldingD wrote:

That being said. One thing that stands out looking at your screenshot is the default Camera RAW CACHE setting of 5 GB. Way too low for most catalogs. Bump that up, More like 70 GB.

That will effect performance in the Develop Module .

see: https://digital-photography-school.com/10-tips-to-improve-lightrooms-speed-and-performance-without-a...


 

The linked article from DPS is out of date, going by the comment dates there it looks like it was written 7 years ago. Several of the points in it no longer apply to the current version. Some are corrected in the Lightroom Queen article Lightroom Performance — Debunking Myths. The DPS article recommends generating minimal previews and 1:1 previews (but in the current version, the new Embedded option is better for quick culling), using many small catalogs (that has nothing to do with performance and using one large catalog is better for many reasons), and making a huge Camera Raw cache (see the Lightroom Queen quote below).

 

We still see lots of posts saying to enlarge your cache size to 75GB, or even as much as 200GB. For most people, it IS worth enlarging the cache from its 5GB default. The number of photos 5GB will hold depends on your preview size. For example, 1440px will cache approx. 11,100; if you use a preview size of 2880px, then 5Gb will hold 2,275. So, 75-200GB is overkill for most people. You’d be better off with a 5GB-10GB cache on a fast drive (e.g. SSD) than a much larger cache on a slower drive.

But there’s one more thing. If you’re slowly stepping through the photos consecutively in the Develop module, the full resolution data is preloaded in advance, negating the need for the Camera Raw cache. So it’s only really helpful if you’re skipping around in Lightroom, or you don’t have enough RAM to hold full resolution cached data.


 

One point in the linked article that has some merit in this thread is inspecting the size of the Standard Previews that are being generated for that 27" iMac screen, because that is a lot of pixels, and the bigger the Standard Previews are set the bigger the Camera Raw cache should be. But I don’t think even that would address the main complaint which is responsiveness in the Develop module…that should be addressed by the GPU, so there is still an unusual problem there to figure out. Because I get good Develop responsiveness on my much weaker Mac.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Jun 26, 2021 Jun 26, 2021

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

quote
quote

Please do not attach screenshots, many members absolutely refuse to trust attachments.


By @GoldingD

 

Don’t attachments work better now that the forum software displays picture attachments in a pop-up window, instead of downloading them?


By @Conrad C

 

No, @Conrad C  attachments do not work better. I have many browsers (at work, and on my personal cell phone and personal tablet) that will not show the attachment (or the preview to the attachment), and also my primary browser on my computer at home (Firefox) will not show the attachment (or the preview to the attachment) unless I disable a security feature, which I do not want to do.

 

So, @scott-david-weaver please include your screen captures by clicking on the "Insert Photos" icon.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Jun 25, 2021 Jun 25, 2021

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Also, I see in Use Graphics Processor, that you have selected Custom, as opposed to Auto.

 

For your GPU, does selecting Auto fail?

 

If LrC can leverage your GPU and support Full acceleration, then you would not need to select Custom. Custom would normally allow for Basic acceleration, and could be problematic. (hmm, but yours states Full, so, Ok, but why Custom instead of Auto?)

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Engaged ,
Jun 25, 2021 Jun 25, 2021

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

thanks for all the excellent advice. I just changed it to 'custom' yesterday to see if it made any difference. It had been on auto.

I will try increasing the cache as you recommend. Of course this slow performance I am seeing was with the settings as you see. I had not changed them in a year or more so I believe it must be related to the latest software release.

 

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Jun 25, 2021 Jun 25, 2021

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Please post your System Information as Lightroom Classic (LrC) reports it. In LrC click on Help, then System Info, then Copy. Paste that information into a reply. Please present all information from first line down to and including Plug-in Info. Info after Plug-in info can be cut as that is just so much dead space to us non-Techs.

GoldingD_0-1624641724128.jpeg

 

GoldingD_1-1624641724129.png

 

GoldingD_2-1624641724129.png

 

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Community Professional ,
Jun 26, 2021 Jun 26, 2021

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

You can also find some tips for improving performance while using LrC.

https://www.lightroomqueen.com/lightroom-performance-whats-slow/

 

Regards, Denis: iMac mid-2015, 5K 27”, GPU 2GB, Ram 24GB, HDD 3TB, macOS 11.6.1, LrC 11.0.1, Lr 5, Ps 23.0,; Camera OM-D E-M1.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Jun 30, 2021 Jun 30, 2021

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

LATEST

I've been having similar issues for a couple of years now. Tried Capture One the other day and the difference was night and day. Now wondering why I've given hundreds of £ to Adobe for a product which is frustrating to use.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines