Develop Module performance issues with new iMac

Report · Sep 23, 2017

I have just started working on images with my new 2017 27-inch Retina 5K iMac, and I've noticed some problems that seem slower than my 2009-era iMac. Images are blurry for a bit after making most adjustments. Sometimes it is a fraction of a second, sometimes - such as "Transform > Rotate" it could take 2-4 seconds to snap back into clarity.

I did not notice these delays with my 8-year old computer, so it concerns me that my fancy new one makes things worse in some ways. Obviously nothing with the new one is of a lower spec than the old one.

I have Preferences set to render 1:1 previews at monitor (5K) size, I've tested using the Graphics Processor and Smart Previews options, etc. Even tried purging and re-generating smaller previews (2880px) just to see what happens. Nothing seems to affect it.

System specs, short version:

Newest iMac (2017) 5K Retina (5120 x 2880 px)

3.5 GHz Core i5

8GB RAM

4GB VRAM

MacOS 10.12.6

Lightroom CC 2015.12

Here are my full system specifications and other notes.

Everything is up-to-date as of today. Lightroom app, catalog, previews, cache, all on internal SSD drive. Image files are on external drives connected via USB-3.

Note: this configuration is the same as with my old computer, so performance should not be worse now that I have an 8-year newer computer. (Other things are noticeably better, thank goodness, like startup time, optimization and integrity testing, etc.)

I have tried to find answers on my own - I've searched the web in general and these forums in particular. Most of the results I find are either years old, dealing with LR versions and systems specs that aren't relevant any more, or about "blurry photos" out of the camera, and sharpening and stuff. If there is a recent and relevant forum post that I missed, my apologies.

Report · Sep 23, 2017

Huge screen, slow processor by today's standards ... that is (part of) the problem.

Report · Sep 23, 2017

Slow processor by today's standards? A) I bought this Mac about 3 weeks ago - it's the newest generation - and I didn't get the low-end processor. B) The size of the monitor negates 8 years of progress in all of the other specs??

Report · Sep 23, 2017

slow processor by today's standards

Let's be realistic here. An i5 isn't a "slow" CPU, it's just an i7 at a slightly reduced clock rate which is still faster than the previous generation i7s. An i5 - any i5 - should be able to run Lightroom and anything else with flying colors. Of course that's not the problem.

A slow CPU is a 7 year old Celeron or Pentium. That's how much slower it would need to be to account for the performance problems some people are seeing.

Report · Sep 23, 2017

If you're going to generate pixels to fill a 5K+ screen, you need a lot of speed. More speed means the calculations will be done faster and the images will render faster. It's a pretty simple computer concept.

Report · Sep 23, 2017

dj_paige, you seem to think that, despite my fairly complete problem description, thoughtful and thorough listing of my work environment, and efforts to diagnose the problem myself, that I am in fact an idiot. I realize that it takes a lot of calculations to fill a 5K screen. Are you saying that Apple has produced not-the-first generation of 5K computers which can't actually handle some of the most basic and common tasks their users need?

And the issue which you haven't done anything actually useful, yet, to illuminate, other than to insult me and D Fosse, is that my old computer, with radically slower processor, RAM, hard drive, etc., handled normal Lightroom adjustments faster. Clearly a faster processor, more RAM, etc, would be even better still, but the fact remains that every single spec of my new computer is far better than the old, and the only thing that should have a negative impact on performance is the monitor.

So your answer to my question, if my impaired brain understands you correctly, is that 8 years of advancements in CPU, RAM, SSD, and video cards is insufficient to handle a 5K monitor which has been produced by Apple for a couple of years and for which Lightroom has had equally long to adapt? In short, the fact that I have a 5K monitor takes my Lightroom performance back to pre-2009 time?

Report · Sep 24, 2017

"In short, the fact that I have a 5K monitor takes my Lightroom performance back to pre-2009 time?"

The answer to that is probably 'Yes'. When the LR engineers first encountered the problems with 4K monitors, they worked out how to use the graphics card in Develop to speed things up. But whether that works depends on the particular graphics card and driver. Some do work, some don't, which is why graphics performance is an option in LR. 5K monitors just made it worse still. Have you tried reducing the resolution of your 5K monitor? Hopefully the next version of LR might help, but I shall stick with my latest 27" Eizo with only 2560x1440 resolution.

Bob Frost

Report · Sep 24, 2017

A couple of points not mentioned. The Library module and the Library previews do NOT use the GPU. Only the Develop module benefits from GPU acceleration and as bob frost mentioned that's only if there are no compatibility issues with the graphics drivers.

You can test to see if the 5K monitor is the cause by reducing the size of the Develop module Loupe window (i.e. window LR). For this test make it very small and see If that resolves the speed issues in the Develop module.

Report · Sep 24, 2017

https://forums.adobe.com/people/bob+frost wrote
The answer to that is probably 'Yes'. When the LR engineers first encountered the problems with 4K monitors, they worked out how to use the graphics card

This started long before 4K and retina. Again, that's not where the problem is.

IIRC it started around Lightroom 4 and process version 2012. Or that's when I began to notice it at any rate. Speaking of, has anybody with severe performance issues tried PV 2010, just to see if there's any difference?

Through the years I've experienced the whole gamut in different systems and configurations, from horrible to acceptable to very good. Thankfully, my present working machine is in the latter category. One thing I've seen, is that hardware specs don't seem to have anything to do with it. An i5-based budget system performed brilliantly, while one high-end system was truly awful.

Report · Sep 24, 2017

https://forums.adobe.com/people/D+Fosse wrote
https://forums.adobe.com/people/bob+frost wrote
One thing I've seen, is that hardware specs don't seem to have anything to do with it. An i5-based budget system performed brilliantly, while one high-end system was truly awful.

Case in point as the OP states:

Newest iMac (2017) 5K Retina (5120 x 2880 px)

3.5 GHz Core i5

8GB RAM

4GB VRAM

MacOS 10.12.6

Lightroom CC 2015.12

The only spec that's less than optimum is the 8GB of memory. However, this should still work fine for editing single images providing other applications that use a lot of memory aren't open. For HDR, Panorama, large Exports, and lot's of Local Editing this may cause issues. All of that said the cause could simply be an incompatible display profile (ICC Version 4 or LUT Type) OR an incompatible graphics driver (or its settings).

Report · Sep 24, 2017

Your 5K screen has nearly 15 million pixels. My 2880x1440 screen has 4 million pixels. So your screen has 4x as many pixels as mine, and it is going to take 4x as long to write an image to your screen as mine. So, all else being equal, if mine takes 0.5 secs (not noticeable), yours will take 2 secs (quite noticeable).

Bob Frost

Report · Sep 24, 2017

Thanks guys for the thoughtful ideas on what the problem might be, I appreciate you thinking along with me!

tshraner: Making the LR window dramatically smaller does make a difference. The same 0.1 Transform > Rotate move that takes 2-4 seconds at full screen takes, very approximately, around 1/2 a second at a smaller size. So you're on to something there.

bob frost: I do understand that the 5K screen has 4x the pixels, but I naively assumed that this would have occurred to the folks at Apple and Adobe, and that they would have beefed up related hardware to support that sufficiently, especially since they have had a few years to work out the kinks. Graphic / visual people are some of their core customers - something that annoys them for 2-4 seconds on dozens of adjustments on each of hundreds of photos in a day seems like something to fix.

I also realize the 8GB of RAM is not ideal. Two points: First, I only bought the new computer because my old one really died, so spending $2400 wasn't really in the budget to begin with (not to mention a lot of other personal stuff). I knew that I could quickly and easily spend another couple hundred to upgrade it myself at some point in the future and enjoy a little boost. Everything about this computer was equal to my old computer (GB of RAM) or far superior to my old computer that it should seem blindingly fast to me for quite a while.

Secondly, as I just mentioned, 8GB - of presumably a slower memory technology? - was what my old computer had, too, which again didn't exhibit this performance issue. This shouldn't be the cause, unless like bob frost indicated, the 5K monitor overwhelms all of the other hardware advancements, which again, seems hard to swallow.

tshraner: One thing I don't understand, regarding memory, is how LR uses it. I did a System Report yesterday, and it said:

Sometimes the Real Memory Used is even less - I saw 6% of available, once - yet still using 3+ GB of virtual.

Lots of things I don't understand about that any more: 1) why doesn't LR grab more of the real, when the MacOS Activity Monitor says not all of it is being used? 2) Since I have an SSD (with 200GB free space) is Virtual Memory that...bad, any more? I know it was not optimal back when it was being written to / read from spinning disks, but now?

Usually I only have the following applications open: Firefox (which does chew up RAM sometimes!), iTunes, iMessage, LR, and sometimes Photoshop. Right now, I just looked at Activity Monitor and it indicates I have 1.75GB RAM not used at all, yet LR is using 3GB of Virtual Memory, and my Transform > Rotate test is slow.

I just did a test. I quit absolutely everything but TextEdit to make these notes and Activity Monitor to see what's happening. It says 2.82GB are being used, with nothing but these apps and whatever system / background processes that are running. (Are 279 processes and 2.82GB of RAM used normal?)

I opened LR and did my Transform > Rotate. Slow.

Here are the memory reports, first from LR and then from the MacOS:

I seem to remember a way to encourage LR and PS to grab more real RAM, but I don't see it in the preferences any more. Would this be something I should look into?

Anyhow, aside from the memory allocation not making any sense to me, it also seems to indicate that RAM isn't the cause of the performance issue I originally posted about, right?

Report · Sep 24, 2017

Wait a sec, I just did another test:

With LR taking up the full 5K screen, if I rotate a ~30MB Canon CR2 RAW file, it takes the aforementioned 2-4 seconds. If I rotate an iPhone JPG, which takes up the same number of pixels on the screen, it is blurry for only a fraction of a second!

If the issue is re-drawing pixels on the screen, as dj_paige and others have said, it shouldn't matter what the underlying file type is, right? It seems, instead, that the issue is actually processing the data in the file.

More tests: I checked the same Transform > Rotate test on multiple RAW files, and on some it takes ~1 sec (first pic below), on others ~3 seconds. Neither history is at all long, but there are some differences in their respective histories - maybe most notably, the slower one includes a Lens Profile correction.

So maybe that Lens Profile correction is causing the stumbles?

LR also seems to take a while to "Load" images, in both Loupe and Develop, sometimes, even if I've already created 1:1 Previews, etc.

So, I am not sure what else to look at:

My use of Previews, Smart Previews, etc?
Could it be a combination of factors? That my image files are on an external disk (as they always have been, remember) but now with the 5K that external disk becomes an issue? Not because of normal speed stuff, but in re-rendering the image over the USB cable? That seems far-fetched, though, since I assume (could be wrong!) that LR loads the entire file into memory to work on it and isn't constantly fetching it from the disk. And these are only ~30MB files and little XMP files, should go pretty fast over USB-3 anyhow.
The LR test indicates that my Graphics Card passes, therefore it seems it should be useful (I don't notice a difference if I turn it off or on).
Not sure what to do about what tshraner said with incompatible display profiles or graphics drivers. If that is something I should figure out, I'd appreciate somebody pointing me in the right direction.

If the answer really is "Yes, you'd think this stuff could handle a 5K monitor, but sadly no, you just have to live with being annoyed" then fine and I'll drop it, but it just seems to me this shouldn't be the case, so I want to be sure I've tried - before I resign myself to it - to see if it can be fixed.

Report · Sep 24, 2017

markd783604 wrote
With LR taking up the full 5K screen, if I rotate a ~30MB Canon CR2 RAW file, it takes the aforementioned 2-4 seconds. If I rotate an iPhone JPG, which takes up the same number of pixels on the screen, it is blurry for only a fraction of a second!
If the issue is re-drawing pixels on the screen, as dj_paige and others have said, it shouldn't matter what the underlying file type is, right? It seems, instead, that the issue is actually processing the data in the file.

Camera raw files need to be "converted" to RGB bit-mapped images using a camera profile. This is an additional step NOT required when processing JPEG, TIFF, PNG, which are already RGB bit-mapped images. White Balance and Noise Reduction controls (and perhaps others?) use the raw data so every movement of these controls requires recalculating the RGB bit-mapped display data, which then gets all of the other controls applied and recalculated. The Camera Raw Cache files "speed-up" the raw data conversion process, which is why it's important to make sure your Camera Raw Cache is set properly. The "default" 2GB setting value is too low for most users.

Report · Sep 24, 2017

markd783604 wrote
Anyhow, aside from the memory allocation not making any sense to me, it also seems to indicate that RAM isn't the cause of the performance issue I originally posted about, right?

That's correct. I only suggested that 8GB is not sufficient for LR Photomerge to a large Panorama and perhaps large exports. I've got 12 GB on my system and haven't had any issues. I did have a problem with LR Photomerge to Panorama with the same files open in PS Merge to HDR Pro. I ran out of memory and LR became very sloooooooooooooooooow.

Report · Sep 24, 2017

markd783604 wrote
I've tested using the Graphics Processor and Smart Previews options, etc. Even tried purging and re-generating smaller previews (2880px) just to see what happens. Nothing seems to affect it.

I believe this is the root cause of your performance issues. There should be a difference in the Develop module performance with LR Preferences> Performance 'Use Graphics Processor' enabled and disabled, especially with a 5K display! You may have a corrupt LR Preferences file, an incompatible display profile, or LR installation issue. Try the following steps in the order shown below to see if any of these improve performance:

1) Reset LR Preferences file as outlined at the below link under 'Mac' heading steps 1-7.

https://www.lightroomqueen.com/articles-page/how-do-i-reset-lightrooms-preferences/

2) Change the monitor profile as outlined at the below link. If you use a monitor calibrator create a new display profile instead. Make sure the calibrator's software preferences are set to create an ICC Version 2 Matrix profile and NOT an ICC Version 4 LUT type profile.

https://www.lightroomqueen.com/articles-page/how-do-i-change-my-monitor-profile-to-check-whether-its...

3) If the slowness persists try uninstalling LR and then reinstall as outlined here:

Uninstall or remove Creative Cloud apps

Report · Sep 24, 2017

trshaner wrote
Try the following steps in the order shown below to see if any of these improve performance:
1) Reset LR Preferences file as outlined at the below link under 'Mac' heading steps 1-7.
2) Change the monitor profile as outlined at the below link. If you use a monitor calibrator create a new display profile instead. Make sure the calibrator's software preferences are set to create an ICC Version 2 Matrix profile and NOT an ICC Version 4 LUT type profile.
3) If the slowness persists try uninstalling LR and then reinstall as outlined here:
Uninstall or remove Creative Cloud apps

My apologies if I am missing something obvious, but I didn't see links for your steps 1 and 2, just for step 3. I can google and find how to do them, but in the interest of reducing variables, it would probably be best if I used precisely the process you are referring to.

Report · Sep 24, 2017

markd783604 wrote
My apologies if I am missing something obvious, but I didn't see links for your steps 1 and 2, just for step 3. I can google and find how to do them, but in the interest of reducing variables, it would probably be best if I used precisely the process you are referring to.

Sorry.....I've added the links in my reply #17. Let me know if you have any questions about the procedures.

Report · Sep 24, 2017

1) Ok, I had high hopes for deleting the preferences, since I had used Migration Assistant (for the first time) to get from my old Mac to my new one, and I had been concerned about what all residual junk it would bring with it, such as prefs for an old monitor. Alas moving the prefs files out of the folder and starting Lightroom fresh didn't seem to make any difference in performance.

Interestingly (?) some of the preferences had been preserved, such as my custom RAW Cache location and size*, while others had reverted to defaults.

In general I am testing by always using the same test image, turning "Use GPU" off or on, with a LR restart in between just to be sure.

2) Change monitor profile: this was weird. I stepped through the built-in calibration software, and it didn't really do anything. (I don't have a hardware calibrator. Bad boy, I know. I've always been able to borrow one, and I will do so again, but not tonight.) It asked me for a white point, if I wanted others to be able to use the profile, and to pick a profile name. It didn't do anything else (at least not visible / noticeable). It created the new profile and selected it, but otherwise...I can't remember what that program is like, but I thought I had to do some things to give it input about the display???

It's been a long time since I've used the built-in calibration, so I don't remember well, but this didn't feel right.

3) Un- / re-install Lightroom: I think I'll tackle that one in the morning. Unless you can assure me that none of my personal stuff, preferences, etc., get zapped too? If it's as easy as uninstall and reinstall I'll go for it, otherwise I want a fresh brain in the morning. (And yes, I do regular backups, especially before making changes like these, so I'm not too worried.)

*Regarding the RAW cache issue: I had turned mine up to 10GB, but felt that was pretty arbitrary. The online info doesn't usually give a suggestion, just "more than the default 2GB". So where should I set it, and where is that space being used? Is that RAM or disk space? Since I have SSD, does it matter much? If it is RAM, and it matters, and it would solve this problem, then I'll just bite the bullet and buy another 16GB of RAM!

Report · Sep 25, 2017

markd783604 wrote
Interestingly (?) some of the preferences had been preserved, such as my custom RAW Cache location and size*, while others had reverted to defaults.

The Camera Raw Preferences Settings are separate (Adobe Bridge> Edit> Preferences). from LR's so they aren't changed when resetting LR's Preferences file.

markd783604 wrote
It's been a long time since I've used the built-in calibration, so I don't remember well, but this didn't feel right.

I'm not a Mac user so can't help you. However, I highly recommend using an external X-Rite or Datacolor monitor calibrator and create an ICC Version 2 Matrix profile and NOT an ICC Version 4 LUT type profile. There may very well be a LR compatibility issue with the display profile OS X assigns or creates during "built-in" calibration.

markd783604 wrote
3) Un- / re-install Lightroom: I think I'll tackle that one in the morning. Unless you can assure me that none of my personal stuff, preferences, etc., get zapped too? If it's as easy as uninstall and reinstall I'll go for it, otherwise I want a fresh brain in the morning.

When you uninstall LR your Preferences and plugins are not removed! That's why you have to "manually" reset its preferences as outlined.

markd783604 wrote
*Regarding the RAW cache issue: I had turned mine up to 10GB, but felt that was pretty arbitrary. The online info doesn't usually give a suggestion, just "more than the default 2GB". So where should I set it, and where is that space being used? Is that RAM or disk space? Since I have SSD, does it matter much?

It depends on how many image files and type you have imported into LR. Simply check the size of the Camera Raw Cache folder at the location shown in LR Preferences> File Handling> Camera Raw Cache Settings. I suggest setting the 'Maximum Size to 2x or more the current Cache folder size. You can locate the Camera Raw Cache folder on any drive, but I suggest leaving it at the default system drive location (SSD). How much free space do you have on the system drive?

Report · Sep 24, 2017

Still - the basic fact remains: these problems, exactly as described here! began long before anyone knew what a 5K display was.

This happened, and still happens, to people with a single 1920 x 1080 screen, as much as to people with dual 2560 x 1440 screens, or lately 4K and 5K.

My own personal theory, based solely on observed behavior, is that the core problem is reading from / writing to caches. Of course, if it was that simple it would have been fixed long ago.

Report · Sep 24, 2017

https://forums.adobe.com/people/D+Fosse wrote
Still - the basic fact remains: these problems, exactly as described here! began long before anyone knew what a 5K display was.
This happened, and still happens, to people with a single 1920 x 1080 screen, as much as to people with dual 2560 x 1440 screens, or lately 4K and 5K.

Yes, I have a fellow photographer friend who is experiencing similar issues on a smaller screen - when he didn't have any ideas is when I started this thread.

tshraner: thank you for those suggestions. I'll work through them and report back - might take a day or so, though.

Report · Sep 24, 2017

Hi Op, not sure if I can offer any comfort but I’ve had my retina iMac since they first came out, I too have the i5 but I added an additional 8gig of RAM.

I bought LR five immediately after getting the iMac and to be honest it’s performance was very poor with lags common. LR 6 improved it a lot in the develop module but still lags from time to time.

ive learned that the best workflow for me is to crop, then basic panel, then adjustment, then colour, detail and finally lens corrections. The latter seems to have the biggest impact on speed of further adjustment, hence I do it last.

personally I think this is an Adobe thing rather than Apple thing because other programs run no problem.

I tried Corels Raw processor and it was lightning fast ( if poor in other areas!) but other newer photo editors such as ON1 RAW processor, Luminar, Afinity etc all claim to be very fast on MAC. I also tried Capture One Pro and it was ok too ( but twice the price of LR).

i suggest you can download and try some of the other editors, not with a view to replacing LR (yet!) but to check the speed of those programs and see if they lag too. If not then it’s definitly Adobe that need to get their. Finger out and bring LR up to speed with the competition.

i love LR but it’s no longer the only kid on the block, and if LR7 appears and is not much better than LR 6 I’ll personally be looking for a replacement. Hope you get it sorted, be interested in your findings if you do it.

Report · Sep 24, 2017

Steveatesh wrote
ive learned that the best workflow for me is to crop, then basic panel, then adjustment, then colour, detail and finally lens corrections. The latter seems to have the biggest impact on speed of further adjustment, hence I do it last.

That does make sense, based on what I've seen. My problem would be that my crooked frames and periodic lens distortion are so distracting to me that it is the first thing I deal with with an image. 🙂 One obvious solution would be to make straight photographs to begin with, I suppose! For some reason I feel the need to rotate nearly every frame by at least a tiny bit. (Interestingly, I do not straighten my photos nearly as much when I shoot with a borrowed 5D Mark III, but that's a different thread altogether.)