This conversation has been locked.

Experiencing performance related issues in Lightroom 3.x

New Here ,
Jun 09, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi

I just upgraded from lightroom 2.7 to lightroom 3. I then proceeded to import my old catalog. this all went fine but lightroom is so slow, the thumbnail previews take forever to load if I manage to have the patience to wait  for them.

is there a quick solution?? How can it be sped up?

thanks

Laurence

Message title was edited by: Brett N

FYI, I need to lock this thread and start a new thread because I fear that customers will attempt to share valuable feedback in this discussion and it has become extremely difficult for the Lightroom team to follow the lengthy and increasingly chatty conversation.  Please use the following forum topic to discuss the specifics of your feedback on Lightroom 3.3.

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/760245?tstart=0

Regards,

Tom Hogarty

Lightroom Product Manager

Views

256.2K

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 12, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Before committing to purchase the full version of Lightroom 3 I have tried the trial version. Currently I have a  dual core E6600 @ 2.4GHz and 4G Ram with Windows 7 32 bit.

I have a Canon 5D2 DSLR and generally shoot raw files. I find that switching between images takes around 16-20 seconds with raw files and about 4 seconds with jpg files. General operation can best be describes as sluggish. I created  a new catalogue with only about 100 images in it. Memory usage only goes up from 1.2Gb to 1.6Gb when Lightroom is started so from what I can see memory is not an Issue. Both CPU cores on the other hand run flat out.

Switching from the default 2010 process profile back to the old 2003 profile seems to make an enormous performance difference. Raw files seem to open about 4 times faster.

I got so frustrated with the slow performance that  I have tried installing Windows7 64 bit onto a spare drive and only loaded Lightroom 3 - about as clean and uncluttered OS as possible. I was disappointed to see that there was no noticeable difference in performance.

I also did a Windows performance bench mark on both OS's and was a bit surprised to see substantially lower processor and ram bench marks on the 64 bit version given the same hardware.

                       32 bit      64 bit
Processor       5.8          4.4

RAM               5.5          4.8

Graphics         5.9          5.9

Gaming           5.9          5.9

Disk                5.9          5.9

My son has a new(ish)  Mackbook Pro with 2.8GHz dual core processor.  We loaded the Mac version of Lightroom and the same images. The overall experience is much smoother with raw files  loading about twice as fast. Once rendered switching between images was almost instantaneous – a significant difference compared to the Windows version considering similar spec processors.

I'm now starting to think that it may be the time to switch to a Mac. Before committing to a hefty investment in hardware I want to be sure that it will have a significant effect on performance. Does anyone have a real feel how much faster a new quad core 2.8Ghz i7 iMac compared to a dual core 2.8Ghz Mac Book Pro when using Lightroom 3?

Is it realistic, with today’s affordable technology, to expect 20 mega pixel +  raw file images to be rendered and displayed in Lightroom  with the  2010 process profile enabled in  1-2 seconds or do we just have to accept the penalty of slow speed for improved IQ?

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 13, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thanks for taking your time trying to isolate this slow-down - I too am disappointed.

I know in the past the nVidia drivers required special settings for LR2...

When's someone from Adobe going to respond to all of our posts, or does this require a phone-call to tech support?

-David

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 13, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Reading between the posts, tech support looks like a good option for mac users with directory or system issues, some (at least) of which appear to be fixable in the main.

Looks like Windows users have a more hardware-related issue, in which case tech support will do you no good. Assuming, of course, you wouldn't feel better for verbally abusing a complete stranger over something completely beyond his control

What you need in this case is a dot update that fixes some wintel hardware-addressing bug(s) and posting here is as good a place as any to shout for one.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 13, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Martin Ingle wrote:

Before committing to a hefty investment in hardware I want to be sure that it will have a significant effect on performance. Does anyone have a real feel how much faster a new quad core 2.8Ghz i7 iMac compared to a dual core 2.8Ghz Mac Book Pro when using Lightroom 3?

Is it realistic, with today’s affordable technology, to expect 20 mega pixel +  raw file images to be rendered and displayed in Lightroom  with the  2010 process profile enabled in  1-2 seconds or do we just have to accept the penalty of slow speed for improved IQ?

I don't have a MacBook as new as that, nor an iMac as highly specced, but I will say LR2 on my 2008 MBP was a nodding donkey compared to my shiny new i5 quad-core iMac. Huge improvement in performance.

It's also worth stating for the record that LR3 is zippier than LR2 for me, in almost every respect, the more I use it. Makes sense, as lots of re-rendering and re-profiling is is chugging away – something to bear in mind in general: LR relies on a vast cache of meta-info to work swiftly and if you ain't already built that up, it might drag for a while at first.

I'd stick my neck out and say you'd find the same thing with an i7 iMac (I've seen LR2 running a similar sized catalog on an i7 iMac and it was no faster.. he said with misty green eyes..) as long as you fresh install LR3 on a virgin OS 10.6. Let your previews render for as long as it takes and you should have no complaints. 1-2 seconds is what it takes mine to load a 12MP RAW file; a 75meg comp I just loaded up took around 15secs to deliver a 1:1 preview. Size is everything, of course... and the wait is directly proportional.

Maybe it's worth hearing from people with either no problems or positive feedback here, along with system spec and history, so we can get a gauge on what's working, as well as what sucks

Mine's a month-old 27" quad-core i5 iMac, 4Gb (standard) RAM, main catalog 40k images. Although I ran the second beta for 2 weeks, following advice gleaned here I ditched my LR3b2 cats and upgraded direct from LR2.7 to LR3. Sweet as a nut, touch wood...

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Beginner ,
Jun 16, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

There seem to be just as many reports here that LR3 has problems with Mac as there are for windows, so you could just be having good luck with the mac laptop and bad luck with the windows. If you want a new machine it may be better to stick to windoiws and get a faster processor/more memory and hence better performance for the same cost.

"Is it realistic, with today’s affordable technology, to expect 20 mega  pixel +  raw file images to be rendered and  displayed in Lightroom  with the  2010  process profile enabled in  1-2 seconds or do we  just have to accept the penalty of slow speed for improved IQ?"

I think it is. On my 3 year old Dell desktop it takes 3-5 seconds on 5D2 RAW files depending on how many previews of other files it's generating simultaneously. I imagine on a brand new computer with more RAM, faster drives and CPUs but still under £1000 you'd get it to <2 secs per image.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 16, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

mei! wrote:

There seem to be just as many reports here that LR3 has problems with Mac as there are for windows

Am I misreading that or did you mis-type it? There are as many reports that LR3 has NO problems with Mac as there are for Windows, but a cursory headcount for those reporting big problems shows sthg like a 15-3 Win64 to MacOS scoreboard.

It may be there is a common bug for both, but it's hitting Windows users much harder AFAICS.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Beginner ,
Jun 19, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I was replying to Martin Ingle when he said

"I'm now starting to think that it may be the time to switch to a Mac. Before committing to a hefty investment in hardware I want to be sure that it will have a significant effect on performance."

but I must have hit the wrong button because my reply didn't include the quote.

Anyway, you're not misreading and I didn't mis-type.

There are lots of problems with the Mac version too. Here are 5 threads on the front page of this forum alone with Mac users complainging they have problems:

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/662617

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/663504

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/661551

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/663167

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/663452

And there are people on thsi thread using Macs complaining of problems.

There's no scoreboard because this isn't a competition. I haven't counted every thread to see which platform currently has more people complaining of problems, but that doesn't really matter. My point is there are plenty of problems on the mac side, and you could easily be one of the unlucky Mac users who has them if you switch platforms.

For the record I have a Windows desktop and Mac laptop and I like them both! I'm not arguing for one over the other.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 19, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

mei! wrote:

I was replying to Martin Ingle when he said

"I'm now starting to think that it may be the time to switch to a Mac. Before committing to a hefty investment in hardware I want to be sure that it will have a significant effect on performance."

but I must have hit the wrong button because my reply didn't include the quote.

Anyway, you're not misreading and I didn't mis-type.

There are lots of problems with the Mac version too. Here are 5 threads on the front page of this forum alone with Mac users complainging they have problems:

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/662617

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/663504

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/661551

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/663167

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/663452

And there are people on thsi thread using Macs complaining of problems.

There's no scoreboard because this isn't a competition. I haven't counted every thread to see which platform currently has more people complaining of problems, but that doesn't really matter. My point is there are plenty of problems on the mac side, and you could easily be one of the unlucky Mac users who has them if you switch platforms.

For the record I have a Windows desktop and Mac laptop and I like them both! I'm not arguing for one over the other.


Changing from PC to Mac or  investing in faster PC hardware does not look like a guaranteed solution to getting usable workflow. I have now come to the conclusion that one just has to be patient and wait until Adobe resolves the issues.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 20, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Martin Ingle wrote:


I have a Canon 5D2 DSLR and generally shoot raw files. I find that switching between images takes around 16-20 seconds with raw files and about 4 seconds with jpg files. General operation can best be describes as sluggish. I created  a new catalogue with only about 100 images in it. Memory usage only goes up from 1.2Gb to 1.6Gb when Lightroom is started so from what I can see memory is not an Issue. Both CPU cores on the other hand run flat out.

Switching from the default 2010 process profile back to the old 2003 profile seems to make an enormous performance difference. Raw files seem to open about 4 times faster.

...

Is it realistic, with today’s affordable technology, to expect 20 mega pixel +  raw file images to be rendered and displayed in Lightroom  with the  2010 process profile enabled in  1-2 seconds or do we just have to accept the penalty of slow speed for improved IQ?

What helped me to bring down the time until an image  (RAW+JPEG from EOS 5D Mark II) is displayed sharply to about 2-3 seconds was setting the import preview options to "embedded + filial files" (option translated freely from german; I am not sure what "filal files" means but I guess it is the accompanying JPEG file). The "Data is loading..." message is displayed for 5-10 seconds. I didn't observe any difference between browsing in the library or the development module.

My system specification:

  2x 2.53 GHz Intel Xeon E5540 processor (8 real cores + 8 hyperthreading cores)

  12 GB RAM

  Windows 7 professional 64bit

You might think that this sounds like a '"no" to Martin's "Is it realistic..." question if it even takes 2-3 seconds on such a high-end machine. But I don't think that the number of CPU cores or a very high amount of RAM is of much importance here. Actually I think that it currently is just a waste of money concerning LR3 because it doesn't make much use of the extra power. Overall CPU usage while hurrying (haha, at 2-3 seconds per image...) through a large number of pictures is about 10-15% and observing every single CPU core rarely 50% is exceeded at 1 out of 16. RAM usage by LR3 usually is something between 1.5 to 2.5 GB.

The bottleneck rather seems to be file reading speed.To read a 10 MB JPEG file within a second you would obviously need to read 10 MB per second. And to read a 30 MB RAW file you would need a rate of 30 MB per second. Switching to an image that is in the cache (20 GB) is almost instantaneous on my system. When I compare the disk read rate in the Windows resource monitor it is about ten times higher for reading the cache than for reading from uncached files. And the rate for prereading images is even much slower. So you need a long break until the about 10-15 images are preread. (I couldn't determine the exact number of preread files. The number was at least increased compared to the first beta release.)

My impression is that this was deliberatly designed this way in order not to block the system on single or dual CPU core systems.

But unfortunately the strategy doesn't seem to get adapted on middle or high-end machines to use the extra power available.

So I think there is plenty of room for performance improvements on more powerful systems if a modified strategy would be applied.

Especially I would wish for the following changes there:

1)  better CPU usage and file read rate

2) faster image preareading

3) even higher number of prearead images, maybe configurable (if no adjustments must be made performance drops very fast otherwise, especially with the very low preread speed)

Finally I would like to say that "slowness" is quite relative, depending on the individual requirements and expectations. Rob Cole said that LR3 works ok on his system. On the other hand, if I remember correctly, he said (on another thread) that a middle-sized RAW images need 3-4 seconds to render. So for him this is ok. But for me this is much to slow because I usually have several hundreds or even thousands of pictures from an event which I have to screen, select  and adjust if necessary. And it is obviously possible to reach my speed requirements with 20 Megapixel RAW images. I tested Bibble5 on my system and I could rush through several hundred images and each was displayed almost instantaneously. Unfortunately for me (not Adobe) it has several other disadvantages so I wouldn't really use it.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Contributor ,
Aug 02, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Martin Ingle wrote:

I'm now starting to think that it may be the time to switch to a Mac. Before committing to a hefty investment in hardware I want to be sure that it will have a significant effect on performance.

Buying Mac may or may not help you. There are also a lot of Mac users with performance issues. The (high) specs. of a system are unfortunately no indicator as to well LR3 will run. There are small machines which run it just fine and high speced ones on which it comes to a crawl. I believe you'll find this on both Mac and PC worlds, so you need be cautious.

Martin Ingle wrote:

Is it realistic, with today’s affordable technology, to expect 20 mega pixel +  raw file images to be rendered and displayed in Lightroom  with the  2010 process profile enabled in  1-2 seconds or do we just have to accept the penalty of slow speed for improved IQ?

I cannot answer the question for Lightroom but check out the speed of Bibble 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2uH_NPnbgM). I don't like its interface as much as LR's but if speed were my main concern, there'd be no question.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Aug 03, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

TK2142 wrote:

I cannot answer the question for Lightroom but check out the speed of Bibble 5

Bibble needs a "plug in" of a licenced version of Noise Ninja before it will deliver NR that's remotely comparable to what Lr 3 can do natively with the 2010 processing, and - believe me - with Noise Ninja activated, conversions in Bibble 5 are waaay slower than in Lr 3.

And don't run away with the idea that everything else is all sweeteness and light in Bibble world: http://support.bibblelabs.com/forums/search.php?search_id=active_topics&sid=da5adaeeaeb3b4d12baf8cc8...

Crashes, painful slowness, IQ issues - not much different to here, really...

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Contributor ,
Aug 03, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Keith_Reeder wrote:

And don't run away with the idea that everything else is all sweeteness and light in Bibble world: http://support.bibblelabs.com/forums/search.php?search_id=active_topic s&sid=da5adaeeaeb3b4d12baf8cc...

Crashes, painful slowness, IQ issues - not much different to here, really...

The "slowness" thread you provided a link to is about *one* user reporting a problem of which he isn't sure of whether his own machine causes it ("Ah yes, there is some kind of odd/freakish IO problem on my computer, that appears to be related to 64bit kernels.").

I'm not arguing that Bibble is a superiour product in each and every aspect. I love the IQ from LR (ACR) and love LR's UI. The ACR component of LR is world-class. Not all of the rest is (yet). For instance, I understand that even those who do not have performance problems experience stuttery graduated filter and spot removal cursors that move slightly jerkily even if you don't apply them. I'm perplexed as to why these cursors still do not move as smoothly as the adjustment brush cursor; why no one cared to fix that since LR2. x.

Some of the LR slowness is related to the new process version (and I for one would be more than happy to accept a performance penalty for the improved IQ) but most of it is not.

If I had no attachment to LR, I wouldn't spend some of my time on this forum. My main point was that with today's hardware it is possible to program very responsive user interfaces.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 13, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I'd like to add my vote to the OP. LR3 is unbearably slow - and I am comparing to performance of LR 2.7.

The thing that annoys me is slow response of the interface in Real Time mode - for example browsing through photos in Develop Module takes about 15 seconds. The pop-up "Loading" comes up, the circle on the left is spinning and I am left waiting. It goes away after 15 seconds. I could live  with longer response time of tasks that happen in the background - such as import/export or thumbnail building. But having to wait 15 seconds every time I move to a new image is really unacceptable, especially if the previous version worked fine.

Such tasks as paintbrushing are also much slower than LR 2.7.

RAM does not seem to be an issue - LR is taking 700Mb (combined physical and vm) and I have about 800mb of physical ram available.

My system stats:

Panasonic Toughbook W7

Windows XP, SP3

Intel Core Duo U7500 @ 1.06Ghz

2 Gig ram

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Beginner ,
Jun 13, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

This lightroom version is a strange beast.

I've reported my problem here :

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/659033?tstart=0

In short ... most things work fast enough for me, some of them I feel faster, others maybe slightly slower. I'd say lightroom is now ... not faster, not slower, just differently balanced.

Except the print module, that is noticeably slower when browsing SOME templates and applying them.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Contributor ,
Jun 13, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Working with LR3.0 was slow, not working form me. Have been experimenting with it to speed it up. Loading sometimes "hangs" I noticed by accident that when I moved my cursor (wacom) down to the main screen with the windows taskbar (which I had on automatically hide) and went back up things seemed to speed up. I changed the taskbar behaviour from "automatically hide" to always on the foreground (I am using the classical windows theme) and that definitively speeded up things for me. Loading is still slow, but that might have to do with the older computer I am using, but slider response is definitively better!

Give it a try!

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
Jun 13, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi

I did a quick test  now and if I change the Camera Calibration back to 2003 I got back almost the same response as with LR2.7 moving the exposure slider back and forth, that means it changes along with the slider. Setting it to 2010(current) I have to wait up to a second for each time I change it for the image to change.

So at the moment I will set it back to 2003 and work with that and use 2010 only if I need it.

- Terje

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Contributor ,
Jun 13, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

well... I think 2010 is the way to go for IQ!

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Beginner ,
Jun 13, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I just upgraded to LR3 and decided to start a new catalog from scratch. After importing less than 1000 photos, the performance is almost unusable! I have rebooted, optimized the catalog, defragged the HDD, restarted LR3, rebooted, and checked all the settings suggested by others.

In case anyone's wondering, my PC is a new Intel Core i7 running at 4 GHz, 12 GB DDR3 memory, RAID (Striped) HDD setup, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480, and dual monitors (only using one for LR3). Nothing much else is running, and most apps are lightning fast (including Photoshop).

LR3 stalls every time I go to one of the new folders that I imported pictures into, and when I try to import new photos, it takes quite some time. I can't believe it's anything but the program that is responsible for the sluggish (and that's being kind) performance. Here is a screen shot that I had plenty of time to take while the program is generating previews (there are about 200 images in this folder), so you can see I'm not kidding.

LR3 Screen Capture.JPG

Any ideas, folks?

Thanks.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
Jun 13, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I am not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but it might help out those having speed issues.

Try checking your Catalog Settings and turn OFF the "Automatically write changes into XMP". I have turned if off since version Lr1, so I don't know what the default settings are.

catalog settings.PNG

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Participant ,
Jun 15, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Digit_eyes wrote:

I am not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but it might help out those having speed issues.

Try checking your Catalog Settings and turn OFF the "Automatically write changes into XMP". I have turned if off since version Lr1, so I don't know what the default settings are.

I'd have to seriously advise against this. Any catalogue corruption and you lose all your work. It also means Br cannot read any LR changes if you use both. Yes you can backup your catalogue, but recreating work done since last backup can be very difficult, if doing anything creative and I've also had issues with backups being flakey. Writing to XMP used to be a problem until LR1.4 IIRC, but has been much faster since then. Also if you are backing up your HDs, then updating a few text files like XMP is faster and safer than backing up big catalogues as your image data is with your images not elsewhere.

I do not use Virtual copies for the same reason as they are not saved in metadata. I use snapshots instead - which are actually much more useful for my workflow into Photoshop when using smart objects. But no indication of Snaphots being present in Library or in Br is a tad annoying as they are hidden.

In many ways it's easier and less complicated to not have to worry about catalogues when moving and re-arranging files.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Advocate ,
Jun 15, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I don't use the auto write to metadata setting either .... but I do write it out manually ... after a work session in a folder of images, I select all the images in that folder and save the metadata before leaving the folder .... if I forget to do this I will select all images and save metadata while working on something else ....

On slower systems, the performance hit from auto write can be significant. Just have to be responsible and remember to update your XMP ....

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Participant ,
Jun 15, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Butch_M wrote:

On slower systems, the performance hit from auto write can be significant. Just have to be responsible and remember to update your XMP ....

Which is very easy to forget! Plus if you have issues mid session, you're stuffed. I'd take a bit slower over time wasted having to redo work, if you can even remember what you did in first place.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Advocate ,
Jun 15, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

It's a matter of training .... like much of what we do ... you teach yourself to work in a fashion that is appropriate for the task at hand and our individual needs and expectations ...

Catastrophe of any kind can hit without warning ... using a keyboard shortcut for "Select All" and "Write metadata to file" before leaving a folder is a small price to pay for the increase in performance ...

No different than your lack of appreciation for Virtual copies ... to some folks they are quite important ....

Taking your time is quite a luxury for some ... for me, performance is of greater importance because much of my work is deadline based for publication that is measured in minutes quite often to meet my obligations to my clients. A pair of keyboard shortcuts at the end of a session is a small price to pay and has been a part of my workflow since the introduction of LR ... without issue ....

No method is perfect or completely failsafe ... we all choose our own path and find a way that fits our own criteria ...

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Participant ,
Jun 15, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Butch_M wrote:

Catastrophe of any kind can hit without warning ... using a keyboard shortcut for "Select All" and "Write metadata to file" before leaving a folder is a small price to pay for the increase in performance ...

And if things go wrong mid session [happened to me on several occasions], then you cannot save your work. And it's way too easy to forget to do so, particularly under pressure, when tired or if interrupted.

No different than your lack of appreciation for Virtual copies ... to some folks they are quite important ....

I do not lack appreciation for VCs. I just won't use them again until I can save them in metadata, just I can with snapshots. I lost a lot of VCs when a catalogue went squiffy and back ups can only be done so often, without eating into your time.

Taking your time is quite a luxury for some ... for me, performance is of greater importance because much of my work is deadline based for publication that is measured in minutes quite often to meet my obligations to my clients. A pair of keyboard shortcuts at the end of a session is a small price to pay and has been a part of my workflow since the introduction of LR ... without issue ....

Who said I like to take my time? I often have to work under time constraints and I am not keen on sluggish software either.

No method is perfect or completely failsafe ... we all choose our own path and find a way that fits our own criteria ...

And yet I've found saving to XMP saves time overall. Compared to time lost through not doing so.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Adobe Community Professional ,
Jun 15, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

imajez wrote:

No different than your lack of appreciation for Virtual copies ... to some folks they are quite important ....

I do not lack appreciation for VCs. I just won't use them again until I can save them in metadata, just I can with snapshots. I lost a lot of VCs when a catalogue went squiffy and back ups can only be done so often, without eating into your time.


Look up a plug-in called Snapshotter.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Advocate ,
Jun 15, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

imajez wrote:

I lost a lot of VCs when a catalogue went squiffy and back ups can only be done so often, without eating into your time.

Like I said ... there is no perfect failsafe .... for me ... the auto write to XMP does eat into my time ....

I fell off my bicycle once and broke my arm ... should I have never taken the training wheels off? Or should I have learned to ride better and more safely? I chose to do the latter. All with the knowledge that someday, it would be possible to experience another fall ... but trusted my ability to become a better rider.

I don't disagree with your opinion ... I only choose to reach my goal in a different manner and have the tolerance to accept your viewpoint ... for you it works ... but even using your method is no guarantee that all will end well if calamity strikes ...

I never said you were wrong ... I simply choose a different avenue to travel to the same end result and trust myself to be diligent in my workflow ... I don't feel my choice of implementation is wrong .... just different ...

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Participant ,
Jun 15, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

johnbeardy wrote:

Look up a plug-in called Snapshotter.

Downloaded and installed. Potentially useful new plugin. Thanks John.

Wondering about how or whether to incorporate it it into my workflow.

Minimising errors or loss of work is my main goal.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Participant ,
Jun 15, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Butch_M wrote:

I never said you were wrong ... I simply choose a different avenue to travel to the same end result and trust myself to be diligent in my workflow ... I don't feel my choice of implementation is wrong .... just different ...

Likewise.

But I feel your method is far more risky and why I do not use it and I would have lost work on more than one occasion if I had used your methodology, due to crashes, power failures etc.You have to be extremely diligent and never ever make mistakes/forget or let any outside factors come into play. Being human and using software designed by other flawed humans, I choose auto save!  And I always recommend against manual saving to other humans as well.

Not to mention that I also use Br, so it would be even more of a faff and would more likely lead to more mistakes and time lost..

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 16, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Oh man, I am building a similar pc right now for LR3.  I was looking forward to this, a new machine and LR3.  Guess I am going to stick with 2.7.

I did not get a warm and fuzzy feeling from the development phase that they (Adobe) was on top of the performance improvements that photographers expected.  A 4ghz i7 with 12gb of ram should slice through raws like butter.

Where's Abobe?  Why have they not said anything?  "Hello, we are working on it" would go a long way, geesh.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Jun 16, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

J.Simono wrote:

Where's Abobe?  Why have they not said anything?  "Hello, we are working on it" would go a long way, geesh.

Although I agree that a better system of communication in the direction of "Adobe -> Users" would be a good thing. If you read around a little more you'll see that Adobe is aware of most of the performance problems and is actively working on them.

Rob

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Participant ,
Jun 16, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

For what it's worth:

I have an i5-750 Windows PC with a nVidia GeForce 250 GTS graphics card installed. The OS is Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit and RAM is 4 GB. My 12 mp RAW files from Panasonic GH1 render almost instantaneously. LR3 performs better than LR2 in my case.

I guess there are many factors which you need to consider. In my case, I have only the default Microsoft drivers (WDDM v 1.1) installed, no special stuff downloaded from nVidia.

With my previous Intel E 6600 PC with Windows 7 32-bit and 2 GB RAM, I discovered sometime after purchase, that this machine had some drawbacks. While some components where pretty good speced (Graphics Card, CPU) some reviews noted that the mainboard wasn't so great (the vendor apparently saved on that), having certain throughput bottlenecks, from which especially disc access and other speed related stuff suffered.

So, even if someone claims to have a well speced machine, chances are, that not all components where so well selected by the manufacturer (especially the one, which you cannot advertise with shiny numbers) and unfortunately one bottleneck could slow the things down enough. Adobe does not have influence on many of these parameters.

I have to admit, that I do not have 20+ mpx raw files at hand, but I would expect that image rendering would only slow down relatively.

Kind regards

Thomas

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
Jun 16, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Picture 1.png

Rob,

Would you kindly send a link relating to this thread or any thread about LR 3's slowness that an Adobe employee has said anything and actively working on them.  Apparently, this thread has continued so long, and I might have missed it.

Arnel

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Jun 16, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

arnelg,

Becky Sowada (+becs), Melissa Gaul (MelissaJ.G), and Julie Kmoch are the responders that I can think of off the top of my head.

If you look you'll find them, albeit very "sparingly".

Try advanced search.

PS - If you use the quote tool it'll save you from having to take png shots.

Rob

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Participant ,
Jun 19, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

areohbee wrote:

arnelg,

Becky Sowada (+becs), Melissa Gaul (MelissaJ.G), and Julie Kmoch are the responders that I can think of off the top of my head.

If you look you'll find them, albeit very "sparingly".

Yet if Adobe engineers answered every post on the forums, people would then complain that they weren't spending time fixing LR

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
Jun 19, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

24" Imac, 2.66gz Intel Core 2 Duo with 4GB RAM, OS 10.5.7. No Internet security software running.  Upgraded to LR 3 from last version of Lightroom 2.

LR3 is miserable on my system, even with all other programs closed. RAM regularly maxes out and the system becomes unresponsive. The program is useless to me. The minimum spec is supposed to be 2 GB of RAM, but that seems ridiculous considering the awful performance I am getting on a relatively recent machine with 4GB of RAM.  Will more RAM solve my problem with my equipment? If so, it would have been nice to know this before buying the upgrade. I might not have bought it, or is that exactly what Adobe was thinking?

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Advocate ,
Jun 19, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

2010DME wrote:

Will more RAM solve my problem with my equipment? If so, it would have been nice to know this before buying the upgrade. I might not have bought it, or is that exactly what Adobe was thinking?

No, I really don't think it is a RAM issue ... I use a 24" iMac 2.16 Ghz Core2Duo with only 3MB RAM (that's the max it can recognize) and have no issues with LR3 ... it seems it has been quite tricky to find the source of the problem.

Try running repair permissions on your startup drive, expanding the Camera Raw Cache in LR3 preferences, optimize your catalog and finally run a new calibration for your monitor to create a new monitor profile.

Some of these steps have helped some users ... and not helped others.

If you run these steps ... be sure to report back your results so the LR Team is aware ....

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 20, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

2.4 GHz imac

10.5.8

300G HDD

3G ram.

I eventually got it running in 32 bit (64 bit crashes my machine and so does 2.7 when run in 64 bit- other thread on this forum).

However, I also find it painfully slow - about 2 sec to load an image & sometimes I have had to exit and come back in for it to load a particular catalogue.

How can I meter cpu usage - I gather there is a display but I am not sure where.

However, I find that stacks work better here than in 2.7 (a minor point - they never worked well in 2.7)

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Engaged ,
Jun 20, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I finally gave in and completely regenerated the standard previews after first deleting everything in the LR3  previews folder. It took close to 10 hours to generate the previews and I optimized the catalog lastly. It was worth the time spent.  LR3 now performs at close to the speed of LR2 (no speedster itself).

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Enthusiast ,
Jun 21, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I have decided that if your machine is slow, it is going to be slow.  Adobe will advise you to purge the cache, update your video driver, put your cache on a different hard drive, and a bunch of other ideas.  I am running Lightroom on two different computers, similar specifications.  On one computer I experience similar lag as has been described here.  On the other, changes are almost instantaneous.  Adobe doesn't seem to have any real solutions.

Windows XP
4 GB RAM
3 GHz processor
Same Video Driver

I have tried all of the suggestions.  I even increased the size of my cache.  No difference.  One machine is slow, the other isn't.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Beginner ,
Jun 13, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

There is a lot of arguing over samantics but the truth is LR 3 is wicked slow and has too many bugs for my tatse. Saying that you get better IQ doesn't make sense to me either. At what point is the IQ better? I found that after applying a preset or any adjustment for that matter the preview goes soft and it takes zooming in then out to get a crisp view again.

I run relatively small catalogs too, I have one for each event so I'm usually under 2000 images per catalog.

iMac 3.33ghz - 12GB RAM - snow leopard

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Jun 13, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

BSC_PHOTO wrote:

There is a lot of arguing over samantics but the truth is LR 3 is wicked slow and has too many bugs for my tatse.


- Lightroom 3.0 has plenty of bugs to be sure. But a lot of the slowness is due to the bugs. When Lightroom 3 is working properly, and for some people it is, Lightroom 3 is, in general, a little peppier than Lightroom 2 was.

BSC_PHOTO wrote:

Saying that you get better IQ doesn't make sense to me either.

- Compare to Bibble 5.1, DxO 6, CaptureOnePro5, NX2, and Aperture 3.

BSC_PHOTO wrote:

I found that after applying a preset or any adjustment for that matter the preview goes soft and it takes zooming in then out to get a crisp view again.

- Thats a bug. Adjustments are quick for me on a modest win7/64 machine.

Rob

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Beginner ,
Jun 13, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

"- Compare to Bibble 5.1, DxO 6, CaptureOnePro5, NX2, and Aperture 3."

Never used them. I thought "better IQ" meant better than LR2

How do some of us have bugs and other don't? I never got that.

I do find that images from my lower megapixel cameras render at normal speeds while my larger MP images used to render an "normal" speeds.

It is just frustrating.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Jun 13, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

BSC_PHOTO wrote:

"- Compare to Bibble 5.1, DxO 6, CaptureOnePro5, NX2, and Aperture 3."

Never used them. I thought "better IQ" meant better than LR2


- I should have said "Compare to Bibble 5.1, DxO 6, CaptureOnePro5, NX2, Aperture 3, and Lightroom 2" .

BSC_PHOTO wrote:

How do some of us have bugs and other don't? I never got that.

- If its any consolation - Adobe is struggling with the very same question.

BSC_PHOTO wrote:

It is just frustrating.

- Indeed.

Rob

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 13, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Everyone - Wonder if it has something to do with NVIDIA driver configuration - For what it's worth - Here's my configuration -

Dell XPS 630 Quad Core Q9550, Windows 7, 64-bit Home Premium, two NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT cards running in SLI configuration. Running latest drivers from NVIDIA website.  8GB RAM  5.9 User experience.  Two 500GB 7200 RPM drives in RAID 0 configuration.

Also confirmed disk has 0 fragmentation, running Kaspersky 2010 Internet sercurity (LR3 runs just as slow with this disabled)

I'll give Adobe a call tomorrow and see if talking to someone on the phone generates an answer - If they figure it out, I'll post here!

-David

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
Aug 04, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Please, I'm not starting the OS argument - I use and like both, different roles. .  It has been my experience that due to the variations in the equipment of the Windows machines  (Including my own builds) the results differ.  The Macs are store bought and so pretty much the same (within the Chinese tolerance limits).

My point is  >> could the "bugs" be resulting from the equipment?  .. if stupid question please forgive. I am an intermediate LR user since 1.0 but have not had the experiences or experience of most of you on line.  3 has provided me with a better experience and have seen little difference in speed oralthough definitely more memory usage.   iMac 3.06 Ghz, 4 G Ram 1067 Mhz.  iPad 32G as Tutorial and Guide monitor. (and tethered image viewer some of the time).

Ed

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report