Experiencing performance related issues in Lightroom 3.x

[laurencec]

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

[Keith Reeder]

ChBr02 wrote:

David, If you have no problems with LR 3.3, then why would you even be looking in this thread?

Same reason as many of us who have had similar experiences to David's - for many of us Lr is not slow.

The thread is called "Why is Lightroom 3 so slow??" not "Why is Lightroom 3 so slow?? - Only post if you've got something to whinge about" and we've as much right to say we don't find it slow as you have to say that you do: and - hell-bent as some people seem to be on denying the logic of this - the fact that for some of us Lr fairly scoots along on relatively modest kit (like my "mere" 6 gb Win 7 box) really does underline the likelihood that it isn't Lr per se that's the problem.

There's simply no other way logically to interpret this: if Lr works well on my machine but works poorly on yours, Lr isn't the main issue.

God, it's like Groundhog Day on here...

[Guest]

Keith - that is part of the problem everyone is trying to figure out - why does LR3 work well for some and lousy for others. as MANY of us have posted - we have the SAME EXACT HARDWARE setup from 2.7 to 3.3 with VASTLY different results. If the only thing changing is the software then Lightroom IS the problem to be diagnosed...

If it is so offending then unsubscribe from the forum.

David - you clearly don't get the issue confronting those of us posting here.

LR 2.7 did everything we needed it to. The Beta was wonderful, and the ads for 3.0 certainly made it appear it would continue to be a set in the right direction. Your solution is for us to now go but other software? Hardly a reasonable one when 2.7 was great and we had every expectation that the new version would be an improvement.

If both of you are happy with the way it's running, then that is great but you are not at all helping discover why others are having legitimate issues.

If it's like groundhog day then why are you bothering to come back?

[Tom Hogarty · Accepted solution]

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

[Guest]

Tom Hogarty wrote:

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

Thank you Tom!  Since 3.2 was not working I'm reluctant to download and use the 3.3 RC as I can't afford to have the program run any worse for me. Any word when final 3.3 will be forthcoming. I'd love to participate in a thread talking about 3.3 when it's released to the public.

[ChBr02]

Tom,

Have I missed the announcement that LR3.3 is available?  How can we comment on 3.3 if it is not available?

Just checked my LR3.2 (64-bit) for updates and it said that I had the latest version.

[Odin1]

3.3 is a release candidate and it works fine for me!

[JayS_In_CT]

Tom Hogarty wrote:

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

Tom,

Thank you and makes sense.  That said, there is (scattered amongst the weeds), a lot of pertinent data.  I know the thread is a mess, but there are posts that did carry significant data with them.  Hopefully the team can ferret them out.

Jay S.

[bob frost]

ChBr02 wrote:

David, If you have no problems with LR 3.3, then why would you even be looking in this thread?

...............................

I have no serious problems with LR3.3, but I look at some threads because I find the content 'educational', and I sometimes know the answer to problems - either because I've had the same problem and solved it, or because I've been using LR since version 1 and know quite a bit about it by now. No expert, but competent. I don't read all threads because there aren't enough hours in the day!

Bob Frost

[Odin1]

I dont remember saying "I was a good photographer" tell me when I made that

statement please? Neither having re read what I said do I feel it or I deserves

being described as narcissistic and I dont think "rant" is justified either.

Anyway, if you think LR3 is a failure then ask for a refund, a product has to be

of merchantable value if not and if Adobe have misdescribed it then that is a

criminal offence and the sale of goods act is or should be on your side.

Self aggrandisement, not aware of how you could accuse me of that just because I

put my point of view, is that what free speech is supposed to encourage, I wasnt

aware that I made any deliberate objective personal slurs on any individual but

if you feel disgruntled it maybe because some of what I have said could apply to

you as an individual only you can answer that one.

If Adobe have slipped up then they deserve the consequences which is a fall off

in sales and long time customers jumping ship, If I was as unhappy as you appear

to be then I would have made my point clear and found another alternative. The

question is and it is very simple, does LR3 in its current form meet your

desired objectives or your perceived objectives, you could of course be

expecting more than could be achieved for what is a mass market product designed

to suit a vast variety of users and it is of course very cheap by comparison, if

you need more than it offers then get your wallet out and buy an alternative

solution that does meet your needs otherwise you will unfortunately fall into

the category of individuals who prefers to whinge that take action and resolve

the issue for your own good. My feeling is that you would prefer to whinge than

accept the fact that LR3 is the most you want to spend but really want more than

it appears to offer.

If your business is dependent on LR3 performing in a specific way and it does

not then do what is right for your business, out with the wallet and buy an

alternative product and Adobe lose a customer which will harm them more than it

harms you. You alone have the opportunity to do what is right for you at this

time and you wont help matters by delaying a decision and effectively making

matters worse.

Use LR or buy an alternative if having a specific working system that meets your

specific needs is an abosolute necessity or if not then have some patience and

give Adobe the time they need to find a solution, it would be daft to assume

they are not.

David Wells

[n781lc]

David, I have been following this thread since the first entry and the complaints are vailid whether you think so or not.  If it is true that the program is not at fault and the machines or users are the problem, Adobe would have been on-line, in the media and screaming in the streets as this one thread has to be a record of negative comment.

BTW, have you ever called Adobe tech help?  Please do and see how you react to the person who repeatedly asks for more information about either you or some other diversion rather than simply focusing on the point.  It is highly unlikely an answer will be provided.  Politically correct has destroyed communications in technical terms and I speak from many years as a professional engineer.  The nationality is not important IF the person has been in this country sufficiently long to communicate even with accent.  The reason is simply bottom line ... pay as little as possible to provide service but charge as much as the market will bear for the product.

and yes, I do like the Adobe products, have used just about since their beginning ...  like people I admire the person,not what they do sometimes.

Suggest you take a deep breath and leave the thread to those who are seeking answers to their problems.

Personal highest regards to the professionals who have posted .. it is a tough vocation in which to excel, but for those who do, it's is a joy to us all.

Ed

[Guest]

n781lc wrote:

David, I have been following this thread since the first entry and the complaints are vailid whether you think so or not.  If it is true that the program is not at fault and the machines or users are the problem, Adobe would have been on-line, in the media and screaming in the streets as this one thread has to be a record of negative comment.

...

Suggest you take a deep breath and leave the thread to those who are seeking answers to their problems.

Personal highest regards to the professionals who have posted .. it is a tough vocation in which to excel, but for those who do, it's is a joy to us all.

Ed

Nobody, including David denies that some users have serious problems with the product. But from all written here, only one conclusion can be made: there is no single point of cause, and the issues might not only be related to the Lightroom code and the product. We simply don't know, and Adobe won't tell every detail. Thus, even if it is clear that they aren't entirely responsible, they would not scream in the media about it.

Why should David leave the thread? He has made some very good comments to the situation. If people can't realize that the issues aren't easy and especially quick to solve, and they continue to rant and whine, then it is justified to point out that it is better so search for alternatives, if business depends on it.

And this thread is not anymore for seeking answers to problems. For that very reason Tom Hogarty has opened a new thread, which will hopefully keep the focus on the performance issue without ranting and with specific reports about what the issues actually are.

Kind regards

Thomas

[Odin1]

Thomas

Noting the length and duration of this particular thread continuing with it

would seem pointless as a way of finding a solution because after many months of

mutual whingeing it didnt happen yet.

If people are still whingeing after so many months then LR not performing in

accord with their desires cannot be that critical, if it then surely those

individuals would have needed to make alternative arrangements or see their

business go bust.

You may have noted that the Adobe product manager said that this particular

thread was going nowhere and would be terminated. Clearly they are aware of the

problem and continued vituperation will not be of any assistance to anyone,

pointless.

Adobe most likely will need to rewrite large chunks of code and they need to be

diligent about that and take their time otherwise just a few months down the

road they will get even more complaints about different bugs and the whole

shooting match will just kick off again.

Logic should intervene at some stage, critical users should take a positive view

of LR, ask a very simple question, is LR performing to the point where it is

usable and meets their immediate need, is the problem manageable, if it isnt

then they must adopt and alternative strategy, that is simple common sense, to

continue kicking at an open door makes no sense.

Having read many of the points made no one involved in this thread has any idea

what the solution, let alone be able to write a detailed assessment of where

exactly the problem lies, is so precisely what is the point of continuing with

it?

Recently I tried using Canon DPP software but gave up because it is so awkward,

LR is easy, you can just open it and work, I dont even bother filing everything

correctly but I can still access whatever I want to when I want to.

As I dont seem to encounter any of the problems mentioned I will just carry on

using it, it meets my need and that is the judgement that all of you guys need

to make, does it meet your need yes/no and if the value judgement is made then

my considered opinion is that for most LR will do that, I cant vouch for

everyone because some people just like to moan.

Someone I spoke with earlier today has just returned from a Caribbean cruise and

said that unfortunately all 3000 people onboard were all British, never again,

because all they did was moan for two weeks solid, even though everything was

absolutely superb, the ship the food and the service, beyond reproach but for

some good is never good enough.

So be it, I'm happy but one last point, where does it say that only those who

sometimes appear to barking mad are the only individuals who are allowed to

indulge in free speech?

[Odin1]

Dont remember saying that users complaints were invalid, what I have said many

times is that if specific individuals must have software that does not display

the faults that they are encountering, that their business needs are paramount

then they have a choice, they can sit and grumble and watch their business go

South or acquire different software that can immediately meet their need.

Adobe I know read all of this stuff because one of their product manages said he

was going to end this thread and start another, as they are aware of individual

concerns I am sure they are looking for a fix however if that means rewriting

large chunks of code without making creating more problems then this will not

happen overnight.

Therefore for those whose business is at risk until Adobe produce a solution

that meets their demand surely acquire some backup software that will meet their

current needs or quit grumbling until a solution is found.

Personally I have no grumbles but then my usage is not mandatory, I can work or

not being retired has it benefits.

Having run many different businesses over 47 years and needing to perform if

something didnt work as it should then it was replaced with something that did

immediately, decisions have to be made.

[GaryRowe-gcvt07]

Guys - this thread was nicely slowed down, often a week or more between small groups of posts, and usually pretty relevant to the heading ... I stayed watching it to 'keep in touch', so to speak. However, this current spate of 'I don't have a problem and you should stop whingeing' is a total waste of everybody's time, especially to a thread that had had such a low rate of posts - it is *you* guys that are wasting so many people's time. Why are you so destructive? What drives you to complain so much about people trying to sort out problems?

Don't bother to reply to this, I'm going to watch the new thread that Tom H. has set up, and hope it will be as informative and relevant as this was before the arrival of the people making exceptionally long posts about how they think others aren't real photographers etc. - what a waste.

Bye

[chall3ng3r]

agree 🙂

// chall3ng3r //

[Odin1]

What do you want me to do say I have a problem when I do not just to appease you

and make you feel all nice and warm inside, get a life!

[Keith Reeder]

GaryRowe wrote:

However, this current spate of 'I don't have a problem and you should stop whingeing' is a total waste of everybody's time, especially to a thread that had had such a low rate of posts - it is *you* guys that are wasting so many people's time. Why are you so destructive? What drives you to complain so much about people trying to sort out problems?

Utter nonsense - and another typical example of misrepresenting what is actually being said.

What is "destructive" is the utterly illogical insistence that Lr is inherently the problem here, when it simply cannot be: or we'd all have problems.

And what's wasting your time is this obsessive focus on Lr as the cause of all your woes, despite the dearth of actual evidence to that effect: you'd be better off spending your time getting your hands dirty digging around in your machine to see where the problem really lies, rather than peeing your life away mindlessly repeating the "Lr 3 is broken" mantra.

Pointing this out is a far more valid, objective data point than "software X runs fine on my machine but Lr doesn't, therefore Lr must be broken...": and pandering to this unsupportable position helps nobody.

Pretty much nobody so far has even come close to proving that Lr is definitively the problem on their machine (I actually don't believe anyone has, but I'm not inclined to go through the whole thread again, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt) so - taking it right down to first principles - all we know is that Lr runs well on some machines and not on others. That's it: the sum of all knowledge generated by this epic thread is that some people have problems with Lr 3 and some don't.

The fact that it does run well on some - and often not super high-spec machines - indicates as persuasively as any other conclusion that has been drawn from this thread (and more persuasively than most), that Lr can't be the whole, or even the main, story. Even the most basic grasp of deductive reasoning should allow for no other conclusion.

Turn this on its head: instead of continuing to support the unsupportable premise that Lr must be the problem, why not come up with an explanation for why it's fine for some of us? It fairly rocks along on my modest 6 gb Win 7 machine - I've spent entire uninterrupted days converting hundreds of Canon 7D files to 16 bit TIFF without Lr missing a beat - which should be impossible if Lr is "the problem".

So why would that be?

I'd be very surprised if you can come up with an even half-way convincing explanation which doesn't at least allow for the possibility that Lr isn't the deal-breaker. Because - again - if it is, why isn't it hurting me too? 

[Guest]

Keith_Reeder wrote:

Turn this on its head: instead of continuing to support the unsupportable premise that Lr must be the problem, why not come up with an explanation for why it's fine for some of us? It fairly rocks along on my modest 6 gb Win 7 machine - I've spent entire uninterrupted days converting hundreds of Canon 7D files to 16 bit TIFF without Lr missing a beat - which should be impossible if Lr is "the problem".

So why would that be?

I'd be very surprised if you can come up with an even half-way convincing explanation which doesn't at least allow for the possibility that Lr isn't the deal-breaker. Because - again - if it is, why isn't it hurting me too? 

So if you really want to contribute and help then why not post up more than what OS you are using?  If you want to show that what you have works so well, then give us your system specs and HD setup that will let others like myself who are having problems look and see if there is anything we can try? It also would help Adobe I'm sure if everyone who says they are not having issues would post up similar info.

Adobe, if you are monitoring this thread, what about starting up a new thread where you list specific questions about everyone's system and LR setup so you could gather a matrix of like info from everyone. For instance, what would you want to know about my system and setup that would help determine if LR is or is not the culprit?

I for one would love to see this thread and other move into a more productive mode. We can all rant for days I'm sure but that won't get us (or adobe) anywhere....

[Odin1]

I run LR 3.3 on my Dell Studio xps laptop core 2 duo with 4 gbs of ram and LR3.3

works just fine, just a little bit slower than on my Dell workstation with two

quad core 2.8 xeons with 8 gbs of ram. My C drive is a 10,000 rpm velociraptor

where the software resides and where the catalogue is, all of my files are on a

1 tb caviar black and everything is backed up onto a 2 tb WD my book essential.

All drives a replaced once a year and locked in a safe so if anything fails I

just open the safe and I am back in business again because they wont all go at

the same time.

Since day one I have never experienced any problems with LR other than my own

incompetence which Adobe have always found a solution for me.

I fine it absolutely bizarre that some people experience so many problems that I

do not, I dont want to sound malovelent but I can help believing that there are

a great number of users who are far more interested in nitpicking the software

than using it. There are always issues but I have never experience a time when I

could use LR to modify a photograph in the way that I wanted to, I just

disregard minor irritabilities maybe its just me I just work around them but

having said that I repeat it has always worked for me.

What more do you want??

I am certainly no genius either as a photographer or as a software engineer and

have never pretended to be, it works and its does what it says on the box, if it

has frailities then I dont recognise them because it never seems to impinge on

what I want to do.

[thewhitedog]

I wrote an extensive reply to Odin1 but then I deleted it. I decided it would be a mistake to take him seriously. The worst thing you can do is respond to a troll as if what they say matters. They live on such feedback, gaining sustenance whether the response is positive or negative. I've put up a sign on my desk that I recommend to others: Don't Feed the Trolls.

[ChBr02]

The logic is called differential diagnosis. If those of us that have been with LR since 1.0, including the 3.0 beta, and only noticed serious performance issues with the release of 3.1 with no other changes to their hardware or other OS/Software changes.

The fact that you & Odin1 don't have these problems shouldn't give you leave to be so inconsiderate as to clog this thread with your unhelpful rants. Whether we continue to use Lr or not really isn't any of your business. If I want business advice, I sure won't be trying to get it from either of you.

Please leave us to our delusions. Don't go away mad, but please, please go away.

Please either find someone else to irritate, or get a hobby that doesn't involve those of us who are having a problem with Lr.

Please!

[Odin1]

Not mad just you guys are just so much fun like some evangelical religion

desperate to commune in pius misery!

[Odin1]

Couldnt put it better!!

[bob frost]

thewhitedog wrote:

Bob, that's a piss poor summation of this thread. Perhaps you should start at the beginning and read it again. In point of fact, as reported by numerous contributors here, there appear to be a variety of reasons why Lightroom 3 runs slowly.

Well, I can't honestly claim to have read all 1152 posts in this thread, but I did post on page 1 of the thread and have some posts elsewhere in it. Of course there are a variety of reasons why some computers have problems running LR 3, and many people, including me, have pointed some of these out.

My main computer is near top-of-range (i7-920, 12GB ram, 2 SSDs + 2 HDDs, nvidia 460, etc) and it has no problems whatsoever running LR 3.3RC.

I also use it on an older computer (with Q6600, 8GB ram, 1SSd, nvidia 8800) and have only had problems on that when I first installed the 8800 graphics card. The previous graphics card (a 7600?) ran fine, but the 8800 gave all the problems that people often report, grey blanks in the library, stuttering use of sliders, etc. This was totally cured by updating the graphics driver to the latest.

My third computer with LR 3 is the baby Samsung Q45 laptop. LR 3 runs fine on that, with or without a SSD. It runs slower of course, but what do you expect from a dual-core mobile processor, only 3GB of ram, and only one disk with the images on an external usb drive? It doesn't have any problems, other than just being slower than its big brothers. I use it for demonstrating LR in talks - and it doesn't put people off using LR!

YMMV of course, but no serious complaints here.

Bob Frost