From: "MarceloTrad How would we make Adobe read all this posts? This is a User-to-User forum where we are supposed to help each other. If you want help from Adobe staff, you should post on their forum - http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/products/photoshop_family_photoshop_lightroom Bob Frost ... View more

From: "joema3 I just installed LR4 and am appalled at how slow the Library module is when sequentially stepping through photos. Have you created your previews? If you are allowing LR to create the previews as you step through the library, it will be slow. But if you created your standard previews on import, or just did it by selecting build previews from the library menu, it should be much faster. Bob Frost ... View more

From: "andreas603 Aside from rebuilding my entire library, is there a way I can see if I have a preview already of a certain RAW file? If you select the file(s) in library grid, and then go to the menu bar - Library/Previews/RenderStandardPreviews and select 'build one' in the popup dialog, it will scan for a preview and make one if none is present. If there is one already, it will just do nothing. If you select 'build all' in the dialog, it will scan the whole folder and make any that are missing. Bob Frost ... View more

From: "Marko_Ch Edit - Catalog settings - File handlings - Preview Quality - Low That is something I haven't tried - using low quality previews. I must do a comparison of processing power/time needed for high or low quality. That might well affect not just initial preview rendering, but also preview updating while moving sliders. Bob Frost ... View more

What a lot of people don't seem to realise is that LR4 can process your images just as LR3 did! The processing in Develop has 3 methods - 2003 (the original), 2010 (in LR3), and 2012 (the latest). As anyone reading this thread knows, the latest 2012 develop process needs a lot more cpu power than the older methods. So if your computer is not yet up to coping with 2012, just continue using the 2010 method in LR4 i.e. don't upgrade the develop method by clicking on the asterisk, and for new imports go to camera calibration and select 2010 as the Develop method. Then you have all the other benefits of LR4, maps, books, softproofing, etc, without the pain of 2012 on a slow computer. That way you get to keep your Recovery and Fill sliders that a lot of people like, but you can still upgrade to 2012 in the future when you upgrade your computer, or when Adobe finds ways round the processing problems. No need to go back to LR3; that's shooting yourself in the foot. Just use the 2010 Develop process that is preserved for you to use in LR4. Bob Frost ... View more

bob frost wrote: Just bought a Radeon 6870 card. It doesn't make a lot of difference compared to my previous GTX460; slightly faster, but then the  card is faster overall. Also tried an older 8800GT card, and various ages of drivers with all three, but no magic effect on the secondary monitor problem. On my fast Win7x64 desktop, the answer to the secondary monitor problem is NOT to use the lens correction panel. Use good lenses and unless there is something that obviously needs straightening out, don't correct for lens aberrations. DON'T use lens profile corrections as an automatic initial preset if you want to use a secondary monitor. If you have to use lens corrections, turn the secondary monitor off. Bob Frost ... View more

bob frost wrote: From: "shamus1585 Any readers using two monitors where it's slow with the second, what type card are you using? I noticed BoHandsome and I are both using GTX260 NVidia cards.  Mine was a special that came from Dell with 2 gigs onboard. Mmm. Mine is a nVidia too -  GTx460. I don't have any ATI cards to swap it out. Bob Frost Just bought a Radeon 6870 card. It doesn't make a lot of difference compared to my previous GTX460; slightly faster, but then the  card is faster overall. Also tried an older 8800GT card, and various ages of drivers with all three, but no magic effect on the secondary monitor problem. Bob Frost ... View more

From: "ChrisFourie-Lipman Nvidia GTX560TI 2048MB Graphics Card. I also experience very slow performance when using two monitors. Are there any AMD users using two monitors to give some feedback? Just ordered an ATI card, so I'll be able to test this theory tomorrow! Bob Frost ... View more

From: "shamus1585 Any readers using two monitors where it's slow with the second, what type card are you using? I noticed BoHandsome and I are both using GTX260 NVidia cards. Mine was a special that came from Dell with 2 gigs onboard. Mmm. Mine is a nVidia too - GTx460. I don't have any ATI cards to swap it out. Bob Frost ... View more

From: "shamus1585 >Access on the sliders is fast IF the second monitor is off. My issue seems >to be with the video draw to the second monitor. I have an i7 running Win >7 Pro, with 12 gigs ram, and an nVidia GTX 260 with 2 gig RAM. The latest >drivers as of today are loaded. The slider slow down on my setup only >occurs with the second monitor enabled. With the second monitor off, the >slider is almost instaneous. With it on, a 1 - 2 second delay, especially >on the new sliders... I am using LR4 (as opposed to LR3 - had same setup >on LR3 with no issues) The intesting part is that it doesnt matter if I am >using process 2010 or 2012, the deciding issue in LR4 (for me) is if the >twin monitors are on. One monitor and the speed is fine. Agreed. I've just done a lot of expts and the second monitor is the critical thing. I can have noise adjustment, lens profiles, chromatic abberation etc all on and working fine, UNTIL I say show the second monitor and then the slider response almost stops - only works in jerks after a second or two. Win7x64 Bob Frost ... View more

Michel_13 wrote: Curious thing that even LR3 was a little bit slower from time I installed LR4 beta, replaced now with released LR4. One of the things that both LR3 and LR4 share is the acr cache, which stores the part-rendered .dat files (for raw files) to speed up going to 1:1 views. I've always been suspicious as to how well they do this sharing, and I would suggest deleting the acr cache (Preferences/filehandling/purge cache) and letting LR4 build a new one without LR3 interfering with it. See if that helps. Bob Frost ... View more

Mag_74 wrote: I installed a big update from Nvidia ( 130 Mb ) in windows update.   After that it´s working smooth again.   Before I was just like many above has explained. Graphics card drivers are a notorious cause of all sorts of problems. And LR has suffered a lot over the years from old drivers. You can register on the nVidia site to be notified by email every time there is a new update. Win update doesn't always seem to notice them. Since I don't play games, I only install the basic driver, not the 3D this, that, and the other. The less you have to go wrong, the fewer problems you will get! Bob Frost ... View more

My recipe for upgrading from LR3 to 4 is:- Upgrade LR3 catalog as normal Export upgraded catalog to new catalog (leaves behind any rubbish in old catalog) Delete all old previews and preview/rootpixel databases Clear ACR cache Set LR4 to all Photographs and create all new previews (creates new acr cache at same time). Go to bed. Next morning LR 4 runs fine (unless you are creating 50K 1:1s when you will have to wait longer for it all to finish) Bob Frost ... View more

Jeff Schewe wrote:   There are things that need to be improved in LR 4 (the "next version") but printing ain't one of them (except for the lack of soft proofing). Hi Jeff, One more thing needed in printing - drop shadows! I asked for it ages ago - LR does it in the Slideshow but not for prints. I have to do it in CS5, using a droplet from LR, but then I end up with a psd to store - just for the sake of the dropshadow round the print. Please add this one (as well as softproofing). Thanks, Bob Frost ... View more

Ian Lyons wrote: That being said, there should be no need to clear the registry between versions, beta or official. That goes for any software released to the public. I'm glad that you said "should be no need". It would be nice if there was 'never' a need, but software is written by human beings, who are fallible despite some thinking they are perfect! So software will rarely ever be perfect. That's why some planes flown by computer have three computers running in parallel with three sets of software written by different software teams, so that the same bug is very unlikely to occur in two or more computers, so they run on majority voting! Programs HAVE been sold that needed Registry cleaning between some upgrades - Nikon Capture and NikonView are two that I personally know about. After lots of complaints Nikon produced a Registry Cleaner specifically for the purpose. It cured the problems. So I wouldn't assume that it is never needed. So I just take avoiding action and clean my Registry regularly. Even that won't be perfect, and manual cleaning is occasionally necessary to solve problems. Bob Frost ... View more

PhilBurness wrote: Indeed, and if the testers are asked to uninstall previous versions prior to testing, then who tests the upgrades, and how much testing do upgraded systems get? Other than the beta testing community? It's not in the user notes that previous releases should be uninstalled, and indeed the installation process does not uninstall previous versions. The reason testers are asked to uninstall previous versions may be due to a completely different issue, but, if they do uninstall prior to updating then they may well not experience the performance problems that others are seeing, and may well be convinced that these problems are due to hardware issues etc. Phil I've always considered it good practice to uninstall previous versions and reboot before installing a new version. Some programs are now doing this for you, but not all. Deliberately running multiple versions of the same program seems masochistic to me! I remember when Nikon's Capture and View programs had all sorts of problems because of leftovers, and Nikon produced specific Cleaners to solve some of the problems. I use CCleaner frequently to clean my Registry. I used to use JV16, but that got too complicated and hairy. I also go around and get rid of old folders that old versions often leave - with or without stuff in them. No performance problems with LR 3.3 and Win7x64 except on one machine with an old version of an Nvidia driver - then the brush and spotting went berserk. An updated driver cured that. Bob Frost ... View more

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 ... View more

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 ... View more

laurencec wrote: Why is Lightroom 3 so slow? Summing up this thread - It isn't, but many computers are!  Bob Frost ... View more

alanranger5 wrote: @ Bob, thanks Bob, this must be the first constructive suggestion I have seen in this thread on how to possibly solve the speed issues.  I hadnt read anywhere that there was a downside to just upgrading LR2.7 catalogue to LR3 which is exactly what i did rather than new catalogue and import. I am not sure what i may loose? by creating a new catalogue rather than using the existing upgraded one but as long as it retains ratings, keywords, develop history etc etc then i am willing to trade most things just to get a workable solution again...  Just about every routine in LR3 has been slower compared to 2.7, even the backup option takes for ever which used to be a couple minutes tops. Thanks for your guidance, as soon as my pc eventually completes the saving of metadata to files, now in its 18th hour at 80% i will give this a try any advice on how to create the new catalogue etc would be appreciated alan Unfortunately, creating a new catalog and importing your old files anew, does have a downside. You would need to read the metadata (that your are currently saving out) into the new catalog, and that would reinstate most of your details, but not all. Keywords, ratings, should be fine, as are snapshots, because they are all stored in the xmp files (or in jpgs and psds if you have set that in prefs). But individual history steps are not stored in xmp, so you lose the ability to see them. However, we are jumping the gun a bit, and there are other ways of keeping all your metadata but getting rid of rubbish in the catalog, if that does prove to be the cause of your problems. So do the comparison of the new LR3 catalog, and the upgraded LR2/3 catalog, and see what you find. In my case after finding that a new catalog and reimport cured some problems, I exported my upgraded LR2/3 catalog to a new catalog WITHOUT any previews etc, so I just had an exported catalog with all my images and metadata in it. That seemed to leave a lot of the LR2 catalog 'rubbish' behind, and when I then rerendered all my previews, most of the problems had gone, and I still had all my metadata, including history. Why rerender the previews? Because LR3 has a totally different preview system to LR2, and I think that a lot of the problems are in the upgrading of the LR2 catalog/previews to the new LR3 catalog/previews. The main problem with LR3, as I see it, is that there are so many basic changes in it - to the preview system, to the raw rendering system, plus the new stuff such as lens profiles, web transfers, etc - that it is as though we are working with LR1 again! LR2.7 had got rid of most of the bugs in the 'old LR', now with the 'new LR3' we are starting all over again to get the bugs out of the new systems. By LR4.7 we should be back where we were with 2.7 in terms of bugs Bob Frost ... View more

alanranger5 wrote: further evidence and head scratching from me on LR3 speed. I thought i would try a simple comparison of LR2.7 to LR3 with my library of 18,000 images.  Selected All images and saved metadata to files. In LR2.7 it took 20mins to complete the task In LR3 its still running and 76% complete and has been running for 16 hours so far!   Ram and VRam has been sat at 94% and 88% respectively the whole time rendering my PC useless to do anything else on in this time. Clearly hardware is identical and software OS identical so strikes me that LR3 has some serious code issues that unless they can be fixed pretty damn quick then I'll abandon it and go back to LR2.7 Hi Alan, If you've time, try another test. Create a new catalog in LR3 and import all your 18000 images again, so that you have a fresh catalog untainted by LR2.7. Then run your timing on this new catalog, and on your existing LR3 catalog (that was presumably an upgrade from your LR2.7 catalog). I found that a lot of rubbish can build up in LR2 catalogs that doesn't cause any problems with LR2.7, but when transferred to a LR3 catalog by upgrade, this rubbish really upsets LR3. I cleaned up my old LR2 catalog, and these problems went away. New catalogs made in LR3 were also OK. Only upgraded catalogs gave the problems. For me, on a fast PC, LR3 is excellent. LR3.2RC is even better. Bob Frost ... View more

JayS In CT wrote: One thing I notice about Thomas' system is that he is running at a lower screen resolution than where some known problems exist.  Many have noticed that making LR a smaller window enhances performance anyway, but in particular, there are some rendering issues on some systems running at 1920x1200 and above. It is simple enough to try..  Make the LR window smaller by either resizing the entire LR application or by making the side panels larger, etc.  Anything that will shrink down the space in which the image is drawn. Jay S. ................................. Isn't this a graphics card problem? I suspect a lot of so-called LR problems are really problems with graphics cards and drivers. Bob F. ... View more