Jao vdL wrote: Your observation is consistent with someone somewhere else in this Frankenthread describing how Lightroom seems to constantly be reading in the monitor profile. I am sure it is quite a large icc file if you have 16-bit LUTs in there. That was this post: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4670717#4670717#4670717 What's interesting is that I have the same X-Rite Display 2 calibrator & software and I couldn't duplicate the problem on my Windows 7. ... View more

Try setting Luminance NR to '0' and see if that helps. ... View more

bmphotography wrote: Done all of these Peter, Still no dice. I desperation, I just threw a grand at a 3930K and OC'd it to 4.5. Performance is slightly better but hey I'll take what I can get. Until you can explain to me why LR uses less threads/cores threads for the noise slider when shadow or highlight are <> 0 and why it is that all threads/cores light up using the noise slider when shadow/highlight = 0  then I dont think I am going to be very happy (i.e. why does LR use less resources when there are more calculations to do). For a IB-E 3930K to be sitting at about 50%CPU capacity when the program is clearly struggling to update the screen is beyond me. Have you tried turning off hyper-threading in the BIOS?  I'd also try LR4.3 RC both with and without HT. ... View more

Your confusing 'hardware' threads and 'software' threads. Read here for a full explanation of Intel Hyper-Threading: http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2009/06/02/intel-hyper-threading-technology-your-questions-answered Your Q6600 dual-core processor has a 2,943 CPU Mark, and my i7-860 has 5,260 CPU Mark, so my processor is about 1.8x faster. I'm running LR4.2 and 1:1 previews build in about 5 sec. using 21Mp CR2 raw files form my 5D MKII. You are seeing "just under 13 seconds to render a 1:1 previews" with LR4.3 RC, which sounds about right. If you want to "fix" LR4.2 start by providing more details about your system. If you're happy with LR4.3 RC then we're done! "If you can provide more details about your system OS, processor, memory, image file type, Camera Raw Cache size, etc. - We may be able to help you. " ... View more

Actually that's eight (8) threads, not cores. As you can see in my post I'm using a modest i7-860 quad-core (i.e. 4-cores) processor and only 3.86 GB of memory are being utilized. It also looks like you are using 5D MKII (21Mp) CR2 files, which is my primary camera as well........no issues! If you can provide more details about your system OS, processor, memory, image file type, Camera Raw Cache size, etc. - We may be able to help you. ... View more

Here's my Windows 7 Performance Monitor browsing ten (10) 5D MKII 21.2 Mp raw CR2 image files at 1:1 view in the Library module with 1:1 previews built in LR4.2. All settings in Basic panel, Sharpening, Color NR, Enable Profile Corrections, and Remove Chromatic Aberration were applied to all 10 images. The horizontal scale is 3.0 sec. and spans about 12 sec. to browse 10 fully rendered images (~1.2 sec./image). I probably could have switched images faster since the images fully render in .5 to 1.0 sec. At least six threads are being used. Here's the same view, but stepping through the images as fast as possible (~1.0 sec./image). This view clearly shows that seven (7) threads are actually being used. Message was edited by: trshaner Added 2nd screenshot. ... View more

I believe Adobe is aware of and working on Mac platform hyper-threading issues. The single thread usage is a Mac only issue since my Windows 7 system uses 6 out of 8 threads with my i7-860 2.8GHz processor. It takes about .5 to 1 sec. to render 5D MKII 21Mp CR2s when reviewing images at 1:1 in the Library module on my 1920 x 1080 display. Making the Loupe window smaller by dragging the right, left and bottom panels inward will reduce the lag a bit. ... View more

As I see it there are two primary groups of LR users – Professionals (i.e. how they earn a living) and Semi-Pro, Amateur, Point & Shoot. When I offered a suggestion concerning shooting JPEG or raw+JPEG it received criticism from the first group (Pros). "So we should just let the camera do everything and then just use LR for cataloging, creating slide shows and books?" In 1974 I started using SLR cameras and fixed focal length lenses with completely "manual" metering, shutter speed, aperture, and focus. I've experienced the complete evolution from full manual analog film photography to what we have with today's digital photography, and there is no reason to believe we've reached the "end of the line" concerning technology advancements. For example, when autofocus was first introduced it took a considerable amount of time before “serious photographers” would consider purchasing new autofocus bodies and lenses (self included). The lack of investment in autofocus technology even caused some camera companies to go out of business. How many people in this forum still actually use “manual” cameras that don’t have autofocus, auto aperture and auto shutter capability? I'm sure many "future" technology enhancements will be just as useful to ALL photographers. It’s also clear that just about everything is moving to Cloud computing. Those companies that come up with the best and most cost-effective Cloud implementations will be the clear winners. It should be very interesting! ... View more

I think we all agree that for the pro photographer making a living creating fine-art quality images, raw is the fastest way to get there. Of course you still may find "other uses" for shooting raw + JPEG as uphotography outlined. My original reply here was to provide an alternative (JPEG or raw + JPEG) to A C G concerning moving to another raw processor (AftershotPro?) that appeared to have less capability than LR4. Many LR users in this forum are NOT fine art professional photographers and maybe even just rank amateur hobbyists on a very limited budget. For users in this group with LR4 performance issues, shooting raw + JPEG may provide a way to work more productively in LR until they obtain a faster system and/or Adobe resolves some of these issues. ... View more

uphotography wrote: Todd, So, basically, what  do you suggest would be the new use of Lightroom 4? Catalogue your photos? Design Blurb books? Make slideshows? This was strictly a suggestion for "minimizing post processing" work in LR. I'm not saying anyone should stop shooting raw files. I sure you could think of many benefits of shooting raw + JPEG if you were opened minded. Give it a try. ... View more

Thanks Andrew, that was my undertstanding as well – Also for pointing out that the Noritsu and Frontier printers have areas that are outside the sRGB gamut. For anyone interested you can create the 3D wire models here: http://www.drycreekphoto.com/tools/printer_gamuts/gamutmodel.html You'll need to download a VRML plugin to use it. Here's one of the Costco profiles  showing the area that falls outside the sRGB gamut: Here's my take on Costco's Noritsu & Frontier printer workflow. Normal processing is with Auto Correct ON, which expects sRGB profiled images with no adjustments. With Auto Correct ON the sRGB image is converted by the printer using the printer profile for the selected paper type. It apparently also applies some kind of Auto Contrast and perhaps Auto Color Correction for white balancing. This analysis is based purely on print results obtained using standard sRGB images with Auto Correct ON. With Auto Correct OFF the printer does not apply any Contrast or Color correction and a printer profile is not applied to the image. If this is correct then it is absolutely necessary to "convert" your images to the Costco printer profile for the target paper type after making your Soft Proof adjustments. You should also preview different rendering intents in Soft Proof as outlined on the Dry Creek website. PS has more options using 'Customize Proof Condition' than available in LR. The best analogy I can think of is Auto Correct On = "Managed By Printer" and Auto Correct OFF = "Managed By Application" (i.e. PS or LR). I'll try to verify this with my local Costco Photo Lab manager. ... View more

A C G wrote: About ten days ago I wrote saying I was learning to use an alternative. This is not to encourage people to migrate from LR if it is working well for them. ...... What was satisfying is that such a high percentage were useable with next to no tweaking. In other words using the base algorithms of the program. Tony The linked images look very similar to the JPEG output from my Canon DSLRs, and yes I mean with next to no tweaking (i.e. Exposure only).  I mean no offense and certainly agree the images Tony posted work very well for web viewing. Shooting JPEG is an even simpler alternative if your objective is to "minimize" post-processing, especially for work that is destined primarily for the Web or small prints. Perhaps we should all take a little harder look at Tony's example and the suggestion that for many purposes shooting JPEG or Raw+JPEG might make more sense. With in-camera noise-reduction applied to JPEG images you can usually leave LR's NR set to 0, which will greatly increase LR4's performance. Below is an image shot using a Canon 5D MKII at ISO 400, Raw+JPEG, Camera Standard settings, and sRGB profile. Exposure +.5, 20, -40, +40, +15, -15 Blacks          Exposure +.5 (all others at 0) I'm using a custom ColorChecker Passport profile with the raw image, so close to perfect color balance. At 1:1 view the JPEG is slightly less sharp and lower in noise than the processed raw image, but certainly more than acceptable for most purposes. With the JPEG image adjusted using LR settings Exposure +.66, 0, -35, +35, +12, -18 Blacks, Vibrance 25, Sharpening 50, .8, 35, 0 it looks virtually identical to the processed raw image. The "side-benefit" of shooting JPEG is that you now get to use all of those fancy picture styles, shooting modes, creative settings, dynamic range extenders, high ISO noise reduction, etc. that only work with JPEG images. And by shooting Raw + JPEG you can "maximize" creative usage of your images pronto! Cheers, Todd ... View more

davepinminn wrote: trshaner, I think the one area I disagree with you is that in my mind 1.7% is a huge number.  I don't know whether every user that admits to problems represents 10 or 100 or 1000 others that don't know they've got issues (they just think the software is lousy and slow), don't use it in a way that exposes the problems (AT THIS TIME), or are disgruntled and have moved to other software, but to me it's still a significant number of unhappy customers.  Admittedly, if it IS 2%, I can see where Adobe would prefer that those people go away, find something else, and don't ever complain.  BUT, in this day of widespread communications, a single unhappy user can tell a LOT of other people and possibly influence purchasing decisions...  If you go to the post I linked to you will see I said the following concerning the small percentage of LR users with serious performance issue, so in fact I do agree with you. "From a LR end-user perspective this is still totally unacceptable, since in most cases LR4 is virtually unusable. If the above stats are anywhere near accurate don’t expect Adobe to “throw the kitchen sink” at finding and correcting the code in LR4 that is at the root of these performance issues. We stand a better chance of doing that here on an individual basis. Putting Titanium in a Swiss Army Knife because some customers are breaking the blades is bad product management. As "unacceptable" as that may seem it is the reality of business economics." ... View more

bmphotography wrote: Interesting, thanks. Take a look at this thread, The poster has addressed my specific issue at the end. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1165920 So the consensus is a six-core processor is beyond the point of diminishing return concerning core utilization, and an overclocked quad-core probably will provide better performance. Concerning hyper-threading my i7-860 quad-core system tests show only a small decrease in Export performance with hyper-threading enabled. With hyper-threading disabled slider operation becomes sluggish in the Develop module during both Imports and Exports, but otherwise fairly normal when not doing Import/Exports. From my experience and LR usage I have to disagree concerning the value of hyper-threading. If you don't need to do any work inside LR during Import/Export, then hyper-threading is probably not needed. Of course there's no guarantee that a future LR update may run better on systems with hyper-threading. Message was edited by: trshaner Added hyper-threading caveat. ... View more

davepinminn wrote: I have NO DOUBT there are a number of people experiencing problems with LR4, but I suspect it's going to get increasingly difficult to interest Adobe in the severity... Last night, at one of the Lightroom User group meetings I asked the following question:  "For those of you that are using LR4, who previously used an earlier version of Lightroom, RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU'RE PERCEIVING ANY DECREASE IN PERFORMANCE WITH LR4." The room contained approximately 50 Lightroom users, running both Windows and various Macs.  Of this ENTIRE group, only TWO people raised their hands.  A further inquiry on my part STILL elicited no additional users who admitted to having performance issues. This pretty much confirms the analysis I did of the 'Views' versus 'Replies' for this post: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4801433#4801433 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: the actual number of LR users with significant performance issues is probably no more than 1.7% to 3.3%. Two people raising there hands in a group of 50 LR users represents 4.0% for this small but very valid sampling group. At all the user group meetings I've attended (not specifcally Adobe's) the highest turnout were always the "complainers" and the "praiser," strongly indicating there aren't that many people (by-the-numbers) with major LR4 issues. ... View more

bmphotography wrote: I expressed an opinion and for this you feel the need to patronise me? Thats quite unfair and has escalated this conversation out of the realm of good detetctivce work and into sabre-rattling. Nothing in my post should have illicited that. In actual fact youasked me if I was 'game to try x,y,z'. I have spent a lot of time and money on this, Adobe does not pay me either. This is also one of the problems with trying to resolve "complicated" technology issues via forum postings......no real-time ability to interact. I stated in another post here that I would love to get my hands a badly behaving system and offered to travel to any New Jersey forum member's home or business office to assist.....but not one taker to date! My point was that I've provided "suggestions" to numerous LR forum posters and in many cases get a similar "rebuff" of "That can't be the cause, "I don't have the time or patience, or simply NO REPLY. I apologize if you felt I was patronizing, as that was and is not my intent. bmphotography wrote: I have made a vanilla installation of Win7, its easier than reinstalling steam  - no difference. I also used vanilla installations of MacOS 10.6.8 and 10.8.2 that I use as test environments (its easier to access these). No Dice. I have 3 seperate hardware platforms running 2 seperate OSes of different iterations the bug exists in all environments. Its not removing steam, its putting it back thats the issue and on balance, in my opinion this was looking at the wrong tree. focussing on hardware behaviour, in particluar thread priority and scaling is a more productive use of time. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "vanilla installation of Win 7, did you actually try a "fresh install" using LR4.3 RC, with a "new" catalog, and newly imported images for testing on a Win 7 system without Steam installed? The devil is in the details and again we have no realtime way of communicating, especially if you live in Queensland, Australia (+15 Hr. ET). There is a known issue with some Mac platforms concerning core and thread utilization and I don't think LR4.3 RC fixes it, so I'd stay focused on Win 7 for now. This is the i7-860, 12GB system I'm using with no major issues HP Pavilion Elite HPE-150t CTO. It uses a MS-7613 (Iona-GL8E) motherboard manufactured by Gigabyte. We were hit pretty bad by Hurricane Sandy in the NJ/NY shore areas. It's the worst storm that I've seen in 66 years living in NJ. I live three miles from Belmar, NJ, but on the 2nd highest point on the Eastern Seaboard so no flooding.  Here are some before/after aerial shots of New York and New Jersey areas hit by Hurricane Sandy. Mouse-over the images to see Before and After views. http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/weeklynews/nov12/ngs-sandy-imagery.html Please feel free to send me a PM if you would like to continue troubleshooting further via personal email. I'm now retired and available most anytime during the day (ET). ... View more

bmphotography wrote: Hey Bob. Basically thats correct, with highlight, shadow or clarity adjusted by only 1pt, my noise sliders become too laggy to use. IF however I do the noise first the sliders are not as bad (~.5 second delay) but thats not very good practice anyway, I do my noise work as the very last adjustment, only then can I assess its full impact on the image, especially in any pushed shadows. Cameras used = 5D3, 1D4 and 5Dc, 22, 16 and 13 mp respectively. Noise slider gets progressivley worse per camera. LR 3.6 exhibits instantaneous results. I try to shoot at ISO 100 to 400 maximum, and have my LR NR defaults set for these types of images. I rarely need to change these Detail panel settings with my 5D MKII and 600D bodies. For shots that are underexposed (i.e. require more than +1 EV Exposure) or shot at high ISO I have created Develop presets with specific Sharpening and NR settings. The time delay I'm seeing is about 2 sec. from moving the NR slider to seeing the image update. By using a Develop preset ALL of the Detail panel settings are updated in 2 sec. I have three-levels (Low, Med High), for each ISO range that I shoot so if the Low setting is insufficient I choose the next. It generally takes me no more than 4 sec. to "tweak" the Detail panel using these Develop presets, which is one of the last steps in my LR editing. It would be nice if the NR sliders were more responsive, but I don't see that as a huge impediment or performance issue. Maybe some people are doing too much 1:1 pixel peeping. I'd have to do a 30" x 40" enlargement with my 5D MKII images and stick my nose up to the print to actually see "small tweaks" made in the Detail panel. I am a pixel peeper, but keep in perspective what my actual LR output requires. ... View more

bmphotography wrote: Also, trshaner, how does post 33 & 34 fit in with what you are saying about 6 core boxes? http://www.lightroomforums.net/showthread.php?16148-Building-a-compute r-specifically-for-LR&p=113363&viewfull=1#post113363 ...ot trying to be antagonistic here - I just need a solution 🙂 There have been numerous LR forum members that have reported on this post (and others) that their six-core processor based systems with SSDs have performance issues, some even with dual Xeon server processors. You can use the LR Forum 'Ask A Question' search engine to find them. I'm not surprised no one has responded to my request in post #1528: Does anyone monitoring this post have a high-performance Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge processor based system that is running well? I'm pretty much "burned-out" on trying to help people with LR4 performance issues, not to mention recovering from the damage done by Hurricane Sandy.  My guess is most of the LR forum members that could help you are starting to feel the same way. I suggest posting this question in the new LR4.3 RC thread here: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1097184?tstart=60 bmphotography wrote: ps, uninstalling steam is a huge drama, the likelihood of it being this is too remote. There are no running services associated with it. This is a perfect example why LR forum members like me are getting burned out helping others with LR4 issues. Why is uninstalling the Steam gaming application a "huge issue" and why would you presume the simple LR4.3 RC “test” using a new catalog outlined in post #1534 isn't worth your time? How much time & money is it going to take you to build a new system, and what if it performs no better? Do you get my point? Adobe pays me nothing and I'm a professional with over 45-years of computing technology industry experience (20-years Hardware Engineering + 25-years Product Marketing). I'm also not too proud to tell you I was known at my company as the "go-to guy” when no one else had a solution to a perplexing hardware design issue. “Pay your money and take your choice!” ... View more

If it were me I'd do a full uninstall of both Steam and LR4, reinstall LR4.3 RC, create a new catalog, import a few hundred images, and test it. Your current catalog and previews will not be removed by the uninstall and remain on the hard drive. At any point you can uninstall LR 4.3 RC, reinstall 4.2, and reassociate your original catalog(s) by double-clcking on the 'catalogname' .lrcat file. http://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/preference-file-locations-lightroom-4.html ... View more

OK good, so we can rule that out. If you haven't done so already try disconnecting all USB, FireWire, and other external devices that aren't needed to run LR, including external drives, phones, and any other portable devices. If still no joy and you're game to trying other things, I'd try 'Selective Startup' to see if you can pinpoint any background applications that are affecting LR. http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/global/disable-startup-items-services-windows.html ... View more

bmphotography wrote: My MB is Gigabyte Z68X-UD3H-B3. i7 2600K at 4.5GHz, water cooled, nowhere near max temp I know you say the system is no where near max temp, but I'm wondering if this may be a part of the problem. Try running the system completely "untweaked" with over-clocking, etc. turned off, so the system is running fully within Intel's specs, including power supply voltages. I worked for a memory manufacturer and motherboard manufacturer under the Intel Embedded Alliance program from 2002–2011, so very familiar with processor, RAM, motherboard, compatibility issues. ... View more