P: LR4 extremely slow web module gallery building

52 Votes
Community Beginner ,
Mar 11, 2012 Mar 11, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Lightroom V4 web module is extremely slow. I am using TTG CE2 components and compared with LR 3 which was not very swift, LR4 is painfully slow at building and exporting gallery and pages components.

Bug Fixed
TOPICS
macOS , Windows

Views

37

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines

correct answers 1 Correct answer

Adobe Employee , Apr 26, 2012 Apr 26, 2012
We just released a second RC version of Lightroom 4.1, available at http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/li... . This issue is fixed in the new RC build.

Votes

Translate

Translate
95 Comments
Community Beginner ,
Apr 13, 2012 Apr 13, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

See, that wasn't hard now was it?

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Adobe Employee ,
Apr 13, 2012 Apr 13, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I didn't have the answer until just now. 🙂

Senior Product Manager - Customer Advocacy - Digital Imaging

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Apr 18, 2012 Apr 18, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

It's weird as well that the progress bar disappears after the non image processing is done... And then after quite a while reappears to sloooooooooowly work on the image rendering part of the process... Tricked me numerous time thinking "Wow, this was fast!" and then being surprised with a no image web gallery...

Glad to hear that a fix is on the way. If the image processing wasn't so much better than LR3.6 I would go back to that one for now...

D.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Apr 18, 2012 Apr 18, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I just installed a completely new Win7 Professional system HD, I have 16gb ram, 2tb hd, as well as others. So I decided to try the new LR 4.1 RC. Installation went fine. I brought one of TTG Highslide CE galleries, 19 images. I exported it and at first the TTG whizzed by. But when the images started, man oh man, talk about molasses in January in Siberia. I watched the export folder and it took around 20 minutes for 19 images. Glad I didn't have 50, or 75, or 250!!!

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, LR 4.1 RC ISN'T ANY BETTER.

This is very discouraging. I really like much of the LR 4 improvements but this has got to give or - I don't know what I will do. Can I go back to LR 3.6? Will the catalogue and images still work?? Serious question.

So Jeffrey Tranberry, 4.1 is not any better in my estimation.

Where to go from here Jeffrey?? I think we would all like to know.

Thanks for letting me spout off.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Participant ,
Apr 19, 2012 Apr 19, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Gary, Go back to 3.6 and use the 3.6 catalogue. It should all be there still. I'm just waiting for progress while I carry on with 3.5 - this is the biggest disappointment yet from Adobe.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Beginner ,
Apr 19, 2012 Apr 19, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

As Jeff mentioned above, it's being addressed in the final 4.1 release. Let's hope that shows up soon.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Apr 24, 2012 Apr 24, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Just to add another tale of woe and frustration

My second MacPro here in the office (Quad 2.66 16G ram, SSD's) took on the task of making a web gallery from 400 images (a few corrections per image, plus a b/w conversion), we started at 12noon, and it is still going strong at 15:07 and its just over 2/3 the way through.

Just to re-iterate....Adobe, please use the PREVIEWS to make web galleries, they are full screen here which is more than enough for a client website (overkill in fact) they have all the adjustments I need (in that they will be identical to the high res export, otherwise whats the point of them?!) and LR has already generated these jpgs, DO NOT go back to the RAW files, there is no need.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Apr 24, 2012 Apr 24, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Slow Web Galleries
I just made a moderately sized web gallery in LR 4.1 with Canon 5DIII files. It was incredibly slow. I was not expecting it so I didn't time it from start to finish. There were a total of 86 images in the gallery. The time difference from the first of the gallery's large jpegs to the last is exactly 30 minutes!

So I decided to run some comparison tests.

First I exported the same images as jpegs. These jpegs were slightly larger than the web gallery jpegs. They processed in 7 minutes.

I made a web gallery again from the same images. The results were essentially the same (29 minutes). There is something strangely slow in this new lightroom when it comes to making web galleries.

In LR3, web galleries were much faster. I cannot compare directly as the 5d3 cannot be read by LR3. So I opened a Canon 5d2 job in LR4 and made a gallery from 86 images. Process 2010 took and process 2012 took 34 minutes (longer than 5d3 files!). The same web gallery in LR3, process 2010, took 8 minutes!!!

So here's a web gallery recap:
LR3.6 Canon 5d2 Process 2010 Export small jpegs 86 files- 7 minutes
LR3.6 Canon 5d2 Process 2010 Web Gallery from 86 files- 8 minutes
LR4.1RC Canon 5d2 Process 2010 Web Gallery from 86 files- 28 minutes
LR4.1RC Canon 5d2 Process 2012 Web Gallery from 86 files- 34 minutes
LR4.1RC Canon 5d3 Process 2012 Web Gallery from 86 files- 29 minutes
LR4.1RC Canon 5d3 Process 2012 Export small jpegs 86 files- 7 minutes

So regardless of my cameras, regardless of process version, LR 4.1RC is almost 4 times slower to export web galleries than LR3.6!!! Exporting the same jpegs in LR4.1RC and LR 3.6 takes only 7 minutes, so it's not the Camera Raw engine, it's something specific to web galleries. And also of interest, LR4.1RC took 5 minutes longer to export the gallery from 5d2 files than 5d3 files! Is there something in the 5d3 files that is more optimized for new software?

I am running mac OSX 10.6.8 on a MacPro

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Apr 25, 2012 Apr 25, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Extremely slow with me too. The current web gallery of proofs that I'm building was started 51/2 hours ago and will need another hour or so to finish!

I'm working with Nikon D4 RAW images so I can't directly compare with 3.6, but things in 3.6 happened several times faster.

My activity monitor shows one processor fully engaged at around 105%, no other processes pulling over 1%.

Using 2012 process engine.

Running a MacPro with Quad 2.66 Ghz processors, 32 Gigs of memory and Snow Leopard 10.6.8

PLEASE FIX THIS! I don't understand why it hasn't been fixed already.

Rich Quindry

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Apr 26, 2012 Apr 26, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Have the same issues as others here - LR4 is unusable, as the web gallery build times are pants.

Does anyone one know if the 4.1 release has addressed this issue?

Given that so many folks have speed issues (and not just with the Web module), and that Adobe raised a ticket for this specific issue over a month ago, (agreeing that this was a know problem) I sincerely hope so.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Beginner ,
Apr 26, 2012 Apr 26, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Take a look a bit further up this thread and you will see an Adobe agent Jeffrey Tranberry informing us that it be be resolved in the final release of 4.1. Version 4.1RC did not improve this issue but did fix a few other performance issues so worth installing this in the meantime in my opinion.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Apr 26, 2012 Apr 26, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I sure wish Adobe would get it's act together and get this fixed. 4.1RC is no faster.

I just ran a test - Exporting these same images as small (25%) jpgs.
It's using all four processors - Activity meter shows processors at around 750%.
It's cranking out 10 images a minute.

As I noted in my earlier post - the activity monitor indicated that only one processor is being used. The process for making web galleries in Lightroom 4 is single threaded. I just tested Lightroom 3.6. The activity monitor shows processor usage at around 400%. That explains the 4x longer that it's taking Lightroom 4 to generate galleries.

There is no reason with today's powerful computers for it to take 8 hours to build a website of proofs. That's pitiful.

PLEASE FIX IT!

Rich Quindry

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Adobe Employee ,
Apr 26, 2012 Apr 26, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

We just released a second RC version of Lightroom 4.1, available at http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/li... .

This issue is fixed in the new RC build.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
Apr 26, 2012 Apr 26, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

He Becky,

What issue was fixed? Can you inform us regarding what the idenfied problem was? I don't see it listed in the fix list for the RC.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Adobe Employee ,
Apr 26, 2012 Apr 26, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

The issue reported on this thread: LR4 extremely slow web module gallery building

Senior Product Manager - Customer Advocacy - Digital Imaging

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
Apr 26, 2012 Apr 26, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Yeah, I get that part. I was hoping for more fun and enlightening detail. This was a real odd one to have gotten past you all, as well as the slider issue, so it's of heightened interest to know exactly what it was.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
People's Champ ,
Apr 26, 2012 Apr 26, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

My tests show LR4.1RC2 with the same speed for Web Gallery Export as LR3.6.

Beat

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Apr 26, 2012 Apr 26, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thanks for this Tony; missed Jeffrey's reply.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Apr 27, 2012 Apr 27, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

OK: LR 4.1RC2 in place. Simple HTML gallery of 189 Canon 5D mkII RAWs just took 14 minutes to create. Mac Pro 2 x 2.8 Quad Core, 10Gb RAM. Activity monitor showed RAM and CPU useage as per 3.6; other apps ran as normal during the build.

Looks like this one's fixed - thank you Becky/the LR Team. 🙂

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Beginner ,
Apr 27, 2012 Apr 27, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I started this thread so I am pleased to report that my system now takes about a quarter of the time to build web galleries so I also accept that the problem as specified has been resolved. Thanks to the developers for paying attention to it.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Apr 27, 2012 Apr 27, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I too can report that what took 20 min ro4 19 images now takes less than 5 minutes in RC2. They listened, albeit somewhat reluctantly. But what counts is that the user community can make a difference.
Thanks Adobe LR Team

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Participant ,
Apr 28, 2012 Apr 28, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

"They listened, albeit somewhat reluctantly."

Somewhat reluctantly is a bit unfair. It was accepted by JT a month ago then there's investigation, implementation and testing. I was a software tester before retirement and know how long it should take but our work was safety-critical and errors were not acceptable.

My criticism of Adobe is that the 4.0 release was inadequately tested, but it's cheaper to get the customer to do the job (is that unfair?).

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Beginner ,
Apr 28, 2012 Apr 28, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Not directly relevant to the specific problem but I agree with David Lingard above. I was a C++ software developer before I retired and I know about the pressures that can build up in such environments. Marketing is always pressing and time to properly test ones own work is never adequate. As soon as marketing were satisfied that the component worked it was time to move on to something new. Optimising performance and testing for error conditions were luxuries.QA were under similar pressures from managers to rush testing and these people had to have strong characters to be allowed to do their job properly. I never once completed a project to my own satisfaction and very often had to do emergency fire fighting after the product had shipped because of this.That is why it was important for us all in this forum to have reported the problem accurately and to recognise that the Web component is probably the least used part of LR but for those of us that have built their workflow around the web module, very important. Those contributing with benchmarks helped a lot I fee. After this apparenttly premature release I hope that Adobe will realise that reputation is very important, LR is not a toy and peoples livelihoods depend on tools like this, for me a hobbyist, these issues are an irritant but I recognise that many suffer much more than I.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Beginner ,
Apr 28, 2012 Apr 28, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Very happy to hear this will be fixed. Now if the LR team would turn their attention to the Edit Metadata Presets window, which sorely needs some lovin'. Besides needing to be width resizable and field expandable, in LR4-RC2, clicking in an active populated field now brings the cursor back to the top of the field. And that pesky Upload issue in the Web module, where stalled uploads fail consistently, and require the process to start again from scratch. I realize this isn't the forum for these issues, but at least I know someone from Adobe is reading it...

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Apr 28, 2012 Apr 28, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I was perhaps a bit to quick to use the term 'reluctantly', But, that being said, Adobe is a huge company and a product so important as LR should have been more thoroughly tested. We have gone through beta, rc1 and now rc2. What other surprises await us. Perhaps none hopefully.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report