Is there a LR 2.4 coming soon, that will fix the local brush problems? I'm having the same problems that I have read other people have. Once I have done several local brushes, LR slows down to a crawl. It takes up to 30 seconds from the moment I lift the pen (wacom Intuos3) to the moment I can apply another brush. Sometimes the program becomes unresponsive and when it responds, there are brushes(long streaks) that LR decides to apply to my photo. I've already disconected my tablet and uninstalled the tablet drivers. I'm using a mouse, and the problem persists. I've tried every single optimization trick that I've found in different forums and articles and the problem persists.
My computer is an Intel quad core with hyperthreading(it shows up as 8 cp's in device manager), 6 gigs of ram, one C drive 463 gb with 252 gb free. My data drives are two 1.5 tb internal setup with raid to mirror each other. Windows 64 ultimate.
I have exactly the same problem, saw some improvement in 2.3, but after a short time experienced the same old deplorable response times from brush or gradient tools. Up to 2.3 I invested a lot of time trying to isolate the problem, reading all the discussion forums, posting support cases to adobe, tweaking endlessly video card settings,etc, . After the release of 2.3 and a return to abysmal performance I just gave up. I can only hope that sometime into the future Adobe will give this the attendtion it is due, plus deal with all the other well documented issues where Adobe fail to utilise the performance capabilities of modern multi core cpus, etc.. I just give up. It is faster and more productive for me to complete these tweaks in Photoshop. Lightroom for me is just a database tool and basic raw converter (I also use Capture One for Raw conversion). I use Photokit Sharpner, Noise Ninja and Genuine Fractals for post processing. I have also given up on the Lightroom print module (Qimage meets my needs for real template printing) and look forward to the time that some of the RIP suppliers provide a plug in for Lightroom. Lightroom has all the technology to provide the template printing that I require, but after waiting from version one to get these features I gave up using this module also.
Even though I thought I had fairly decent hardware, I am really disappointed to read of the issues you have with the kit you use. I have ordered a 64gb SSD disc, which I am going to install on my machine as cache for Raw conversion, Lightroom previews and Photoshop Cache. I am hoping this will give the performance boost I need to make Lightroom workable in a real world environment. I have read reports where SSD discs with their own cache outperform raid 0 configs with 15k SAS discs.
I expect Lightroom will eventually solve both the performance issues and the obvious functional enhancements needed. However, for me, I have given up expecting the next point release will solve the problem, do not expect miracles in 3.0 and await Lightroom 4.0 to represent a mature product.
I also have Capture One, I think I'm going back to it for raw conversion. For printing I'm using Image Print, Iwouldn't use anything else. I'm starting to use Genuine Fractals for blowing uo my photos. And also own OnOne suite for post processing, mainly Silver Efex Pro. Most of what I'm doing right now is B&W.
Thanks for your response.
Genuine Fractals to up/down rez to the precise pixels density depening on the native size for your printer (eg 360 dpi for Epson) plus Image Print is a super combination. Unfortunately, Image Print does not provide the template formats I require, and will not in the near future. I therefore use Photoshop / PKphotokit / Fractals to generate my master image and Qimage with zero up/down rezzing and zero sharpening, but with a Qimage template which delivers my needs.
I am very disappointed with two key aspects of Lightroom , namely;
1. Performance of brush / gradient (should be a major priority)
2. Proper print templates (should be easy as most of the work already done in the slideshow module).
I appreciate that others (incl Adobe) would have higher priorities, so will have to wait (and wait..... and wait .....and wait).
With a little more effort Lightroom could deliver both. I would then encourage Imageprint to provide a Lightroom plug-in. I have posted this suggestion to Imageprint, to provide a superb end to end work flow, especially for Black and White.
I like where Lightroom is heading, like some of the plug-ins now appearing (dislike how some plug ins require extra tif intermediate files ..incl Nik software).
Come on Adobe, please solve this performance issue. In the meantime, please, at least, document how we can solve it ourselves with an optimum proposed hardware configuration.
Last week I received delivery of a new laptop which I bought specifically for LR when out with clients or on a job.
Main specs include Vista 64bit, 4GB DDR3 RAM, 512MB video card, 7,200RPM drive.
Whilst not a fantastically specced machine, it's pretty good for a laptop I would have thought.
Whilst running 64bit LR is faster and more responsive than using 32 bit on my desktop, it is not the improvement I had hoped it would be. In particular, the image previews still take longer to render than I would like, and the sliders are still too sticky for my liking. Reading how others are also experiencing these issues with even more powerful hardware than I have, I have to say I am disappointed and hope that Adobe work on these issues soon. I would rather have the program running slick and fast than add new features which I may or may not use.
having said that though, new features are always welcome!
That's odd, I've not experienced that on either Vista or XP.
I find that on my XP machine (XP Pro 32 bit) I can't hibernate if LR is running, I get an error message saying there were not enough resources, or something similar, I forget the precise wording.
Just to clarify, are you guys saying that you're seeing the same "memory leak" issue that was present in 2.0 - 2.2, where the adjustment brush causes LR to become less and less responsive over time? I thought that this was confirmed to be fixed when 2.3 was released -- I know I read more than one post saying that this was the case. This is the first time I've read about this issue not being fixed with 2.3, so I'm really curious to understand the situation.
Personally, no. I just find that the UI is not as responsive as I thought it would be on a higher specced machine.
In particular, I find it difficult to manipulate the sliders smoothly, with the numbers jumping from one value to another sometimes instead of a smooth and steady change.
I saw some improvement with Ver 2.3. However, after a few gentle usage of brush or grad filter I revert back to the same old (mind numbing) abysmal performance issues. The only way to work is to monitor the history panel for extended (unpractical) periods of time until Lightroom has caught up with itself.
Before then I read every related forum article (on all forums I could find), applied every suggestion, rebuilt preferences, tweaked everything I could re video cards, bought every book, etc, etc..
I decided that I have spent more than enough effort on this issue to-date. I totally give up and just mark this as a big black mark against Adobe. I just give up and hope version 3 or version 4 or version 5 or improvements in hardware or cloud computing or some other development will provide a practical solution.
Adobe have better and more qualified resources than I have. They are making profits from their product, i am not. If they dont bother to advise their customers what configs will actually work or give a roadmap in terms of solving the problem or at least recognise that the problems exist, who am I to try and change this.
From time to time I check the forums just to see if there are any positive developments. I was considering upgrading my workstation, and have re-acted to the fact that an individual with the latest specs still experieces such a performance hit.
Fair play to Canon, they released a firmware upgrade for the 5D2 which provides a genuine feature enhancement to a product already in the field. I only wish Adobe would solve this issue as it is not a feature upgrade but a serious flaw in a good product. I was prepared to be patient from beta to version 1 to version 2. I now feel Lightroom qualifies as a product which should be approaching a point of maturity and serious performance issues should not be tolerated.
A disappointed Adobe customer.
I should be more specific in response to "memory leakage".
My experience is that impovements may have been made which resolved either some or all of the memory leakage problems. However, as far as I am concerned they have not addressed fundimental issues with performance. This appears to affect different people with different configs in different ways, but based on a recent post here, buying current hardware specs does not appear to solve the problem.
I have purchased and installed an SSD disk. (OCZ 120GB with 64mb cache..370€).
I transferred my catelog and updated settings to point Lightroom RAW cache at this drive. By moving the catelog to this drive the previews are also working off this drive.
I also transferred a sample of ten 5d2 raw images to the ssd drive, so all disc processing is (I hope....any comments ? ) via the SSD drive.
In Library Loupe mode, I could click any image at will and just barely see the message "loading preview" as the message flashed on and off (ie no practical delays).
In Develop mode I get a message "Loading" for about 5 seconds.
Then joy unlimited, I can use the grad and brush tools at reasonable pace and get reasonable response (ie....workable for the first time).
I know my SSD drive is not working at its full potential (I estimate about 30% ) becasue of my current machine architecture.
I intend to update my workstation to more current specs when Windows 7 64 bit is officially released. My biggest worry is that I would upgrade to the latest hardware and still have a performance issue. At least with appropriate use of SSD drives for cache and catelogs I sense I have a hardware solution.
I still feel that Adobe have a lot of optimision left in the performance area (ie allow previews and catelogs on different drives so that disk I/O is not the barrier). Also, why is the disc I/O the apparent bottleneck. The grad and brush tools should be memory intensive, not disk intensive, but by improving the disk i/o I see a major boost in practical performance.
I also feel strongly that if they are behind the curve in terms of performance optimisation, they should at least advise on a machine configuration which will provide reasonable performance.
Already catered for. I have built and architected a machine which provides dedicated scratch disc and raw cache for Photoshop. What Adobe do not let me do in Lightroom is configure via parameter a specific location for the preview data (ie on a fast cache drive). The preview data follows wherever one places the catelog. This then gives me nightmares trying to automate backups as up to now I keep a dedicated disk for data (ie raw images, tif and web masters, etc and subsequently Lightroom catelogs). I have a second disc which is synchronised by 3rd party software, so I have daily copies of my valuble data. I backup one of these discs to store off site. As a result of Adobe linking the location of the catelog to the preview data, I am needlessly copying daily my preview data twice. I also feel this arrangement in Lightroom is contributing to the performance issues as there must be heavy I/O to both the catelog and the preview data at the same time, especially when grad or brush functionality is used. Add into this mix inefficiencies associated with storing xml versions of the brush or grad data for real time processsing.
As I repeat, I am not optimistic of a solution in 2.4. Maybe in 3.0 when they should properly consider a server based architecture and real data processing technologoes. I would love to be wrong.
Yes its true that they have a loot to do regarding performance.
I was on a battle talk for 2months with Adobe custom service. Trying to figure out exactly what hardware should I have to get must out of LR?
VGA: not important
Latest sss4.1 cpu instruction: not used
Multi-core: is better on LR 2.3+ although single core top speed will make difference in most real time actions as brushing
I also have a quick HDD system that can do a minimum transfere rate of 202Mb/s @4.9ms access time, and its still slow after some work!
Europe, Middle East and Africa