Skip navigation
This discussion is locked
Currently Being Moderated

Experiencing performance related issues in Lightroom 3.x

Aug 6, 2012 4:02 PM

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

 
Replies 1 2 3 ... 30 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 9, 2010 3:25 PM   in reply to laurencec

    More information.  Slow loading thumbs when?  On what OS?  On what machine?  How many images in your catalog?  How many in your source?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 9, 2010 4:48 PM   in reply to laurencec

    speed test:

     

    winxp 3,25gb    L2.7  raw --> jpg 85%   100 photos =time 5,30 min

    win7 x64 8gb    L3.0  raw --> jpg 85%   100 photos =       6,16 min

     

    hardware is the same phenom x4 9750 (100 the same photos)

     


    why slower... !!??

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 9, 2010 4:51 PM   in reply to laurencec

    Okay, try this.  Open the application and just wait for all the thumbs to load and all hard drive activity to stop.  This could take a while in some cases (minutes).  Once that happens, exit the application and re-load it.  My guess is that it will be spectacularly faster on the second attempt.

     

    If so, close all your folders using alt-click which will close the folder and all of its subfolders.  Select a source that doesn't have any images and exit.  Reboot and relaunch.  Once the app is open, try selecting a source with some images and let me know what happens.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 9, 2010 4:52 PM   in reply to kobajaszi777

    kobajaszi777 wrote:

     

    speed test:

     

    winxp 3,25gb    L2.7  raw --> jpg 85%   100 photos =time 5,30 min

    win7 x64 8gb    L3.0  raw --> jpg 85%   100 photos =       6,16 min

     

    hardware is the same phenom x4 9750 (100 the same photos)

     


    why slower... !!??

     

    That's rendering.  Completely separate issue.  The new, improved rendering algorithms also require more processing cycles to complete.  It's the price you pay for improved image quality.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 9, 2010 9:13 PM   in reply to laurencec

    Wow....my RAM useage has gone through the roof w/ LR3. I

    just checked my CPU meter and I was at 79% constant RAM use, with

    peaks in the mid 80s. Never saw that number over 40%

    before. I have 8gb now, looks like it is time for more!

     

    I exited LR3 and then reopened and the RAM use is down at 37%. It will be interesting to see how and when it starts peaking.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 9, 2010 9:21 PM   in reply to Wanchese West

    Yes, it's very RAM hungry by design. I thought PShop was a memory hog, but if you check the min specs on the Adobe site, PS5 requires 1GB minimum; LR3 wants 4Gb... if you're packing more than 4, my guess is LR will hog as much as it can without degrading your system performance.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 9, 2010 10:00 PM   in reply to Mikkasa

    Mikkasa wrote:

     

    LR3 wants 4Gb... if you're packing more than 4, my guess is LR will hog as much as it can without degrading your system performance.

    4GB minimum? I have 4GB on my system and Lr3 averages about 1G +/- a few hundred K.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 9, 2010 11:34 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Ok, so I exaggerate a little. it's actually 2Gb. nothing wrong with a little dramatic license...

     

    http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/systemreqs/

     

    But still twice the PS5 requirements. That makes it a proper gas guzzler in my book.

     

    OTOH, wassa point of having 8gigs if you never use it?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 10, 2010 12:53 AM   in reply to Mikkasa

    You can't get away with squat on this forum - gotta check your exagerrations before hittin' the "Submit" button .

     

    I would guess Lightroom would "never" use more than about 1.5GB of RAM, when its functioning correctly, and if it ever tops 2GB - you got a leak... Somebody correct me if I'm full of hooey...

     

    The other Gigs are for keeping another dozen programs open... Not too many programs even know how take advantage of massive quantities of ram when they're available - or at least that's been my experience so far.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 10, 2010 2:09 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    You're probably right. Still, if you're running a 40k+ image library and are possessed with the need to simultaneously run two multi-tabbed browsers (who, me?) you'll quickly run into problems.

     

    I've noticed this over the course of three versions of LR and two new computers: the best upgrade you can hope for is a memory upgrade.

     

    Seriously, I traded up my hardware in anticipation of LR3's reported performance hikes.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 10, 2010 2:30 AM   in reply to Mikkasa

    I would think if any of the programs your'e running are ram starved, then more ram helps, but if all of your programs have as much as they can possibly use, then more ram would not help.

     

    But yeah, programs are getting hungrier and hungrier (couldn't find a "hungry" emoticon).

     

    PS - Sometimes people mistake memory leakage for memory hunger.

     

    Enjoy Lightroom,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 10, 2010 4:26 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    I've seen LR use over 5GB of my 12GB of ram, but I'd like to see it use more.

     

    bob F.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 10, 2010 4:59 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    It probably depends on your platform. If a single app asks for 8Gb of memory on my Mac, it will get it, either as real or virtual memory.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 10, 2010 6:30 AM   in reply to laurencec

    Keep in mind that if you're using a 32-bit Windows OS including Windows 7, the OS can only use about 3 GB or maybe 3.5 GB of RAM, no matter how much you load onto the PC.  So if LR3 is slow on your system with 2 GB of RAM,and that wouldn't be a huge surprise especially if you have a large catalog and a 2+ year old PC, it may not be much better even if you upgrade your RAM to 8 GB, unless you also do a reformat and reinstall to a 64-bit Windows OS.  Doing that may cause other issues with other software.  For example, I also use Adobe Audition, and comments on the Adobe support forum for those who have tried Audition with 64-bit Win7 seem divided between those who run it fine and those who can't run it well at all. Your hardware drivers also may or may not support 64-bit Windows.A 64-bit OS is great with hardware and software that can run it, likely including LR3 and PS CS5, but YMMV with your other apps and your gear.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 10, 2010 12:30 PM   in reply to bob frost

    bob frost wrote:

     

    I've seen LR use over 5GB of my 12GB of ram, but I'd like to see it use more.

     

    Be careful what you wish for (consider you may have a memory leak).

     

    Mac or Win?

     

    PS - I'm pretty sure on Win7/64 if I added more memory Lightroom wouldn't use a bit of it - there's free memory right now that it doesn't use. I mean it "used" it when I had a memory leak, but ever since I optimized my catalog it doesn't use it. Well, occasionally it "uses" it, but its generally a precursor to a slow down followed by a crash...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 10, 2010 3:38 PM   in reply to clvrmnky

    clvrmnky wrote:

     

    It probably depends on your platform. If a single app asks for 8Gb of memory on my Mac, it will get it, either as real or virtual memory.

    Yeah, I was going to post sthg like that but didn't want to sound like a mac fanboy

     

    however..

     

    ..a lot of these slow performance reports seem to originate from win7 x64 users, very well-specced systems at that. I'm tempted to point a shaky finger at things like openGL optimisation / hardware integration, rather than outright RAM & processor muscle, as the source of the difference, and GPU rather than CPU performance in general. Mel's post above is the sort of thing I'm on about.

     

    Any thoughts? Have macs still got the edge for graphics/rendering work or not?

     

    For mac users, it's maybe of interest to note the next mac OS release will address 3rd party app openGL issues as a priority item: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/05/06/mac_os_x_10_6_4_to_tackl e_issues_with_opengl_iphoto_dvd_player.html

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 10, 2010 3:45 PM   in reply to laurencec

    Hi!

    My images are taking 10 seconds to load going from one image to the next  in Develop mode. I'm using LR3 with the existing reviews from Beta2,  which was much faster. Macbook Pro 2.16 GHz 2GB 667MHz, running OSX 5.8.

    Should I delete the preview cache and Re-render, or is my computer just  too slow for LR3?

    Cheers!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 10, 2010 3:55 PM   in reply to Brian Noppe

    I haven't loaded LR3 onto my macbook (same spec as yours) yet but if LR2 was anything to go by, and you're talking about 1:1 rendering in Develop, 10 seconds probably is a bit slow but not horrendously so.

     

    I'm still not sure what aspect of the i5 iMac makes it so much quicker (quad-core/4Gb notwithstanding) but it is... consensus here seems to be that more RAM helps, but it's not the end of the story. Are you running it in 64-bit mode? I believe RAM needs to be a little beefier than 2gigs to make the most of 64bit, but it might help.

     

    I do remember getting better macbook performance with LR on its own, ie quitting other stuff (esp browsers) that can be RAM-hungry.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 10, 2010 4:00 PM   in reply to Brian Noppe

    Should I delete the preview cache and Re-render, or is my computer just  too slow for LR3?

    IME delete the preview cache and it will take a looong time to rebuild a decent sized catalog for no discernible improvement.

     

    You could try optimising the catalog (in the file menu) - takes less time, no harm in trying.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 10, 2010 4:05 PM   in reply to Brian Noppe

    Brian Noppe wrote:

     

    Hi!

    My images are taking 10 seconds to load going from one image to the next  in Develop mode. I'm using LR3 with the existing reviews from Beta2,  which was much faster. Macbook Pro 2.16 GHz 2GB 667MHz, running OSX 5.8.

    Should I delete the preview cache and Re-render, or is my computer just  too slow for LR3?

    Cheers!

     

    Switching from one (non-cached) Nikon D700 NEF image to another takes about 3 seconds on my MacPro:

     

      Model Identifier: MacPro1,1

      Processor Name: Dual-Core Intel Xeon

      Processor Speed: 2.66 GHz

      Number Of Processors: 2

      Total Number Of Cores: 4

      L2 Cache (per processor): 4 MB

      Memory: 5 GB

      Bus Speed: 1.33 GHz

     

    Switching from one (non-cached) Nikon D300 NEF (same size images as the D700) image to another takes about 5 seconds on my MacBook Pro:

    Model Identifier: MacBookPro5,1
    Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
    Processor Speed: 2.4 GHz
    Number Of Processors: 1
    Total Number Of Cores: 2
    L2 Cache: 3 MB
    Memory: 2 GB
    Bus Speed: 1.07 GHz

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 10, 2010 4:42 PM   in reply to Mikkasa

    Hi Mikkasa,

     

    Thanks, I did optimise with no change.



    Merci!

    Brian

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 10, 2010 4:48 PM   in reply to Bob_Peters

    Thanks, Bob, for the benchmark.

     

    Doesn't that seem slow to you? i.e. a folder of 1500 images would take 2 hours of rendering time alone at 5 seconds per image.

     

    Cheers!

     

    Brian

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 10, 2010 5:05 PM   in reply to Brian Noppe

    D70 NEF files render in about 1/2 the time as the D700.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 10, 2010 5:24 PM   in reply to Mikkasa

    All I can say is.. I am not having any issues at all with the new release. I am using WIN7 64 and I can use iTunes, DxO AND Lightroom3 all at the same time without any problems. All the features work as advertised and I am one happy Windows7 camper.

     

    Has anyone considered that an AntiVirus program might be the cause? I use Microsoft Security Essentials.

     

    ... my two cents, thanks.

     

     

    EDIT: I don't know why my system doesn't show up on my posts, but here it is:

    Win7 64-bit; HP Pavilion Elite Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200, 8gig RAM, Radeon HD4350; Lightroom 3; EOS 7D

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 10, 2010 5:20 PM   in reply to Brian Noppe

    It takes my win7/64 box (modest build) about 5-10 seconds to render a virgin (14-bit D300) image, probably more like 15 seconds on the average - depending mostly on how much I've been brushing on it. Could be up to a half minute if I've gone crazy with the locals...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 10, 2010 9:04 PM   in reply to laurencec

    I have also been experiencing slow processing with Lightroom 3.0 compared to Lightroom 2.7.

    Here is a comparative table of observation in memory process usage:

     

    Description          LR 2.7               LR 3.0                                        Remarks

     

    Start-up

    No processing

    Browsing only     300-320  MB            300 -320 MB                         Basically the same

     

    Develop Export

    to Jpeg Quality

    100                     450-570 MB            1.74 to 1.94 GB                     LR 3.0 uses double the memory compared to LR 2.7

     

    Time to process

    same 7 RAW files

    of an EOS 40D          30.42 seconds     1 minute & 3.13 seconds      LR 3.0 almost takes double the time to process same files in the same machine

    (using a digital stopwatch)

     

    At Rest-Idle no

    processing

    being done               448-532 MB               1.786 - 1.85 GB                LR 3.0 uses more than double the memory even in idle or rest.

     

    Both versions are in the same Mac, so I think  the configuration should not matter but I wrote  it anyway. In fact, my LR 2.7 has 4,182 images on the catalog that I tested and the LR 3.0 only has 691 images on its catalog.  I noticed LR 3's sluggishness when I was processing the images so I measured the processing time using a digital stopwatch in order to mathematically express the slow processing that I have observed. Both versions and catalogs were optimized and have the same preferences.

     

    iMac 2.4 GHz Duo Core 4GB (667 MHz)

     

    I hope an Adobe Engineer would read this. Your prompt response and solution is needed and greatly appreciated.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 10, 2010 10:18 PM   in reply to arnelg

    Does sound like you've been bitten by the Lr3-sloooooooooow bug.

     

    I'd like to point you to the online Adobe bug database which gives a complete list of all bugs identified so far so you can check status..., but there isn't one.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 11, 2010 3:23 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Thanks Rob. Useless as usual but your post count continues to climb!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 11, 2010 3:51 AM   in reply to Photo_op8

    Photo_op8 wrote:

     

    Thanks Rob. Useless as usual but your post count continues to climb!

     

    And I thank you for keeping me honest. I go flying off the deep end - get all cocky and stuff if somebody doesn't chain me in the basement once in a while.

     

    +1 post.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 11, 2010 4:25 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Actually, there is at https://bugs.adobe.com/

    .. but the LR team obviously does not participate.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 11, 2010 4:32 AM   in reply to F. McLion

    F. McLion,

     

    Well, I find that very interesting indeed - Sorta begs the question why the Lightroom Team doesn't participate. I guess you have to be an insider to get that kind of information.

     

    Thanks for the education.

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 11, 2010 8:31 PM   in reply to laurencec

    I've found LR3 to be brutally slow at pretty much everything.  I'm running WinXP with some pretty decent hardware.  I upgraded from LR1.4.  I thought LR1.4 was pretty snappy but find LR3 to be a major step backward in speed.  Manipulating sliders (like Recovery, for example) is painfully awkward and slow, with major lag.  Tools like red eye reduction and brushes are even worse.  This is slowing down my workflow tremendously.  I love LR, but what is going on here?!?  I'm sure hoping this is a bug that can be fixed and not a permanent issue.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 11, 2010 11:33 PM   in reply to Drew789

    Same here. I am a big fan of LR, but this version is enormous slow in almost anything. Just experienced a crash because of trying to change too often to another pic while it was rendering (?). ANd thaat of pic straight out of the camera with basic processing. No local adjustments, no graduated filters. Pics look great, but the time involved isn't really billable anymore.

     

    I am on Win XP32, prof, 3 Gb, extended physical address, Xeon 3Ghz.

     

    I would like to know if it is just windows users or are Mac users also experiencing these slowdowns?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2010 12:09 AM   in reply to camerahans

    You gotta be kidding me.  I have been waiting for this for so long I built a new highly-specd machine in anticipation.  For my efforts I get a performance decrease from LR 3.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2010 12:46 AM   in reply to laurencec

    OK!

     

     

    I was dismayed... I love Lightroom; it is the most valuable part of my image workflow. Lightroom 3 was giving me the dreaded mac beachballs of death, external hard drives  mysteriously being "not properly ejected", crazy load times, slow  sliders, etc. etc.

     

    Much better now!

     

    I "exported as catalog" the images that I was working on (about 700 flagged images). Closed Lightroom. Trashed all plists (LR2. LR3Beta2, LR3).

    Created a new Catalog. Imported from the catalog of images I had been working on to the new working catalog.

    Voila! LR3 is not instantaneous, but definitely workable....and I've not had to restart so far.

     

    Thanks, Victoria Bampton (especially) and others that got me to my present much  happier place. :-D  (and yeah, I'm knocking on wood)

     

    Have you other folks experiencing problems done these steps?

     

    Cheers!

     

    Brian

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2010 1:23 AM   in reply to J.Simono

    So at this point I will wait to upgrade until we know what % of Win7-64 bit users (my OS) experience these very slow processes. I, too, built a way bigger system to work on images in PS and LR. Well - the old one was way out of date, so the new build was overdue but I was looking forward to a satisfied grin at blazing speed on this app.

     

    The memory comments are interesting: most of you don't think that memory past 4-6 GIG will do anything for LR directly. In PS it has always been described as beneficial. I have 6GIG and was wondering about going to 12.

     

    System:

    i7 920 not yet overclocked

    6GIG RAM

    Gigabyte motherboard with a couple of large-capacity internal SATA 6 Barracuda XT hard drives

    GTS250 video card 1GIG video RAM

     

    I use two monitors. I saw a comment in another thread that speculated that people using two monitors were seeing more slowdowns than those using one.

     

    jonathan7007

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2010 1:33 AM   in reply to jonathan7007

    Why not just run the trial and see if you get lucky?

     

    PS - I think 6GB is enough (I do fine with 4GB). On the other hand, if you get 12GB, you won't have to wonder whether you've got enough .

     

    PPS - I have 2 24" 1920x1200 monitors and no problems.

     

    win7/64

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2010 1:50 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob,

    Wouldn't Photoshop be happier with the higher RAM count? I will start shooting with a Canon full-frame camera now and it has a 21MP sensor - larger raw files, etc. When I last looked it was 170$ to go the extra 6GIG so I am considering it. (My system has banks of three ram slots so jumps by 3's -- 9GIG offers little benefit for about the same $$ and causes a mis-matched sets of ram modules... usually a bad idea.)

     

    There's always something to spend on...

     

    thanks for the idea on the trial. Good idea, too.

     

    jonathan7007

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 3 ... 30 Previous Next
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points