Yes, I do have a very good machine;
i7 940,
12gb ram,
768mb on professional PNY FX4600 graphics card,
3.3 TB on 4 hard disks (1 SAS, 3 x SATA RE3 WD),
25.5" monitor.
Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit.
And Lightroom 3.0 is very slow on previews, edits, zooming in / out etc (compared to Lightroom 2.7 for example, zooms are instantaneous, in Lr3 zoom, wait, rendering preview, wait, image etc).
I have approx. 23,000 images in my catalog and was considering this morning to split my catalog into smaller ones just to get by this.......
Hi Jez,
I'm just a fellow Lightroom user, but here's some stuff to try if you haven't already...
I doubt zooming performance and all that has anything to do with the size of your catalog, unless a bug in Lightroom got mixed with some funky data in your catalog to produce the symptoms you're seeing. (catalog size only affects performance when lightroom is digging through it, and its not when you're doing things like editing and viewing in the loupe).
I would try 1st optimizing your catalog since in a small fraction of cases that fixes everything.
If no luck, try making a brand new catalog and just import 1 picture in it - performs OK now or about the same?
Rob
Yes I did.
It was not what I was expecting at ALL I can assure you.
I spent a whole day yesterday trying to figure out what was the problem.
For, now, for me, Lightroom 3 is unusable. That was £80 currently down the drain......
So, yes, Adobe need to know that there is yet ONE more person who is not happy.
What is your RAM usage like? Do you get high HDD activity when things slow down?
I am having similar problems in Library (http://forums.adobe.com/thread/656181?tstart=90) and it seems to be related to RAM.
Jez(UK) wrote:
And Lightroom 3.0 is very slow on previews, edits, zooming in / out etc (compared to Lightroom 2.7 for example, zooms are instantaneous, in Lr3 zoom, wait, rendering preview, wait, image etc).
The preview mechanism has been upgraded, could potentially be an issue. You can exclude that possibility by closing LR, finding the catalog on the hard drive and renaming or deleting the *.lrdata folder. Restart LR and there won't be any previews, so select the photos and go to Library menu > Previews > Render Standard Previews. Once it's done (by all means test it on a small batch), see if that's better. No promises, but a good bet, assuming the slowness is Library module rather than Develop.
I am seeing some strange (or at least different) things when I open Lightroom 3 after having it closed for more than a few minutes. Instead of loading the image(s) I had open when I last closed the program, it loads the first 20 or so images in my library on the filmstrip and on screen if I am in grid view and after perhaps 10-15 seconds the image(s) previously displayed pop up. Also, LR3 doesn't seem to begin to populate the metadata/develop panels until the correct images show up and I am seeing some blank/grayed out thumbnails when I scroll the images on screen when in grid view. After about 10-15 seconds the thumbnails show up. This is for images that (I am certain) had had thumbnails and badges created previously. All of this makes LR3 somewhat slower to ready itself for work when I open the program than LR1/2.
On the positive side, the target adjustments have worked smoothly for me. I haven't deliberately tried to bog the computer down though.
My specs:
Windows 7 64 bit
Core2 Quad Q9550 (2.83GHZ) processor
8GB DDR 2 RAM
NVidia GeForce 8500GT graphics card with 512MB of DDR2 RAM
722GB out of 931GB free space on a dedicated internal SATA II hard drive
I re-generated the previews and scrolled through the entire library to let the thumbnails be generated and I have optimized the catalog twice.
The library consists almost entirely of Sony .ARW raw files and .RAW + Jpeg files from a Panasonic DMC-LX2 P&S with about 38,000 images in the library.
This may qualify for a "Duh! Of course I tried that!", but have you defragmented your hard drive recently? I'm not sure how LR3 manages updating catalogs and what not, but if your file system is heavily fragmented, then that could potentially explain why LR3 takes so long to draw data from images. If bits of a given photo are distributed across 100 locations a hard disk, one would likely expect slow loading speeds. Just a thought in the case that you haven't defragged lately.
On a side note, I have the feeling that a lot of people complaining about LR3's slow speeds either A) are having difficulty believing that their computer is becoming outdated, or B) haven't defragged their disk in a year.
JG,
I've given up using Defrag software because in my experience in 10years of using it (which has made the writers of Diskeeper very happy from a financial standpoint), it's never made a blind bit of difference to me, ever.......
actually, correction; it's slowed my workflow down as I was constantly monitoring and defragging my disks at every moment Diskeeper told me I needed to (forget the 'set it and forget it option')
As far as LR3 is concerned, in this machine I have a recently installed 1TB SATA WD RE3 HDD purchased and used exclusively for photos _only_.
It has currently 761gb of free space.
I don't think that's the problem somehow.......
Hi Victoria,
I've just tried it now (sorry, I didn't have time to try it when you first suggested it).
It's early to say but it does look a little better as far as generating previews and feels a little bit 'snappier'.
But as I say, too early to just report back as 'fixed' !
I'll keep you posted.
Kindest regards,
Jez
I'm only being totally hoenst when I say that disk fragmentation is something that will only get worse and worse if you ignore it. It's not really a matter of whether or not you notice the difference... it's a matter of how the hard disk physically functions. As data is transferred, file information is just plunked down into whatever available clusters there are. One piece here, one piece there.... maybe in a hundred or two-hundred different spots on the disk.
Again, fragmentation may not be your problem... I'm claiming that I know fragmentation to be the problem, it was truly just a suggestion. But, I can guarantee you that your overall computer performance will only decrease more and more as time goes on until you defrag the drive. It's not a preventative measure or a "maybe this will help my machine" type of fix... defragging addresses a very real short-coming in computer file systems that, if left unchecked for a long time, will have a more and more pronounced cumulative effect upon a system as the hard disk has to hunt around wildly to read any file. It also has little to do with the speed, size, or manufacturer of your hard disk... it happens to all of them.
In addition, regular defragging will actually help to preserve the life of your hard disk in the long term. When I tell people that I defragment my machine by auto-schedule once every week, some seem to think that I'm going to destroy my disk. The exact opposite is true. By having my defrag software hunt for and reunite disparate parts of files every week, I remove the burden from the hard drive of having to hunt around non-stop all week while I actually use my files.
Hi JG,
Oh I have seen very old machines which have been in serious 'need' of defragging.
Just mine's never been one of them.
I went freelance in 1999 and used to religiously defrag during all that time (up until a couple of years ago). What I *never* found to be the case, was that there was *any* performance increase ever gained after it (yes, I did get suckered into believing Diskeeper's advertising nonsense regarding "Boost your computer's performance by 200%").
What I used to find was that if I set it to "set it and forget it" (in other words scheduled defragging), then I'd suffer a performance hit due to my hard disks constantly burping and breaking wind whilst I'd be in the middle of a project with a tight deadline.......
If I defragged manually, my computer and I would be sitting idlely watching the 'progress' of the defrag taking place over a couple of hours - that little pastime became quite an addictive habit I can tell you, just in order to keep Diskeeper quiet and happy and not complain about my disks.
I'm sure you mean well JG, but installing Diskeeper onto my computer is _not_ something I'd ever like to reintroduce into my life right at this very moment.
Kindest regards,
Jez
Selby Shanly wrote:
Victoria - are you saying that previews created under LR2 may slow down LR3?
The preview mechanism has had a major major rebuild. LR2 previews *should* upgrade ok and be rebuilt as needed, but logically there's a higher potential for issues with the old preview cache. Personally I've ditched the previews from LR2 and rebuilt and it's solved the preview issues I was seeing, and the same for a number of other people I know of, so I'd say it's a good move IMHO.
Okay,
You've convinced me to give it another go.
I've got Diskeeper Pro 2008 but can't install it onto my Win 7 Ultimate 64bit as it's now incompatible, yet apparently I can upgrade to Diskeeper 2010 from it ??????? I'll contact Diskeeper.
I've just installed the 2010 Pro Premier 30day Trial version - lets see how I get on.
Kind regards,
Jez
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}Victoria_Bampton wrote:
Selby Shanly wrote:
Victoria - are you saying that previews created under LR2 may slow down LR3?
The preview mechanism has had a major major rebuild. LR2 previews *should* upgrade ok and be rebuilt as needed, but logically there's a higher potential for issues with the old preview cache. Personally I've ditched the previews from LR2 and rebuilt and it's solved the preview issues I was seeing, and the same for a number of other people I know of, so I'd say it's a good move IMHO.
My experience with LR3 and converting my LR 2.7 catalog proved to be, on my machine ( a four year old Dell XPS laptop with 2GB RAM), a easy conversion but a performance detriment. The Develop Module and Library Module workflow was painfully slow (loadtimes) as some have reported. Taking the advice noted above by ditching previews from LR2 and Purging CR Cache (I also moved my cache folder to a faster drive) proved to help tremendously. Load times are not "snappy" but workable and that may be a function of my "old" machine. Making the leap to MAC sometime this year is the plan. Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Alex
P.S. I have a dual monitor setup which I disabled and that seemed to help as well.
alexrac01 wrote:
Making the leap to MAC sometime this year is the plan. Hope this helps.
I use Macs and have had no end of issues with machines grinding to a halt, buggy Apple software, flaky/unrelaible hardware and I have done way too many visits to the Apple store to sort things out for a products advertised very heavily as 'it just works'. And once the Genius in the Apple store even made things worse by placing memory modules in the wrong slots and then suggested I buy more memory to fix problems that then caused.
I've completely reinstalled the OS and also the software several times on my desktop to try and sort things out and currently my laptop and desktop complement each other nicely as the Laptop gives me a black screen [power management issues] and needs restarting to sort, the desktop often gives me a blank white screen on booting up and also requires a restart to sort. Seeing as Apple make the software and they choose the hardware to run it on, their computers should be much much better than PCs, but there's no difference in my experience and that of other people I know with Macs.
One of the Apple Geniuses I dealt with also commented that he never personally used the new OSX on his own machine until update 4 or 5. Leopard 10.5.4 fixed many problems I was having, Snow Leopard had colour management issues until 10.6.3. So just like you normally wouldn't touch an MS product until SP1, leave OSX a similar time for fixes.
Performance on Macs seems to take a big hit if any of your hard drives gets a bit full it seems. By full, you may have a massive 200G space left but if it's a 2TB HD, that's still 90% full. Macs seem a little more sensitive to this than PCs, which also have this problem.
imajez wrote:
alexrac01 wrote:
Making the leap to MAC sometime this year is the plan. Hope this helps.
I use Macs and have had no end of issues with machines grinding to a halt, buggy Apple software, flaky/unrelaible hardware and I have done way too many visits to the Apple store to sort things out for a products advertised very heavily as 'it just works'. And once the Genius in the Apple store even made things worse by placing memory modules in the wrong slots and then suggested I buy more memory to fix problems that then caused.
I've completely reinstalled the OS and also the software several times on my desktop to try and sort things out and currently my laptop and desktop complement each other nicely as the Laptop gives me a black screen [power management issues] and needs restarting to sort, the desktop often gives me a blank white screen on booting up and also requires a restart to sort. Seeing as Apple make the software and they choose the hardware to run it on, their computers should be much much better than PCs, but there's no difference in my experience and that of other people I know with Macs.
One of the Apple Geniuses I dealt with also commented that he never personally used the new OSX on his own machine until update 4 or 5. Leopard 10.5.4 fixed many problems I was having, Snow Leopard had colour management issues until 10.6.3. So just like you normally wouldn't touch an MS product until SP1, leave OSX a similar time for fixes.
Performance on Macs seems to take a big hit if any of your hard drives gets a bit full it seems. By full, you may have a massive 200G space left but if it's a 2TB HD, that's still 90% full. Macs seem a little more sensitive to this than PCs, which also have this problem.
I must say your hardware experiences are not typical based on what I have seen. I've owned many different Macintoshes since 1984 and have had two (2) hardware failures: one bad motherboard on a 7200 and one disk drive.
Bob_Peters wrote:
I must say your hardware experiences are not typical based on what I have seen. I've owned many different Macintoshes since 1984 and have had two (2) hardware failures: one bad motherboard on a 7200 and one disk drive.
So what percentage failure is that? If you've owned 20 [unlikely] that's still a significant 10% failure and if you've owned 10 [more likely] that's then 20% hardware failure.
I have had PCs that worked without issues. This does not mean all PCs are therefore fine. There are far, far more PCs in general use than Macs, therefore you are more likely to come across PC problems being mentioned even without other variables being questioned, such as Apple only sell to the top of the market. If only 5% of PCs have issues that's more than the entire Mac world market.
And if you'd bought similarly priced high end PCs would they have failed anymore, bearing in mind most of the source parts are the same apart from the motherboards/chips?
A few years back, The Gadget Show, a UK TV programme [which is very, very pro Apple], did a test on fixing PCs and Macs. They dropped both off a balcony and then tried to get them fixed. In both cases the motherboard had unsurprisingly broken. £50 for the PC motherboard bought in first shop tried and PC was up and running, if a little battered looking. £350 was quoted for a Mac motherboard. But no-one had one in country, so it stayed broken.
The big, big difference is Apple base their marketing on the fact that their products just work and are more reliable than PCs, which is patent nonsense. The genius bar in my Apple store is constantly busy with customers with problems and I have to book in advance to see them and I've seen them quite a lot sadly. What Apple are truly exceptional at is marketing, probably the best in the world [in any business]. Their equipment and software is probably no less bug free or prone to failure than a comparable PC company which only sells premium products. Most of the people I know with Macs have had problems that require visits to the retailer.
Charles Arthur a technology writer for the high end UK press and a massive Apple fan, wrote an article a while back about the fact that it had suddenly dawned on him that nearly every Apple product his household had owned over that last few years has had warrantee issues. Many PC companies in UK also offer longer warrantees than Apple do.
I use both PCs and Macs and the reality is that you only have different problems, not more or less problems.
And what about buggy software - there's been an awful lot of that, no matter what platform? Early releases of each version of OSX is buggy, early versions of Win is buggy. No difference at all in my view. If you are using either one, stick with it as the time spent learning how the new OS and other software works could be better spent learning more about your own OS and software. Most people do not know how to make the most of their current software and many of their 'problems' would go away if they did.
regarding the advise of rebuilding the previews: I did convert a 2.7 catalogue. After installing 3.0 I converted the old 2.7 cat. After that I imported a batch of new shots out of the camera. Shouldn't those "fresh 3.0" 1:1 previews not be faster in library and develop? Here they are not. Or has it to do with the converted 2.7 previews/database info?
Rendering previews in Develop and Library modules will be slightly slower on recent hardware (i.e. released within last few years). If your kit is older the rendering will take a lot longer. The reason being that the new raw demosaic, noise and sharpening algorithms are a lot more processor intensive that predecessors and make use of instructions sets only found in more recent hardware.
Full time Professional Photographer
We use Lightroom on three workstations in our studio.
[Production workstation]
Alienware (2) Dual Core Opteron 285 2.61GHz
8 megs ram
Raid 0
Win 7 Ultimate - 64
NVidia GeForce GTX 260
[Presentation workstation]
Quadcore Dell - Vista Ulltimate
Raid 0
[Production workstation]
Quadcore Dell XPS 710 - Win XP Pro
Raid 0
All three workstations are running Lightroom 3. All are running LR3 with unacceptably slow performance when compared to LR 2.7.
I am putting LR 2.7 back on all three workstations for actual production work. A typical wedding has 3-5 thousand images to process. This has to be done quickly. LR 2.7 is very stable on all my systems and runs much faster than any other version of LR I have had.
LR 3.0 looks to be a fantastic program. BUT, version 3.0 is not ready for handling real world work flow at this time. I am looking forward to version 3.1.
Editing pictures with LR3 was painfully slow on my PC!
And then I read this post, I decided to follow the Victoria's trashing preview folder advice, I rebuilt the previews and now... it's working fine! Editing is just as pleasant as usual and I can work properly.
I also had trouble with the dust removal tool, it's working quite fine now... not as smooth as the pencil, but quite nice.
Thank you Victoria!
Eric
(I'm working with LR3 on Win7 64 bits, Intel core I7 860, ATI Radeon 4870)
North America
Europe, Middle East and Africa
Asia Pacific