Skip navigation
This discussion is locked

Experiencing performance related issues in Lightroom 3.x

Aug 6, 2012 4:02 PM

  Latest reply: thewhitedog, Dec 3, 2010 4:44 PM
Replies 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 ... 30 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 27, 2010 1:46 PM   in reply to Keith_Reeder

    Well, we're now THIRTEEN PAGES and more than a FORTY-FIVE days into this problem since the thread was started on June 9...

     

    A while ago, I suggested it might be useful for SOMEONE at Adobe that lives in a room with a door on it, perhaps even someone that's HIGH up in charge of the Lightroom project, to STAND UP and say "WE GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE PROBLEM AND WE'RE BUSTING OUR COLLECTIVE BEHINDS TO FIX IT"...

     

    And of course, I got the typical response from the fanboys, questioning my reading comprehension.  It'd STILL be nice to have someone with the clout to make this a very high priority tell us SOMEONE IS ACTUALLY TRYING TO FIX THIS......

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 27, 2010 1:51 PM   in reply to DavePinMinn

    Maybe a gesture undate with one bug fix.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 27, 2010 1:52 PM   in reply to DavePinMinn

    Seriously you should all just return your software if you want results fast.

     

    I returned mine.

     

    To adobe's credit, It's pretty straight forward through the web interface.

    You might have to call in if it is over 30 days.

     

    At this rate, I'll be glad to purchase it again when it is in version 3.7

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 27, 2010 2:01 PM   in reply to goodlux7

    I'd love to return the program right away, but I'm in the middle of processing two large events that I started with 3.0, and I'm going to finish them up in 3 - I don't have the time to roll them back to 2.7 and start again. I'll decide what to do when I get them done. I agree with whomever posted here recently saying all we want is for someone at Adobe to stand up and say they (1) are aware of the issue(s) and (2) they care.

     

    It wouldn't take much for them to let us know they are on it.....Whether they are on the forums or not, these forums are hosted by Adobe, so it wouldn't be that hard for to come down and visit us little folks (i.e., the ones that buy the software and make their jobs possible) that they are working on it, and to give us some kind of a timeline.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 27, 2010 4:07 PM   in reply to Jon Westcott

    isyseurope wrote:

     

    getho wrote:

     

    I've just created a new catalogue for a shoot. It was apinful waiting for the 1:1 previews to render whilst working on images so I decided to render ALL of the DNGS 1:1 previews.  It is taking about 8 seconds to generate a preview at the moment.  Catlogue is about 1000 images

    System specs below.  Is this slow for a comparable system? its going to take over an hour to render 565 images.

     

     

    Lightroom version: 3.0 [677000]
    Operating system: Windows 7 Business Edition
    Version: 6.1 [7600]
    Application architecture: x64
    System architecture: x64
    Physical processor count: 8
    Processor speed: 2.6 GHz
    Built-in memory: 12279.0 MB
    Real memory available to Lightroom: 12279.0 MB
    Real memory used by Lightroom: 1373.9 MB (11.1%)
    Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 1406.9 MB
    Memory cache size: 1493.3 MB
    System DPI setting: 96 DPI
    Desktop composition enabled: Yes
    Displays: 1) 2560x1440, 2) 1600x1200

    Hi Getho,

     

    I'm running same specs on dual monitor resolutions. Win 7 Ultimate, 12gb mem,  but intel i7 quad processor. My system was built to optimise speed for lightroom and uses triple channel 1600ghz memory and striped RAID disks(seperate for cataloque and cache). I get around 3 seconds per 1:1 preview for my Canon 5D mkII 21mb files.

     

    You have plenty of processing power so look at the speed of your memory & hard disk performance - these are key to LR3 performance.

     

    v. best regards, Jon

     

    I've got 12gb fancy geil pants ram and raid 10 storage (which is pretty quick).  Image cache is on a 10 rpm raptor., and the system drive is SSD.  (A setup tailored to lightroom photoshop, too).  So you post is even more depressing !

     

    I did a test and reset all the develop settings on a bunch of files and recreated the 1:1 previews and it came down to 2-3 secs per file.  When I then reset them again to the preset I'm using it went up to 7-8 seconds again.  The preset has agressive noise reduction and sharpening.  I'm assuming thats what is taking the time. (I wonder if anyone else sees this).

     

    I have to say I think LR3 is awesome, it has the potential to change my workflow, and change my style.  I can squeeze so much out of my 7d files I can almost start exposing for the highlights and getting all the detail I need out of shadows without combining shots.

     

    I suspect that it may not be possible to speed up much:

    My guess is that viewing at fit or fill size the engineers decided to apply settings changes to all the raw data in an image and then display the scaled results.  I can see why - there would be huge overheads in producing a scaled proxy of an image to work on, then applying those settings to the original raw file on completion etc. They wanted to keep the ability to jump quickly from image to image without producing a queue of backgroud tasks.  I think they need to re-examine that one! If I'm spending 10 minutes working on a file then 20 seconds doing a proxy creation and copying those settings back is well worth it for the speed increase.

     

    I'm assuming of course that working on a  3 MP raw file is quicker than a 18MP raw file.

    ANyone tried working on sRAW files?  IS it quicker?

     

    If so then may they could think about including the proxy in the DNG - so each DNG contained the raw data plus the 3 MP proxy for lightroom to crunch.

     

    or maybe they should talk to/buy these guys http://www.oloneo.com/ and find out they are producing a screen refresh speed of 1/20th of a second.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 27, 2010 9:34 PM   in reply to getho

    getho wrote:

     


    ......

    ......

     

     

    or maybe they should talk to/buy these guys http://www.oloneo.com/ and find out they are producing a screen refresh speed of 1/20th of a second.

     

    Looks pretty fast.. worth a download.. wish they had a Mac version.  :-)   Reminescent of Raw Shooter Pro speed, which Adobe did take a liking to.  :-)

     

    Jay S.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 28, 2010 12:12 AM   in reply to JayS In CT

    JayS In CT wrote:

     

     

    Looks pretty fast.. worth a download.. wish they had a Mac version.  :-)   Reminescent of Raw Shooter Pro speed, which Adobe did take a liking to.  :-)

     

    Jay S.

     

    just been playing with it - full screen it really is 5x faster than LR3, if not more.  Even the HDR module (which produced VERY nice results) was as fast as the raw processor. The only thing is you have to wait a few seconds as an image loads. (about 8 seconds on my system for a 7d DNG). Theres not much there at the mo - theres no noise reduction and the raw processing is not as pretty as LR3, ah but the speed...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 28, 2010 12:26 AM   in reply to getho

    it certainly is fast.

    I wonder if that also is because the app doesn't use a

    big database for all the info of all pics.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 28, 2010 3:59 AM   in reply to getho

    getho wrote:

     

    isyseurope wrote:

     

    getho wrote:

     

    I've just created a new catalogue for a shoot. It was apinful waiting for the 1:1 previews to render whilst working on images so I decided to render ALL of the DNGS 1:1 previews.  It is taking about 8 seconds to generate a preview at the moment.  Catlogue is about 1000 images

    System specs below.  Is this slow for a comparable system? its going to take over an hour to render 565 images.

     

     

    Lightroom version: 3.0 [677000]
    Operating system: Windows 7 Business Edition
    Version: 6.1 [7600]
    Application architecture: x64
    System architecture: x64
    Physical processor count: 8
    Processor speed: 2.6 GHz
    Built-in memory: 12279.0 MB
    Real memory available to Lightroom: 12279.0 MB
    Real memory used by Lightroom: 1373.9 MB (11.1%)
    Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 1406.9 MB
    Memory cache size: 1493.3 MB
    System DPI setting: 96 DPI
    Desktop composition enabled: Yes
    Displays: 1) 2560x1440, 2) 1600x1200

    Hi Getho,

     

    I'm running same specs on dual monitor resolutions. Win 7 Ultimate, 12gb mem,  but intel i7 quad processor. My system was built to optimise speed for lightroom and uses triple channel 1600ghz memory and striped RAID disks(seperate for cataloque and cache). I get around 3 seconds per 1:1 preview for my Canon 5D mkII 21mb files.

     

    You have plenty of processing power so look at the speed of your memory & hard disk performance - these are key to LR3 performance.

     

    v. best regards, Jon

     

    I've got 12gb fancy geil pants ram and raid 10 storage (which is pretty quick).  Image cache is on a 10 rpm raptor., and the system drive is SSD.  (A setup tailored to lightroom photoshop, too).  So you post is even more depressing !

     

    I did a test and reset all the develop settings on a bunch of files and recreated the 1:1 previews and it came down to 2-3 secs per file.  When I then reset them again to the preset I'm using it went up to 7-8 seconds again.  The preset has agressive noise reduction and sharpening.  I'm assuming thats what is taking the time. (I wonder if anyone else sees this).

     

    I have to say I think LR3 is awesome, it has the potential to change my workflow, and change my style.  I can squeeze so much out of my 7d files I can almost start exposing for the highlights and getting all the detail I need out of shadows without combining shots.

     

    I suspect that it may not be possible to speed up much:

    My guess is that viewing at fit or fill size the engineers decided to apply settings changes to all the raw data in an image and then display the scaled results.  I can see why - there would be huge overheads in producing a scaled proxy of an image to work on, then applying those settings to the original raw file on completion etc. They wanted to keep the ability to jump quickly from image to image without producing a queue of backgroud tasks.  I think they need to re-examine that one! If I'm spending 10 minutes working on a file then 20 seconds doing a proxy creation and copying those settings back is well worth it for the speed increase.

     

    I'm assuming of course that working on a  3 MP raw file is quicker than a 18MP raw file.

    ANyone tried working on sRAW files?  IS it quicker?

     

    If so then may they could think about including the proxy in the DNG - so each DNG contained the raw data plus the 3 MP proxy for lightroom to crunch.

     

    or maybe they should talk to/buy these guys http://www.oloneo.com/ and find out they are producing a screen refresh speed of 1/20th of a second.

    Hey Getho,

     

    Sounds like you have a well specced system for Lightroom so you should see performance as good as it gets for LR3! I tried

     

    creating an agressive preset using high sharpening, noise reduction, HSL mods, and a bit of Adjustment Brush. This increases 1:1 preview (2048, High) render time to just over 4 seconds. So yes an increase but not huge..

     

    What speed is your RAM?

     

    I still believe it should not be necessary to have such a high spec to haul LR3 into the realms of acceptable performance though and it is clear there are some major performance issues for Adobe to addess. That much is clear from the comments here. There are however some that love LR3 and are prepared to put in the effort to make it workable in the interim..

     

    Jon

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 28, 2010 6:33 AM   in reply to Jon Westcott

    Hey Getho,

     

    Sounds like you have a well specced system for Lightroom so you should see performance as good as it gets for LR3! I tried

     

    creating an agressive preset using high sharpening, noise reduction, HSL mods, and a bit of Adjustment Brush. This increases 1:1 preview (2048, High) render time to just over 4 seconds. So yes an increase but not huge..

     

    What speed is your RAM?

     

    I still believe it should not be necessary to have such a high spec to haul LR3 into the realms of acceptable performance though and it is clear there are some major performance issues for Adobe to addess. That much is clear from the comments here. There are however some that love LR3 and are prepared to put in the effort to make it workable in the interim..

     

    Jon

     

    hi jon

    its geil ultra 1600 c7. Cost an arm and a leg.  I havn't overclocked the system, but yes I agree - it should be quick enough.

     

    Its not a problem with the database either as someone suggested - camera raw 6.1 is just as slow - I can move a slider more smoothly than LR, but the screen takes > half a second to update.

     

    just did a quick test with LR2 - 1:1 previews around 1 second each. Same profile in LR3 - 4 seconds each.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 28, 2010 7:30 AM   in reply to getho

    getho wrote:

     


    Hey Getho,

     

    Sounds like you have a well specced system for Lightroom so you should see performance as good as it gets for LR3! I tried

     

    creating an agressive preset using high sharpening, noise reduction, HSL mods, and a bit of Adjustment Brush. This increases 1:1 preview (2048, High) render time to just over 4 seconds. So yes an increase but not huge..

     

    What speed is your RAM?

     

    I still believe it should not be necessary to have such a high spec to haul LR3 into the realms of acceptable performance though and it is clear there are some major performance issues for Adobe to addess. That much is clear from the comments here. There are however some that love LR3 and are prepared to put in the effort to make it workable in the interim..

     

    Jon

     

    hi jon

    its geil ultra 1600 c7. Cost an arm and a leg.  I havn't overclocked the system, but yes I agree - it should be quick enough.

     

    Its not a problem with the database either as someone suggested - camera raw 6.1 is just as slow - I can move a slider more smoothly than LR, but the screen takes > half a second to update.

     

    just did a quick test with LR2 - 1:1 previews around 1 second each. Same profile in LR3 - 4 seconds each.

     

    Getho,

     

    I wonder still if any of the issues with hi res. displays has some effect here.  It's been said here before, but I assume you're on the most up to date video drivers for the system?  Anything different if you move LR to the smaller display?  Been known to make a difference..  Just looking for something to help...

     

    Jay S.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 28, 2010 10:42 AM   in reply to Mark Lydell

    Dear Adobe

     

    After "wasting" several hours reading forums here and elsewhere on the unacceptably slow operation of Lightroom 3, I am compelled to add my voice to those of the others here who are demanding that Adobe acknowledge a serious performance issue with the product.

     

    I use LR professionally on two different Vista 32 systems that both ran LR 2.7 extremely well.  The degradation in operational performance introduced by LR3 on both machines is so severe that the product is unuseable, as it causes a major delay in my workflow - sitting watching the "processing" logo spinning on the screen is giving me nightmares!  Hence, I am stripping out LR3 and reverting to 2.7.

     

    I am IT literate and there is lots of potentially useful comment and advice here and elsewhere on what may be the cause of the problem.  However, software vendors are duty bound to ensure their product is fit-for-purpose - they cannot expect purchasers to research issues at length and try various technical options for achieving a level of performance improvement.  This is especially true when the vendor is allegedly selling a product for use by professionals.

     

    The new functioanlity is LR3 is welcome, but the product should not have been released without effective testing and, where appropriate, real-world advice on the minimum system configuration, and, if appropriate, the correct method of migrating catalogues from one version to another.

     

    Regards

     

    Tony

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 28, 2010 4:31 PM   in reply to TonyBrook

    jay

    I'm actually using it in a window 2100x1400, and smaller if I need to do quick adjustments - yes it does speed  up in a smaller window, (but not the preview rendering)

     

    When it looks like this...

     

    2010-07-29_085416.jpg

    (a window 1300x800).  It is almost as fast as OLONEO is at fullscreen (2560x1440).  When that program is fullscreen the image size is 1931x1286 (2.5MP), the LR image window here is 555x371 (0.21MP). Making LR 12 times slower (or 12 times smaller for comparable speed)

     

    I know oloneo is not comparable to LR in any other way -

    but it shows what is technically possible.

     

    I'm not sure the graphics driver would impact on performance - certainly not with rendering of preview - which is the same speed at any window size - thats a pure CPU/memory task I would think.

     

     

    Just tried looking at my resource meter whilst rendering previews.  I see a sawtooth pattern with peaks in CPU corresponding with troughs in disk writes.  My catalogue for this project is on the same drive as the RAW files - not sure if that makes a difference.  There was little writing to the cache (which is on a separate drive).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 28, 2010 4:39 PM   in reply to getho

    getho wrote:

     

    There was little writing to the cache (which is on a separate drive).

    One proven bottleneck issue involves external drive access. Have you tried setting up a catalogue with everything on your internal drive?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 28, 2010 5:14 PM   in reply to Mikkasa

    no its separate, but not external (its a 10K RPM raptor), storage is a raid 10

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 28, 2010 5:27 PM   in reply to getho

    getho,

     

    So you have the catalog and images in your main storage area, which is a RAID 10 (implying at least 4 drives) and the cache is in a separate internal Raptor drive. Should be pretty much ideal other than having the cache in a RAID 0 volume ( my setup :-). I take it the RAID 10 is internal too?

     

    It would be nicer if one could locate the previews in a different drive too.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 28, 2010 8:07 PM   in reply to TonyBrook

    Lightroom 3 is horribly, horribly slow!  No question whatsoever, it is virtually unusable.  My system is a new iMac (2.66 GHz Intel Core i5) with 12 GB of RAM.

     

    My files are imported and stored on a NAS (QNAP).  With LR 2.7 there was absolutely no problem and excellent speed importing.  As soon as I switched to LR3, importing slammed into slow, slow, slow.

     

    Adobe has a major problem.  I'm not even wasting my time with LR3--back to LR 2.7 I go!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 28, 2010 8:21 PM   in reply to rlv52

    Details? Import in place, copy, move, DNG, or copy/convert from card? What kind of photos and how many? What part is slow exactly? (walltime of the import itself, sluggishness using the app during import, preview building, loading thumbs into grid, etc) What other settings are involved? Are you applying keyword/metadata/develop presets? Renaming? Is the catalog on an internal or external drive? If you're copying/converting/moving are you segmenting by date? Copying to a secondary location (if so, what kind of drive)?

     

    The number of permutations of import is incredibly large, so specificity is key here. There are some cases for which 3.0 is substantially faster on multi-core systems, but it's certainly possible there are other aspects that are slower (preview building, in particular).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 28, 2010 8:36 PM   in reply to rlv52

    Is this a 27inch iMac? Not sure that it matters, but LR was very slow on my

    imac 27in/i7.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 28, 2010 8:47 PM   in reply to DanTull

    Details:

     

     

    Copy from card reader to NAS (external on my home network with a gigabit swich)

    RAW files

    On this import about 40 images, but not unusual to import several hundred RAW images from a card.

    The slowness is in the previews showing up, but that simply indicates that the transfer to the NAS is slow

    I am renaming and segmenting by date, but this import is only a single date (tonight).  No presets, keywords, or metadata are being applied.

     

    All I know is the LR 2.7 works and with exactly the same setup presets etc, LR3 is ridiculously stunningly, unusably slow.  The only new variable is LR3.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 28, 2010 8:48 PM   in reply to goodlux7

    This is a 27 inch iMac.  How did you solve the problem?


     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 28, 2010 8:58 PM   in reply to rlv52

    Wait for 3.1 and hope.  A lot of others are asking the same question.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 28, 2010 9:45 PM   in reply to JimHess-DIrcbP

    Well I for one am really pissed.  How on earth can Adobe do a major new release that performs so poorly???

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 28, 2010 10:06 PM   in reply to getho

    you might not notice slowness with respect to the database

    , but I do. Adding keywords to a pic has a delay in updating the right hand panel that is significant longer than it was in 2.7. I am using one database with 30k+ pics. There is something there. Why do you think Adobe removed the total pic count from a keyword with embedded keywords? Read the post by Adobe's Melissa on that!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 28, 2010 10:22 PM   in reply to rlv52

    rlv52 wrote:

     

    Details:

     

     

    Copy from card reader to NAS (external on my home network with a gigabit swich)

    RAW files

    On this import about 40 images, but not unusual to import several hundred RAW images from a card.

    The slowness is in the previews showing up, but that simply indicates that the transfer to the NAS is slow

    I am renaming and segmenting by date, but this import is only a single date (tonight).  No presets, keywords, or metadata are being applied.

     

    All I know is the LR 2.7 works and with exactly the same setup presets etc, LR3 is ridiculously stunningly, unusably slow.  The only new variable is LR3.

     

    rlv52,

     

    There has to be something far different between our systems in the way LR 3 is operating.  Check out my post a page back ( http://forums.adobe.com/message/3005521#3005521 )  with a goal of comparing 2.7 and 3.0 32 bit and 64 (at least on the import side and some load times on both Library and Develop).  I've got a 3 year old Macbook Pro with 4GB RAM and a Core 2 Duo processor.  Is my 3.0 slower than 2.7..  in some areas, absolutely yes, are there some things that irk me no end, e.g. high res. external monitor issues, yes.. but it would be useful if you could start of with just some straight imports, some side by side comparisons, perhaps move the image file location, etc., to see if it makes any difference.  You're not the only one with newer more powerful Macs that seem to have issues.  If you narrow down anything it might help us all.

     

    Jay S.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2010 5:24 AM   in reply to rlv52

    Hmm. I'll have to try that combination. Thanks for the details.

     

    DT

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2010 5:24 AM   in reply to laurencec

    I too am experience slow import. Having upgraded to LR3, I'm tidying the source folders (3) for the catalogue (1) and checking that all files in the folders are in the catalogue. Using import new to current location, add to catalogue without moving the file, I've identified about 12 images in one folder. I've cancelled and quit LR once already just in case, but it's still taking a long time. I don't understand why it should take so long: from the other two folders, the same task was done quite quickly and involved approximately 30 files.

     

    I think I'm going to give up and transfer them manually (copy and paste) and then use relink.

     

     

    iMac OS Snow Leopard

    2.8 GHz Intel Core i7

    16GB RAM

    1067 MHz DDR3

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2010 9:25 AM   in reply to JayS In CT

    I did improve the performance on my XP system by updating the driver on

    the Radeon 9100 series video card.  It is still slower, however, than my

    Dell laptop with its on-board video.  hwnoord

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2010 11:22 AM   in reply to camerahans

    I am also having problems with slowness on my new Mac with 12GB ram. Import seems to go okay for me, but when I Export it can take 15 minutes or more to process 75 jpgs. I usually Import into an existing blank folder on a second internal hard drive, and have checked "add to catalog" and rename the files, that's it. Each photo has about 6-10 keywords assigned to it.

     

    Another very very slow area is keywording. Sometimes it works fine, but then, inexplicably, the little checkboxes next to the keywords suddenly disappear when I go to the right panel, and I have to wait for 2-3 minutes for the box to appear before I can check it. Then, I have to wait another 2-3 minutes for my check to appear in the box. This is extremely frustrating as keywords are an essential part of my workflow. I checked in Activity Monitor and it showed that I was only using .85 percent of CPU, something like that (sorry I'm not too techy so not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at in Activity Monitor).

     

    I am not doing anything different than I did with LR 2.7, which worked like a charm and was quite fast on the same computer. I will not mention the many other minor problems I'm having with this software, all of which are adding up to a horrendous experience for me. I cannot believe this software was released like this. I am very disappointed to the point that I'm thinking of looking elsewhere for my photo cataloguing needs.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2010 12:36 PM   in reply to laurencec

    I have found a solution, albeit not ideal.

     

    Whenever things get too slow, having purged unused keywords, I export keywords to save them, then optimise the catalogue, then quit LR. I've set up LR to do a back-up on save, which it does. I then open LR and start.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2010 12:39 PM   in reply to prairiedream

    There has been a lot of discussion lately about importing and exporting being so slow.  I certainly don't want to make anyone else's problems seem less important but I want point out that some things are slightly easier to live with in the short term because you can get up and have a cup of coffee (or 4) while a batch is running.

     

    If you are doing keywording or spot removal or using the brush, or even moving from photo to photo, this is pretty painful in 3.0 compared to 2.7.

     

    Has anyone had a chance to post a link to this thread on any of the major LR websites like NAPP?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2010 12:56 PM   in reply to JayS In CT

    I'll have to try a few things to tune it a bit; no doubt importing to my NAS is slower than importing right to my Mac's HD, but the differences between 2.7 and 3 are striking. My suggestion to this (disgrunteld, but very accurate) group is to pepper Adobe with complaints.  I for one am calling tech support tonight to see if they have any suggestions, but mainly to sound off about this unacceptable issue.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2010 12:57 PM   in reply to TRCML

    But mine is slow and I rarely use keywords.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2010 1:13 PM   in reply to rlv52

    rlv52 wrote:

     

    I'll have to try a few things to tune it a bit; no doubt importing to my NAS is slower than importing right to my Mac's HD, but the differences between 2.7 and 3 are striking. My suggestion to this (disgrunteld, but very accurate) group is to pepper Adobe with complaints.  I for one am calling tech support tonight to see if they have any suggestions, but mainly to sound off about this unacceptable issue.

     

    You can also document it at this link for Adobe to get it...

     

    http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

     

    you can report it as a bug.

     

    Jay S.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2010 2:31 PM   in reply to JayS In CT

    I went a reported it at the Adobe link, but since they want concrete steps to reproduce it I'm not sure I was much help. I'm not doing anything other than using the program the same exact way I was using 2.7, and the speed difference is excruciating. It has flashes of brilliance, but then bogs down again before I can get very far.

     

    What tools can I use to measure my CPU to give results Adobe can use?

     

    Has ANYONE heard back from Adobe with any kind of timeline on when there will be an update?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2010 3:45 PM   in reply to Mark Lydell

    I just sent them my original post and noted that the Adobe Forums were ablaze with indignation at this problem.  They know.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2010 4:04 PM   in reply to rlv52

    Not to mention every post on this thread comes into the email box of at

    least 3 of us. We just (as I've said before) don't have any good "magic

    bullet" solutions (code changes on our part, yes. Changes that users can

    make to make it speedy - not so much).

     

    -melissa

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • chall3ng3r
    105 posts
    Feb 15, 2002
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2010 4:25 PM   in reply to rlv52

    Hi,

     

    I'd like to share some of my experience with LR3 poor performance and specific tools / parts which are slow compared with LR2.7.

     

    • The overall grid view rendering. Even if I create all image previews, it still take a lot more time to fill the grid. It also do alot more HDD activity.
    • Full image preview is also slow in redering, takes 5-10sec min (10MP canon raw) with 1:1 preview already built.
    • Switching between Library and Develop module is very slow. Also, browsing through photos in Develop module take 2x-3x more time in redering the same image
    • Import dialog is a total flop. It's exteremly slow, takes ages if I have 500+ images in my memory card, scrolling is slow as hell (LR2.7 is alot faster on same). Additionally, I can't easily select photos by date, like I was able to do in LR2.x. I must have to wait for LR3 to make thumbnails of all raw images, then select some of them to import.
    • I use Adjustments Brush alot, mostly to fix bit of skin defects in people's photographs. During the beta of LR3, beta2 performed really well, almost compareable to LR2.6/2.7 for ajustments brush, but in final release, it's worse. The CPU goes 100%, mouse hangs when drawing mask, it's not acceptable when someone has already used LR2.7.

     

    My system specs:

    AMD x64 X2 2.3GHz

    Nvidia GeForce 8600GT 256MB

    4GB RAM 800MHz

    500GB WD Caviar Black (72rpm + 32mb cache)

     

    I am very disappointed in the final release, and I wish I never converted my LR2.7 catalogs. But now there's no way I can get my catalogs back to 2.7, as I removed them. All I can hope for is wait when Adobe's guy release an update which atleast fix the Adjustments Brush and Import performance.

     


    Adobe, please release an update as soon as possible, and don't wait to fix everything in one update. You can fix them gradually, 3.1, 3.2 etc. but act fast. Thanks!

     

    // chall3ng3r //

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2010 7:04 PM   in reply to Melissa Gaul

    Hi Melissa,

     

    Thanks for the report / assurance.

     

    I think one of the things that makes this so frustrating, for some of us anyway, is:

     

    - Not knowing whether Adobe understands how widespread / pervasive some of the problems are, and whether they've got enough man/woman-power working on it.

     

    - Not knowing if Adobe has been able to reproduce any or all of the problems that have been brought to light by users.

     

    - Not knowing whether progress is being made.

     

    - Not having any idea when 3.1 will be out, and whether it will fix their problem(s) once it is out.

     

    - Not being able to provide detailed input in a structured fashion and see aggregated results.

     

    PS - If I were y'all there at Adobe, I would not want to face this forum. Have you considered relinquishing the forum to the users, and set up a different form of communication for Adobe<-->Users that at least somewhat shields individual employees from individual forum members and individual post-responses..., but still allows a flow of information...?

     

    .02,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2010 4:55 PM   in reply to Melissa Gaul

    Melissa:

     

    Thanks for letting us know. I'm sure you're aware, buyt from a user standpoint there is a huge difference between every post going into a mailbox and knowing that something is being done with it.

     

    I think what has a lot of us worried and a little more up in arms are comments from Dan that make it sound like there isn't a lot of priority or manpower on this. I know your sales department is still sending out emails promoting LR3 - I got another one today - so sales is still interested in making money from the product. From a user standpoint if there is time to be spent on this product it should be on getting at least a .1 update out to fix some of the known bugs.

     

    It also would help if there was more of a presence on this forum (since it is so active) letting us know where Adobe is. The silence is killing us!

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 ... 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