Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Very Slow compared to Lightroom 3

Jan 15, 2012 12:38 PM

I love the updated, but it runs unbareably slow. Is anybody having the same problem? Working with the healing brush takes about two seconds each stroke.

 
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Victoria Bampton
    5,302 posts
    Apr 1, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 16, 2012 3:18 AM   in reply to Josef Kissinger

    Yes, there are some performance issues, particularly on photos that had existing settings prior to import.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 16, 2012 3:28 AM   in reply to Josef Kissinger

    Josef Kissinger wrote:

     

    I love the updated, but it runs unbareably slow. Is anybody having the same problem? Working with the healing brush takes about two seconds each stroke.

     

    There have been some suggestions that you can speed things up by turning off parts of the panels that you are not using, because they all have to be updated each time you do anything. So things like the Navigator panel, the filmstrip, the Histogram, and particularly Lens Corrections could be turned off to save processing time. Worth a try.

    I assume Adobe will concentrate on speeding things up, once the main bugs have been solved.

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 17, 2012 1:59 AM   in reply to Josef Kissinger

    In my case, the LR4 Beta is very slow only when I'm running also second monitor. (Mac OS X Lion)

    Doesn't matter what kind of monitor mode I'm using (Standard, Live, Locked). So if second monitor is active then moving sliders, or brush tool so toooooo slow. F.e. I move slider and after 2-3 seconds it is moved and picture changed.

    However, when second monitor is not active then LR4 Beta has very good speed. In some cases it is still not so good like LR3.6, but it is still Beta, right?

     

    At first, I thought I'll be not able to test LR4 Beta 'couse the slow reaction, but now when I switch off second monitor I'm able to test it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 17, 2012 10:09 AM   in reply to Josef Kissinger

    Same issue, making LR4 unusable until this is fixed. A similar problem existed with LR3 Beta, so I assume Adobe will work out the kinks before LR4 final release. To this day, LR3 still exhibits poor memory management with the adjustment brush (won't release memory between images) so still requires reboots every few minutes on large retouch projects. I do hope LR4 resolves this directly as it is the #1 annoying bug in LR.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 18, 2012 7:11 AM   in reply to Victoria Bampton

    I thought of that too, so I tried to directly use the dng file and make similar adjustments as I did in LR3. But unfortunately LR4 beta is at this moment slower.

    Maybe the final release will be better.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 18, 2012 7:19 AM   in reply to Josef Kissinger

    Per above leaving Sharpening/Noise Reduction/Lens Corrections zeroed until the end definitely helps.  I actually ended up making a philosophical split between editing and developing.  I now (even in LR3) have the import settings defaulted to Adobe's standard, with Sharpening/NR turned off (ie. not adding any additional overhead to the image).  The images aren't expected to be in their finished state - I just want to speed things up for selecting my picks and rejects for the initial.

     

    Once that's done I'll process the images globally, but no Sharpening/NR/Lens and sync across.  Then one-by-one I'll fine tune the global then local.  Only at the end will I set Sharpening/NR.  That seems to have helped.

     

    Unfortunately, the code started getting bogged down after a while and not even this was working.  I ditched the LR4 preferences file and things are a bit more springy again.  Which reminds me (have to go over to the feature request area) but I would love to have a way to globally set panel preferences.  Every time I trash the prefs file I have to go through and reset the behaviour of the panels (hiding, solo mode, end marks).  Not a huge deal but still a pain.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 18, 2012 4:28 PM   in reply to Josef Kissinger

    Ditto to slowness.

     

    I really like the quality of the resultant image adjustments when using the new Develop Module's adjustment sliders, but it is unusable for anything apart from the odd image due to its overall slowness.  The 2-5 second lag between moving the slider & seeing the effect makes it very slow and frustrating.  I have tried 'resetting' the image and turning off the second monitor support without much improvement.  Delaying the activation of lens correction & CA correction until the last step helps a bit but it is still way too slow.

     

    It would be nice to hear from Adobe that this will be fixed before going live.

     

    Any other settings or tweaks that could make LR4 more usable?

     

    (BTW:  I am running a 2006 MacPro 3.0 GHZ, 8 core with 18 GB RAM and lots of fast HD Space.  Snow Leopard as I am unwilling to upgrade my Imageprint 7.0 software to accomodate OsX10.7 (Cheapskate...))

     

    -evan

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 18, 2012 5:41 PM   in reply to Josef Kissinger

    Lightroom 3 was no gazelle. Lightroom 4 is even more sluggish. I don't want to upgrade my quad core PC at a cost of $600 to be able to use Lightroom 4. How about using the GPU in my graphics card like Photoshop? There's a thought. Have a look at AfterShot Pro - there's a speed demon, even though it doesn't have all the features of Lightroom unfortunately. Better yet, take a trip down the hall to the Photoshop lab and steal their code! They know how to use the GPU.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 19, 2012 1:06 AM   in reply to huwmorgan

    I`m using a Q6600 Quad core. Not the fastest CPU on earth, but no slouch either. But LR (all versions) are really sluggish. Capture One with OpenCl is really fast in comparison. So please add my vote for GPU support.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 19, 2012 3:34 AM   in reply to Josef Kissinger

    On my iMac 24 late 2006 2.33 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB, running Lion 10.7.2.

    LR4 works ok but will suck up the memory usage as I do some basic development mode work.

    I've cataloged this problem using the Activity Monitor - I used sample when it works well and sample when its slow.

    I would like to send these Activity Monitor  files to Adobe but haven't figured out where to send them to.

     

    Anyone know where you would send this?

    Should the beta version have a feedback item under Help in the LR4 menu?

    Thanks

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Victoria Bampton
    5,302 posts
    Apr 1, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 19, 2012 9:41 AM   in reply to ncwilson2

    ncwilson2 wrote:

    Anyone know where you would send this?

    Should the beta version have a feedback item under Help in the LR4 menu?

     

    Here's fine, QE are watching the forum.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 19, 2012 10:07 AM   in reply to Josef Kissinger

    Another vote for GPU support! Please look at the other software.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 19, 2012 10:34 AM   in reply to Romain_Th

    I totally agree. 

     

    Even LR 3.6 is getting quite slow in allowing me to scroll through my library of images.  I do have a very large catalog, but even with all previews built (Standard or 1:1), the screen draws are often quite slow.  Making use of all that GPU horsepower (a la Capture One)  would be a huge help.

     

    -evan

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 19, 2012 11:48 AM   in reply to eheffa

    Amazes me this resource is not being better utilized to improve performance.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 19, 2012 12:24 PM   in reply to Romain_Th

    +1 for GPU

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 19, 2012 2:23 PM   in reply to Josef Kissinger

    This speed issue has some really weird aspects.  I have been using two different machines with the same database.  My workstation machine is a core i7, 12 Gb ram, quadro 1800 graphics, LR code on SSD system drive, images and LR databases on 1.5 T raid 0, 2 24" 1920X1200 screens.  It runs LR3 like a hot knife through butter.  The second is a Toshiba Portege R705-P35.  This is a notebook with a Core i3 and 4 Gb of ram, no special video hardware.  It runs LR3 competently, but not like the workstation.  Both are running Win 7 64.  Home premium on the notebook, ultimate on the workstation.  Both are up to date.

     

    I started with LR4 on the notebook with 350 images straight off the CF card (CR2s from Canon 50D).  Everything seemed to be OK.  I got home for the weekend and fired up the workstation. I saved all the metadata for about 5500 images to xmp using LR 3.6 then imported the files into LR4.  That seemed to work.  Keywords and develop settings seemed to be OK.  Virtual copies and collections were of course gone as expected.  Performance in the develop module was awful and only got worse.  It took seconds to respond to sliders.  At one point it seemed to crash every time I tried to change the crop on a virtual copy.  (the crop change seemed to make it to the LR database but not to the screen.  It was there when I restarted LR4!).  I loaded the small database from the notebook into the workstation.  It ran just as badly.  I tried to replicate the crash scenario the next morning.  No luck, so I can't give you a nice repeatable scenario.  Turning graphics accelleration off in LR did not seem to make a difference.

     

    I logged onto the forum.  I am obviously not the only one having trouble with LR4 on a serious workstation.  I powered off my second screen.  That made a huge performance difference.  The workstation was now only slightly slower than the notebook, but the sliders were still jerky.  I did manage to use the new soft proof feature and make some prints.  The behavior of the 2012 process looks very promising!

     

    I copied the 5500 images and LR databases from the workstation onto an esata external drive.  The notebook appears to be able to run it from the esata drive with no real problems.  The 2012 process is sometimes a bit sluggish, but generally not bad.  I have deliberately tried to stress it with local adjustments, sharpening, lens profile corrections, etc.

     

    I have no explanations for this behavior and unfortunately will not be home to run more experiments with the workstation for at least a few days.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 19, 2012 2:58 PM   in reply to Josef Kissinger

    I've made a similar observation. It looks snazzy but appears a bit slower than LR3. maybe I need a newer mac?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 19, 2012 3:05 PM   in reply to Josef Kissinger

    I can also confirm that LR4 is slower when e.g. changing whitebalance in a RAW file. I have to wait up to 2 sec to actually see the result!

    In LR3 I can see it instantly.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 19, 2012 3:33 PM   in reply to Josef Kissinger

    I have some good news on the performance side. First some background:  I'm running a Windows 7 64 bit box with the Q6600 chipset and 4GB of RAM. It was state-of-the-art around 2006, so a little long in the tooth now. In comparisons to the latest i7 processors, it is about half the speed (mostly due to clock rate).

     

    I imported a few folders into LR4 and compared performance to LR3. The good news? Displaying images in the develop module was much faster. In LR3, it takes about 4-5 seconds to render a Canon 5d mkII image on my machine. In LR4, the time went down to just under 2 seconds. This is good! After watching one of the videos by JulieAnne Kost on the DNG changes, I learned that you can convert a file to DNG and tick a box to optimize it for Lightroom viewing. I tried this, but it didn't seem to make a difference. This comparison was a little bit of apples to oranges because of the huge disparity in catalog size between LR3 and LR4, but I'm fantasizing that rendering images is independent of catalog size.

     

    Unfortunately response to sliders and tools is pretty sluggish, so the rendering improvements don't extend to photo editing (hint: use the GPU Adobe).

     

    The worst performance is in the soft proofing code. The sliders are really slow and the screens flash continuously. I suppose this is to be expected because it is the newest part of the code base.

     

    One other thing that I noticed is that LR 4 uses more memory than LR 3. LR 3 seems to use about 1.5 GB while LR 4 pushes 3 GB. That just might be the death knell of my Q6600 because I'm limited to 4GB on my motherboard. I haven't tried running LR 4 beside Photoshop yet, but I suspect it may not be pretty.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 19, 2012 3:56 PM   in reply to Josef Kissinger

    Out of nowhere (I was editing raw file, nothing fancy) my LR4 collapsed, well sort of.

     

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/18529004/crash.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 3:26 AM   in reply to SamGalpin

    Reading SamGalpin's reaction, I decided also to try getting some hard information. Maybe it helps the developers.
    I measured (with the programm Core Temp) the utilisation of the 4 cores and the Ram usage in LR3 and LR4 on the

    same dng picture (2 copies).
    The results were interesting to me.

    In LR3 using the sliders in the develop module showed 20-40 % of core utilisation relatively evenly distributed

    over the 4 cores. This was with only one monitor.

    With the second monitor on (displaying the full picture) the core utilisation was a little higher (about 5%) as

    could be expected. Off the 12 GB Ram 26% was used both for 1 or 2 screens.
    When I first set lens corrections, effects and tone-curve and then changed the basic sliders there was very little

    difference.

    In LR4 using the sliders in the develop module showed 15 - 40% of core utilisation relatively evenly distributed

    over the 4 cores. This was with only one monitor. Sometimes it looked a if the core utilisation was not as even as

    under LR3 but the difference were minor.
    So in total with one screen there should be no big difference in performance.

    With the second minitor on there was a big difference. All cores were used 80 to 100% showing a strange

    behaviour.As soon as a slider was set the core utilisation went up to 90% or so without showing a difference in the

    picture, the it went down to around 40% and changes in screen 1 were visible followed by core utilisation of 100%

    on all cores for the second screen to change as well.

    Off the 12 GB Ram 27% was used. So no real difference to LR3.

    Also in LR4 there was no difference when first the lens corrections, effects and tone curve settings were used.

    As said in an earlier contribution I have W7 64 bit Core I7(920) with 12 GB RAM.


    I hope this is helpful info.But whatever the outcome of the Adobe experts will be, I am so happy with the develop

    module that I will certainly upgrade.
    There is one thing to make the other feature, the book module, worthwhile: please convince Blurb to provide ICC

    profiles for the book paper(s).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 11:34 AM   in reply to Josef Kissinger

    More info for developers - see also my previous post for details on hardware etc.

     

    I now have a second display connected to my laptop.   With second display in clone mode no obvious impact.  I can also turn on the second display preview with no obvious impact.  Running in extended desktop mode with 2nd display inactive in LR also OK.  With second dipslay active in LR performance in develope mode collapses.  Huge CPU loads in task manager when I move a slider - double what I get in clone mode.  CPU usage in the 90s across all 4 cores (two physical, two hyperthreaded).  I still suspect that, overall, the notebook is doing better than the workstation was.  I cannot confirm that now - no access to the machine.  May be related to more pixels (more than 2X) on workstation displays.  For this test I have also only been playing with sliders on one softproof.  On the workstation I did some real editing work and made several prints.

     

    Memory usage in task manager looks OK - no spikes.

     

    I am a (mostly retired) software engineer.  I know all about beta software.  I have been an LR user since the first LR1 beta.  If there is anything you would like me to test let me know. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 3, 2012 5:41 AM   in reply to Josef Kissinger

    Just to add another voice calling for the performance problems to be addressed.  I like the updated sliders and I personally find them logical, but oh, so slow.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 3, 2012 7:20 AM   in reply to Josef Kissinger

    Slow here too!     

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 5, 2012 11:02 PM   in reply to Josef Kissinger

    I'm also experience slow too (especial on local adaptive adjustment, i.e. highlight, shadow sliders).

    But LR4b did slower after I try develop like 20 more photos, even white balance and tint tools are slow responsive.

    So I need to restart application to solve this issue.

     

    My PC is i5 2.66GHz with Windows 7 64-bit and 8GB RAM.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Calculating status...
    Feb 27, 2012 1:13 AM   in reply to Josef Kissinger

    I have the same problem as many other posts here. Slow with some sliders. But mostly when before and after (Y) is active and trying to use the spot removal tool (Q).

    When working videos, LR4 insists the install of Quicktime. I installed the newest version on to my J drive and restarted. LR4 still asks me to install again and again...

    Chromatic abberation is not affective with purple. Refer to picture.DSC_0113 (1).jpg

     

    My pc is AMD 6 core 3.6 GHz, all SATA 6.0 Gb/s drives with ssd primary and mechanical storage, Windows 7 64-bit, 8GB DDR3 1600MHz ram, Evga GeForce GTX 550 ti w/ 1gb ddr5 video card, Dual monitors but running LR4 on primary. No over clocking and all upto date drivers. The only beta driver is Adobe flash 11.2

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 4:32 AM   in reply to T.Phanngam

    After try on Final release version, look like no improvement on this issue.

    I have no idea why it so slow, after look into task manager: CPU not full utilization, plenty room of RAM, HDD activity also low..

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 5:09 AM   in reply to T.Phanngam

    Not very promising. :-(  Was my fear as soon as I saw the release notice today... "is it faster than beta?". Downloaded but have yet to install.  That the cores and RAM aren't being fully engaged is frustrating.  Fingers crossed.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 5:31 AM   in reply to Jay Mitchosky

    Hello. I have purchased LR4 today and I have installed LR4 on my MacBook Pro.

    I can tell ... it is a bit faster, but It looks like this problem was not fixed by Adobe ! It is still much slower then LR3.

    But I have this problem only when I have second monitor connected and used by Lightroom. On single monitor use I don't see any problems. However, as I wrote above, it is slower than LR3

    hmmmm ... something went wrong Adobe

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 6:06 AM   in reply to Josef Kissinger

    So Adobe did nothing to fix these serious complaints...

     

    They need to ask this question - why would anyone EVER want to use 40% slower software while producing more or less the same quality images as in LR3?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 6:14 AM   in reply to ivframes

    It never happend Adobe did not fix so important BUG announced by users on BETA releases

    Now I'm blaming myself I didn't try final TRIAL first

     

    I think you are right about the price ... I still have LR3 installed on my MacBook Pro. I like LR but now the Aperture for Mac users got the space to be better then LR4.

     

    The inovations are great in LR4 but Adobe should fix this problem with speed first and than release final version.

     

    I hope now, that next (partial) update will come soon and the speed will be fixed.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 6:20 AM   in reply to ivframes

    ivframes wrote:

     

    So Adobe did nothing to fix these serious complaints...

     

    They need to ask this question - why would anyone EVER want to use 40% slower software while producing more or less the same quality images as in LR3?

     

    Maybe because it produces superior results.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 6:45 AM   in reply to photos by darrell

    Your image does not show CA (the same purple fringe on both Left & Right sides) but likely some form of sensor blooming.  CA removal would not deal with this artifact.

     

    -evan

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 6:48 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

    {insert grain of salt, not having installed full version yet} "Superior results" in terms of processing quality is certainly the ultimate goal from a photographic perspective.  However, is it worth that level of performance tradeoff?  I'm just asking.  Should performance be excluded in favor of all else? {/end grain of salt}

    Lee Jay wrote:

     

    ivframes wrote:

     

    So Adobe did nothing to fix these serious complaints...

     

    They need to ask this question - why would anyone EVER want to use 40% slower software while producing more or less the same quality images as in LR3?

     

    Maybe because it produces superior results.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 8:49 AM   in reply to ivframes

    May be that why it is cheaper... lol..

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 8:53 AM   in reply to Josef Kissinger

    Just show me those superior results that couldn't be done in LR3.6, that also show in print. Speed always comes first when it comes to getting the job done. It's always a compromise, speed vs. quality and quality vs. speed. However, here the quality isn't justified, because the speed is so bad.

     

    Because I don't see anything that requires much slower working on a very fast machine. Nothing here is groundbreaking, like it was when LR moved from 2.0 -> 3.0

     

    So, would I move to LR4 if it was as fast as 3.6? Absolutely.

    Would I move now to LR4 working this slow? Absolutely not.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 8:55 AM   in reply to ivframes

    The problem is.. even on the high-end processor, it still waste too much time..

    With 10 photos it work just fine, but not for 50 photos in a row.. You need to restart the software every 30 minutes.

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 Previous Next

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