In more ways than not, seems faster to me too.

Ken - books and maps and video features don't slow the rest of Lightroom down one iota. Bigger - yes, but slower - no.

I think Lr4.0 is the most stable and best performing of all Adobe's LrX.0 releases to date. Not to mention the greatly improved image quality...

Ken - assuming this isn't just your imagination influenced by it's much larger download size, perhaps you have some system-dependent anomaly - wouldn't be the first time.

Maybe you should do some benchmarking and/or submit more info about your problems...

Rob

I just checked, and I estimate about the same (1/2 second) per stamp on my machine. That's only 10 seconds to put down 20 stamps - far from unusable... But then it was far from instant in Lr3 too, although I haven't directly compared.

Are there things other than the stamp that are slow?

Wondering if he is referring to LR4b or the just released LR4

I downloaded it today, it is the release version not the beta

tgutgu wrote:

 

Regardless, if LR 4 is slow or not (I will install the final version this evening), the reported features are by no means bloat, but long awaited user requirements. To call soft proofing, video integration, the map module, and the book stuff bloat has no foundation.

While I too consider many of the new features welcome, I think there is room for disappointment.

While the addition of the Book module is quite a nice idea ... it is poorly executed and limiting ... in the respect you only have the choice of one service provider ... While I have no ill will for Blurb or their products ... I just don't see how the Book module simplifies my workflow. I am not aware of the ability to create custom page sizes, or other labs/printers that will accept the exported PDF files ... even if you extract the files as jpegs from the exported pdf files to submit to traditional labs, how do you handle scaling/cropping the pages to the required page size? The whole module isn't worth the effort.

So while I don't think the new additions to Lr4 are "bloat", nor is it a total "disaster" ... I don't think it is a Grand Slam victory for Adobe either.

Bloat has nothing whatsoever to do with what you're describing.  The new rendering engine is more CPU intensive.  See here:

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2012/02/magic-or-local-laplaci an-filters.html

ivframes wrote:

 

I'm yet to see THAT much better produced images (in terms of IQ) and noticably different quality, considering the fact that is much more slower and cpu intensive (as you said). Not worth it.

 

In my opinion, this is just a bad bad marketing from Adobe, forcing people to buy the new hardware because of their lousy programming. I guess that's why they halved the price.

Lousy programming?  Please read the link.

Getting rid of the fill light mask bug, far, far better highlight recovery, getting rid of the halos clarity produced, and giving overall much more control over shadow and highlight contrast is worth the slower rendering easily.  It's just the rendering that's slower (previews and exports mostly), not the rest of the application.

I don’t think a LR-Elements would be any faster than LR is, now.  The same underlying rendering and display would still occur in any version, and the addition of the book module or GPS has nothing to do with slowness in Develop.

I’m sure the rendering would be the same.  What might be done is not allocate as much memory for thumbnails, thereby reading more from the disk for “LR-Elements” or something but that would just make “LR-Elements”, slower when processing many images, not “LR-Extended”, faster.  You’re running what you’d call “LR-Extended”, now, and it’s slow for you, that’s the real problem.

This once great product probably wont change from the DISASTER that Adobe have made.

But they could have made iterations of LR

1. L4V for video guys
2. LER4 for beginners and amateurs
3. LR4B for those who want to make books
4. LR4W for those who make galleries
5. LR4P for the professionals and
6. LRWTF4 for those who wanted it to make the coffee and wash the dishes.

That is 6 iterations of Lightroom, each for $80. Then what happens if I want option 1 and 5... Hmmm, that is $160, Now I object as that is loads a money.

So they did not as they opted to make LR4 which is what they've offered us and we've bitched and moaned about through the testing and they've listened to us and made improvements, checked bugs and tweaked things here and there and now we have

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4

LR4  allows you / one to catalog your photos, to edit your photos to a new level that makes LR3 so last century, if you make books for clients as do many people, you can now do it  through LR, you can even take images out from your videos shot with your high end VDSLR's.

It still prints for those who print and it still makes web galleries for those who do that.

You can put your photos onto a map and add that location to the images to send wherever you want online.

I'm gonna get my copy this weekend, and with great excitement. I'm going to print off a couple of prints of animals from the Kruger National Park where I've spent the last 3 days working. I'm going to tag ALL the photos with Kruger National Park, and I'm gonna make a new gallery for this shoot. As I charged a good sum for the shoot, I'm also going to make a book of the best photos and send that to the client, so they can put it in their game lodge, and my photos will be seen by all their clients from around the world. Hell, one or two may say

"Hey, there are some great photos, here's the photographers details, I'll see if he will sell me a print"

All for $80

BARGAIN,

hamish NIVEN Photography

I feared that the sluggishness of the beta could stay with the final release.

But what a great relief, it doesn't. After about an hour of playing with the final version, I can only say that the sluggishness is gone! LR 4.0 feels about as quick as LR 3.6, subjectively.

Try deleting your preview files. If you upgraded from LR3 x or even LR4 beta to LR4, then the chances are that the catalog and the previews were upgraded.

The upgrade from LR2 (PV2003) to LR3 (PV2010) was fraught with speed issues, and one well documented approach was to delete the XXXX Previews.lrdata file. (No harm in deleting the cache as well)

This does mean that LR4.0 has to regenerate all the prieviews, but this seemed to help a great many people.

I will be doing this when I've got my copy.

Please let us all know if this helped, if it does, then great news

Hamish

Repeating your test on my WIndows7/64, I-2600K (not overclocked, 3.5 GHz) with 16GB of RAM, GTX 460 Nvidia videocard. 16Mpix NEFs from D7000

1. Changing  vertical correction by arrow keys - the delay is about 0.2s. The same with 100% zoom, the delay is less than 0.1s

2. Tone sliders - the delay about 0.2s

3. Changing WB moving slider between extreme positions - the delay of about 0.5s

Alex

Deleting the Previews seemed to help quite a bit. Still a bit sluggish on the Lens Correction - but the tone adjustments seem prompt. More testing, I guess. Don't want to give up on LR4 quite yet.

Thanks for the suggestion, Hamish!

- Kip

Maybe I should switch to Windows ;-)

- Kip

I find the performance differences among machines and users amazing, despite a collection of apparently capable hardware.