Skip navigation
Ken McKay
Currently Being Moderated

Lightroom 4 DISASTER!!- What has Adobe done to this once great product

Mar 6, 2012 2:04 AM

Lightroom 4:  This is what happens when you try to produce a product that is all things to all people!  Stills, Video, Book Publication etc  The program is now bloated with too many modules and as a result it is far too slow for professional use (unlike Lightroom 3).  Looks like an oppertunity for Aperture or Capture One.

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 2:07 AM   in reply to Ken McKay

    Seems faster to me..... what are you basing your conjecture on Ken?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 2:37 AM   in reply to Ken McKay

    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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 2:43 AM   in reply to Ken McKay

    It is much slower on my machine aswell, I was hoping the release version fixed the problems.

     

    Just simple things like spot retouching take about 1/2 second between each stamp compared to instantly on LR3 - at the moment it is just unusable on my Quad Core i7 12Gb RAM machine

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 3:01 AM   in reply to BumFluff567

    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?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 3:22 AM   in reply to Ken McKay

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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 4:07 AM   in reply to retiredff

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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 4:16 AM   in reply to Ken McKay

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 5:04 AM   in reply to tgutgu

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 5:06 AM   in reply to tgutgu

    This is worrying I tried the Beta vesrion and have the same set up as Bumfluff567. It was unusable as it tokk about 5 minutes before it even started working. will wait and see

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 5:43 AM   in reply to Ken McKay

    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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 6:26 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 6:35 AM   in reply to ivframes

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 11:09 AM   in reply to Ken McKay

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 11:28 AM   in reply to Ken McKay

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 11:45 AM   in reply to Ken McKay

    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


     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 11:59 AM   in reply to hamish niven

    I would not be opposed if Adobe would sell a base version of Lr with the Library, Develop and Print modules. Then offered Map, Book, Slideshow and Web as add-on units. Matter of fact, I thought that may have been their motive when they originally set up Lr in a modular fashion so it could be customized by the individual user to fit specific needs.

     

    That observation should not be intended that I agree with the premise that the extra modules are causing performance issues in the Develop module ...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 12:21 PM   in reply to Ken McKay

    Ken, there may well be some performance issue for you, let's see if we can help but you will need to provide detailed system information not blanket statements. LR4 is faster on my MacBP i7 8gb ram with 750gb internal 7200rpm and Thunderbolt Promise Raid. Catalog on internal.

     

    As for the request fro different versions, post your thoughts/ideas on Photoshop.com that is the appropriate forum for them.

    Ken McKay wrote:

     

    And when you've finished all that in LR4 you will 104!.

     

    Listen, I'm not against all the new modules, as I said earlier for some people like youself they are great additions.  I personally don't have the luxury of time to work the way that you do.  We are in two different realms of the same business.  I shoot and edit 1000 to

    2000 images per day and and expect to edit 300-500 images per day in Lightroom.  My assistants and I do this 5 days days a week.  Therefore my Lightroom needs are vastly different to yours.  Personally I would pay $500 for Lightroom if it did what I require. Photoshop Elements and Photoshop Extended have vastly different price points.  Adobe in my opinion should have adopted this stratergy with Lightroom

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 12:31 PM   in reply to Ken McKay

    MacBookPro 2.53 GHz, OS 10.6.8, 8gb ram. 24" Cinema Display.

     

    Purchased LR 4 uprgrade today.

     

    Today's task - a batch of real estate photos. First step: adjusting perspective in the Lens Corrections Panel, something I do all the time. Put my cursor over the vertical amount, hit the arrow key. Wait ... wait ... wait. Five seconds, then the adjustment kicked in. WTF?

     

    Checked to make sure that I had updated the process version. Yup, I had.

     

    Made a 1:1 preview. Tried again. Another five seconds. Yikes - there goes my hourly rate.

     

    Went to the Tone sliders. This time a bit faster - 3 second lag instead of 5. (LR3 was always virtually immediate.)

     

    LR4 - unacceptably slow. Back to LR3 I go.

     

    And tomorrow I begin teaching this semester's Lightroom class at our local community college. I sure won't be asking the administration to upgrade the computer lab to LR4 until this whole thing gets sorted out.

     

    What amazes me is that a company like Adobe would rush this product out the door.

     

    I guess I could ask Adobe for my $79 back. You'd think I'd learn - "Never purchase .0 apps." Looking forward to LR4.1

     

    - Kip Shaw

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 12:51 PM   in reply to edentonkip

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 12:52 PM   in reply to edentonkip

    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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 1:04 PM   in reply to edentonkip

    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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 1:07 PM   in reply to Ken McKay

    get the final version guys, not the betas

     

    the betas are slow and full of bugs

     

    as far as i'm concerned, the horizontal lines pattern (highlights/clarity bug) was fixed in final version, and the quality is supreb!

     

    i've tested it in a pentium4 old machine, and it runs faster actually!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 1:59 PM   in reply to hamish niven

    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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 1:59 PM   in reply to pcmanpcman

    I am testing the final version.

     

    - Kip

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 1:59 PM   in reply to AlexMontreal

    Maybe I should switch to Windows ;-)

     

    - Kip

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 2:56 PM   in reply to edentonkip

    Yes, probably, Kip !

     

    Honestly, I just did some tonality editing of ca. 200 images on my Win7-64bit i7 machine (8 GB RAM) after conversion of LR3-catalog, which was quite fast.

    Merging with my upgraded LR4beta-catalog and the option of virtual copies for overlaps takes comparatively long (still running).

     

    Tone editing seems prompt for me, too. So from the posting people the Mac-users seem to be saddled with the problems...

     

    Cornelia

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 3:23 PM   in reply to Cornelia-I

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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 3:52 PM   in reply to Jay Mitchosky

    It is really frustrating to use with the performance porblems I am also running into.  The lag between slider actions and displayed changes is such that I have to make many small changes to get where I want.  I can't imagine doing more than a handful of images at a sitting because it is so irritating and time-consuming.  I tried the workaround of deleting the previews and clearing the cache but that didn't make any difference.  For now, I'm abandoning 4 and going back to 3.

     

    Dave

     
    |
    Mark as:

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