Skip navigation
This discussion is locked
Currently Being Moderated

Experiencing performance related issues in Lightroom 4.x

Aug 6, 2012 3:58 PM

Anyone else notice that lightroom 4 is slow? Ligtroom 3 always ran fast on my system but Lightroom 4 seemlingly lags quite a bit.

 

My system is:

2.10 ghz Intel Core i3 Sandy Bridge

8 GB Ram

640 GB Hard Drive

Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bit

 

Message title was edited by: Brett N

 
Replies 1 2 3 ... 43 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 9:29 AM   in reply to BCormier

    I have a much faster (and newer) system, with twice the amount of RAM. I'll test tonight and see if I notice any slow-downs, but, like with all software updates, it may well be that LR 4 now demands more of a system, and your PC may just be on the borderline of acceptable resources for optimum performance?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 9:50 AM   in reply to BCormier

    The release version is as slow as the beta version. I am testing both on my Mac Pro 3GHz 8 Core, 16G Ram, hard disk is Raid0 x 3.

    The response is unaccpetable.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 9:52 AM   in reply to AndyYau

    Its possible that it has to build new previews and Camera Raw cache.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 11:54 AM   in reply to BCormier

    I am on a Mac - LR3 was very fast - LR4 is unuseable SLOW :-(

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

    Compared to LR3 I do feel it's a lot less responsive.

    Moving sliders like clarity produces so much lack that it's kind of impossible to get a feel for subtle changes.

    I'm on OS 10.7.3 on a 8-core 3GHz Mac Pro with 24GB RAM, so I don't think performance is due to a lack of system resources.

    I like LR3 for the immediate response of controls. That feeling is gone with LR4.

    The development algorithm is clearly different from LR3. It brings out a lot more levels in deep shadows.

    It's hard for me to say if that's a good thing, yet, but the fact that everything is so sluggish makes it hard to have fun testing the impact.

     

    When I look at the CPU load on the activity meter, something as simple as changing the black level in LR4 produces a massive spike of activity on all cores. A similar manipulation in LR3 is hardly noticable. No wonder the sliders don't really follow small changes.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 4:54 PM   in reply to j. scriba

    Hi Folks!

     

    I allready wrote in the beta time in the therad about that lr4 beta was sluggish. I wrote this:

     

    I Installed LR4 Beta today on 3 Machines. I worked on 5DMKII raw files. dng and cr2 files.

     

    Here are the hardware settings:

     

    1: I7 930 overclocked to 3.8ghz , 128gb ssd as boot disk, 3 raid 0 disks (6 x 1.5TB) for datas and as scratch disk for cash and so one, 12gb ram, nvidia gtx570, win7 x64 ultimate

    2: same as nr one, just a quadro 4000 as grapics card.

    3: mac pro with 2 intel xeon 6 core prozessors, 12gb ram and ati hd 5870, osx 10.7.2 lion

     

    Conclusion. When working in Process 2010, everything works realtime, fluid, perfekt. switching to process 2012 it is simply AWFUL. moving a slider and 1/2 - to 1 second untill i can see the results in the pictures. it gets realy bad, when i turn on the sharpness and the lens correction. it is simply not possible to work on this piece of software. completely useless at this stage.

     

    These are pretty high end machines with a lot of power. i know lr4 is BETA, but the performance must grow about 800%, or lr4 will be useless for a smooth workflow.

     

    I just red, that a person called COW answered in this thread that lr4 is fine now and fast! i tried to reply in that thread, but now that thread is set to READ only for me, so i have to write here.

     

    i installed the software on all these 3 machines today. i imported the catalogue and ...bam. sluggish like HELL. unbelievable. 7D files and 550D files are a little bit faster but hell it is still sloooowwww.

     

    i did the trick like lee told me in the other thread and i tried to import fresh and clean cr2 files driectly to the 2012 process. like in the beta it became a liiitttlleee bit more fluid. but just a little bit. so i decided to clean my complete preview database and my cache and let it completele rebuilt. i did that on my mac pro dualprozessor machine which runs on 10.7.3 lion. lr4 is installed on a samsung 500mb/sec ssd and the pure cache disk is another ssd wird 128gb. just for cache and preview database and catalogue. i think this is quite as fast as it can be.

     

    so i completely renewed everything and.....again. a little bit faster but agins much to slow.

     

    when you have the lens correction turned off and sharpness turned off, it is likely useable. when you turn on a second monitor it beginns to get slower. when you add lens correction and detail/sharpness........bam. slow as hell. i recognized the cpu usage and saw that the usage was unter 8% on all 12 cores. no cpu usage and unbelievable slow??? working in lr3 is completely flawless. not one stuttering or anything. i am completely not satisfied with this piece of software - sorry!

     

    i heard a trick from a friend of mine who told me, that not the cpu power is important. lr4 uses the ram and the faster the ram is, the faster is lr4. so we built in a new ram from 12gb up to 24gb. the old ram had 1330mhz and the new one had 1800mhz. the speed raised up but it is STILL not completele fluid. when i did some adjustments to a picture, the sliders become unbelievable slow, as more and more you move them. on all my machines.

     

    adobe, i really like lr and i grew up with this product. i allready even bought the upgrade. but no...this is not a piece oft software that can be used for a fluid und fast workflow. it can be used for single pictures to create really good results....yes, but not for a fast and fluid workflow what lightroom once stood for.

     

    Sorry to say that but you have not completed the mission. it was a failure. having lr4 and a user who prefers lr3.6 should not be the goal!

     

    Resolve these problems please as fast as you can guys!

     

    King regards Frank!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 7:36 PM   in reply to frankc1978

    I just upgraded and found the same.  I am running a Dell i7 w/ 12 gigs ram, NVidia 2 gig card with llatest driver.

     

    The develop module is where I noticd it.  with the 2010 process, seemed fine, but when the conversion was made, moving some of the sliders took approx a second for the slider to move and image to update.  Hope Adobe figures it out.  Will be using LR3 on any big jobs for now.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 8:54 PM   in reply to BCormier

    Upgraded today and clearly the 2012 process is so slow and sluggish compared with 2010.

    My machine is Quad i7 12GB ram 64-bit,

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 9:42 PM   in reply to hinzo

    Hmm. Quad i7 here with 16GB of RAM, operating on Nikon D7000 16MP raw files. I can't see a speed difference between 2010 and 2012. In develop module, exposure, shadow, highlight sliders move at the same speed. Which sliders were you folks trying.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 9:44 PM   in reply to BCormier

    I upgraded to LR 4 a couple of days ago.

     

    Could it be slow because the program is using more virtual memory than real memory.  I went to the help menu and clicked on system info.  Here is what I found.

     

    Lightroom version: 4.0 [814577]

    Operating system: Windows 7 Home Premium Edition

    Version: 6.1 [7601]

    Application architecture: x64

    System architecture: x64

    Physical processor count: 12

    Processor speed: 3.1 GHz

    Built-in memory: 12279.0 MB

    Real memory available to Lightroom: 12279.0 MB

    Real memory used by Lightroom: 1287.8 MB (10.4%)

    Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 1906.2 MB

    Memory cache size: 226.4 MB

    System DPI setting: 96 DPI

    Desktop composition enabled: Yes

    Displays: 1) 1920x1080

     

    From what I understand, virtual memory (using the hard drive as memory) is really slow.  I couldn't find anything in the preferences menu in LR 4 having to do with memory usage.

     

    I am not a teckie, so I may be off base with this.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 10:10 PM   in reply to BCormier

    I have a problem with importing and using the LR3 caralogue so I started a new cataloge to test with a few images. (47 photos only)

     

    I expeience the same slugishness on a MacBook Pro 2011, 8Gb RAM, Lr4 unuseable for my day to day work compared to Lr3. What a let down - have to switch back to Lr3, I'm glad I haven't paid for it yet.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 10:51 PM   in reply to BCormier

    Delete your prieviews.lrdata file and let lightroom re make prieviews as it goes.

     

    This was a suggestion when LR2 PV2003 was updated to LR3 PV2010, and the noises have indicated that this should help.

    No harm in also deleting your cache file as well.

     

     

     

    Other noises indicate that there are speed issues with OSX and fewer with Windows, but the above comments from the  few who have posted seem to err more on windows issues.

     

    I'm still on the beta as downloading LR4.0 is expensive when having to pay for data in hotels.....

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 11:42 PM   in reply to hamish niven

    Cache files and previews file were both deleted. But the speed is still exactly the same on my Mac Pro 3G, 8-cores.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 11:50 PM   in reply to AndyYau

    keep the positive pressure on to Adobe and hopefully LR4.01 comes out and it flies like an eagle

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 12:02 AM   in reply to hamish niven

    Lightroom 3 never really sped up for me from 3.0 ro 3.6: I've got a now aging i920 with 12gb ram. Lightroom was always reasonably painful to use.  (And to Rob Cole - who said that 1/2 sec per clone stamp was fine - I think a practical definition of slow is that if you end up being quicker than the computer.  Waiting? then its slow.  I find in photoshop there are very very few things I need to wait for).

     

     

    I kept asking exactly what hardware adobe were using for their development.  Dual Xeons? SIngle Xeons?  WOrkstations?  How much ram?  It would be good to know because it would give the rest of us a basis for comparrison.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 12:09 AM   in reply to hamish niven

    I'm beginning to wonder if I'm on the same planet...LR4 in develop is very snappy here, virtually as fast as LR3.  In fact, I have had exactly zero of the very few problems I experienced in the LR4 beta.  For me, so far at least (he says crossing his fingers) LR4 has been a very well executed update.  I still have a few more plug-ins to check but all of my Nik and Jeff Friedl plug-ins work without issue.

     

    27" iMac i7; 2.93GHz QuadCore CPU; 16GB DRAM; ATI Radeon HD 5750 1GB RAM

     

    All of my test images have been raw files from my 7D converted to dng as I imported them.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 12:47 AM   in reply to CR Henderson

    good on you if you're not having any speed issues. maybe you are right, we're on a differernt planet.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 1:08 AM   in reply to Firillu

    Slider responsivness is very sluggish in LR4. For me that was a problem since LR1. Also, if you have made many local adjustments and are "zoomed in", even panning is very slow and you can see tling in screen redraw. LR could be so much better, if it was as fast (on screen) as Capture One with OpenCL enabled.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 4:03 AM   in reply to klsteven

    Too bad they didn't include an option to use either process, I.e. switch from 2012 to 2010......  Definitely seems to be the 2012 and not all sliders.  Using the histogram is more responsive than the sliders.  ???  I like the final output BUT after a shoot with a 1DMkIV, 1DMkIII, and 5dMkII. (soon 5dMkIII) of 2,000 - 3,000 RAW images....way too slow.  Adobe HELP!!!!!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 4:23 AM   in reply to shamus1585

    Yes, you can switch the different processes.

    That option is in the "camera calibration" panel.

    But why upgrade if you use the old process?

     

    Too bad they didn't include an option to use either process, I.e. switch from 2012 to 2010......  Definitely seems to be the 2012 and not all sliders.

     

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 4:58 AM   in reply to shamus1585

    Yes, you can switch the different processes.

    That option is in the "camera calibration" panel.

     

    I just double-checked, comparing LR3 and LR4 using the old process.

    The old process eases the CPU-load somewhat, but still the interface is much less responsive.

    I tried moving the clarity-slider on the same image.

    On LR3 the numerical display follows dragging of the slider more or less instantaneously. When changing the numerical value with the cursor up/down button the number changes in increments of 1.

    On LR4 (old process) the display jumps about 10-15 units when moving the slider. When using the cursor buttons, the number jumps up or down in increments of 5 or 6.

    To me this is pretty much unusable.

     

    MacPro 8core 3GHz, OS 10.7.3. manipulating NEF-files from Nikon D3 (12MP)

     

     

    Too bad they didn't include an option to use either process, I.e. switch from 2012 to 2010......  Definitely seems to be the 2012 and not all sliders.

     

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 5:08 AM   in reply to j. scriba

    The upgrade is not solely for new features... I am upgrading one camera to a 5DMkIII  and Adobe will usually not let older software versions use the newer camera raw.  Thanks for the tip.  I REALLY want the new process to work like the old as I like the results.  I shoot dance events and usually have a large number of large raw files so a slower adjust response is a major issue.  As stated before, Dell i7, 12 gigs Win 7 Pro, 3 tb internal, NVida 2 gig ( latest drivers), dual monitors...  LR3 was always quick....  Hoping Adobe does something for 4.1.  I do have Capture One Pro 6 & the new Corel (old Bibble Pro 5) but always preferred LR3 as my RAW converter.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 6:16 AM   in reply to j. scriba

    @j.scriba: I just tried to reproduce what you described with the Clarity slider. I see no difference in speed or behavior (granularity/step of updates) between 3.6, 4.0-2010 and 4.0-2012. Each did the same thing and at pretty much the same speed. I'm going to try on a PC with less RAM and will chime in later.

     

    EDIT: BTW, this is operating on Nikon 16MP NEF files (from the D7000).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 6:28 AM   in reply to BCormier

    Try the manual lens correction feature.  I could have sworn I heard my laptop actually backfire.  It was almost comical watching the image spasm and distort for a good minute after I took my finger from the track pad.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 6:29 AM   in reply to BCormier

    Same here, LR4 very slow in some cases.  The library module was slow at first but has improved.  Now, the spot healing tool takes a LONG time to respond.  I didn't notice this with the beta and LR3 was impressively fast and responsive.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 6:49 AM   in reply to BCormier

    I sure hope Adobe is monitoring these comments and working on it.  I depend on LR for my photography business and will eventually need LR4 due to body upgrades for new camera raw. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 7:06 AM   in reply to BCormier

    Thanks, frankc1978, for your detailed post. LR4 is unacceptably slow for me also - MacBook Pro 8gb ram 24" cinema display - but it's nice to see it's also slow for those of you in SSD land - I don't have to think about that expense for now!

     

    I tried doing what you and hamish niven suggested - deleted the Preview file and also purged the RAW cache, but to no avail.

     

    LR4 is not only terribly slow, but the real deal breaker was when I went to edit out a photo in PS, and LR4 said I would need Camera Raw 7 - what? There is no Camera Raw 7 that I know of. And when I opened the photo in PS anyway, LR4 had sent it the unmodified RAW file, not the one that I had worked on in LR4!

     

    Back to LR3.6 I go. Four hours of work yesterday down the drain, along with the $79 upgrade price.

     

    Finally - let's look at the file sizes: LR3.6 is 102.4 MB. PS CS5.1 (the mother of all apps) comes in at a whopping 410.8 MB. Did I say "whopping" - fuhgeddaboudit. Here's the new whopping - LR4 is 922.3 MB. Over twice as big as PS. I think Adobe has created a Swiss Army Knife behemoth. Time to go on a diet.

     

    - Kip Shaw

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 7:13 AM   in reply to edentonkip

    Helli Kip Shaw.

     

    I do not use PS so far, but i red on facebook. ps still uses camera raw version 5.6 (or something like that) like lr 3.6 did. of course ps will not understand the prozess 2012. adobe made a release candidate today available for adobe camera raw for ps which you can download here:

     

    http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/cameraraw6-7/

     

    This will help you using LR4 with Photoshop..........but it will still be slow as hell hehe! Want 4.1 update NOW with about 800% more speed. Everything else would be useless!

     

    Frank!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 7:25 AM   in reply to frankc1978

    Frankc1978 -

     

    Thanks for the Camera Raw link, but, like you said, still will be slow. And what's really weird is that LR4 says you need Camera Raw 7??? You'd think that there would be a bit more compatibility especially since LR4 now has "Photoshop" as part of its name.

     

    Do you know if there has been any official response from Adobe - in the Forums here or anywhere else - about these reported problems?

     

    - Kip

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 7:31 AM   in reply to BCormier

    I used LR 3 and now upgraded to LR4. I have a small laptop (I5, 6 Giga Ram, 1024 Video card,  from HP). I really do not notice any significant difference.

    The cursors are still super fast. What takes time (but is was true before) is to zoom in at 100%. I use Raw file from Canon 7D. It takes me about 4 to 5 seconds to zoom 100% in the Development mode. But again, no difference with LR3. As I'm not a pro, such 4 to 5 seconds delay is not a big issue for me.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 7:32 AM   in reply to edentonkip

    Hi Kip!

     

    Nope sorry. As i said, i do not use PS. I just red in facebook, that now LR4 works together with PS with this download. Just found it and gave it to you, but i have not found the time to search otherwere about these issues. I hope employes of Adobe do read here with us and will soon make a statement about these performance issues.

     

    King regards Frank!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 7:41 AM   in reply to BCormier

    Although I am disappointed that the only plug-in I can use at the moment with Lightroom 4 are my onOne Perfect Suite 6 plug-ins, I am very happy with how fast the program is. I've noticed a huge improvement from Lightroom 3.6 at least on my machine. Win7, i72600k, 64 bit, 16gb ram, amd radeon 6800 series graphic card etc. Lightroom 4 is running better than any version since the very first roll out of Lightroom, too bad they didn't get everything completely right, but it seems they've figured out the resource issues to me.

    Now if I could just work out getting all of my Nik software and Topaz plugins to work without having to install a trial version of cs5 which I have absolutely NO interest in using, I'd be completely happy.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 7:44 AM   in reply to correspondanc

    Corresondanc!

     

    I was used to work in realtime. Not 1 seconde and not even 5 seconds when zooming in. Klick and zoom. 0.1 seconds. i zoomed, moved sliders and delted, exported and so one. a raw converter today should be able to give the customer a fast and speedy workflow when the customer has a high end machine at the state of the art. i am not a pro too, but i love to take photos, organize them and do some nice adjustments to them. if you do not have a fast computer and you do not need/want this performance everything is ok for you. but people like me are used to work fast and fluid and without having lags and sluggish sliders.

     

    you say lr 3.6 was slow (5 seconds when zooming - oh my god) and lr4 is still slow. so it is clear that you can´t see andy difference. for people like me lr 3.6 was a realtime workflow and lr4 is now ......you know what hehe.

     

    Like i said on a 7D and on a 550D the workflow for me is much better like on 5DMKII files. Nikon D800 will come with 36MP. What will that give? 2seconds delay? Hasselblad - move a slider and go drink a coffee?

     

    Please people stop telling us that lr4 is fast like 3.6 when you had and have a slow computer. in lr 3 people were able to put some money in some nice hardware and then had a nice and fast workflow, but lr4 is not even able to be fast on high end machines and that is my real problem with this software.

     

    King regards Frank!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 7:46 AM   in reply to robo_detroit

    I does indeed help to turn off modules.

    It seems like even turning off modules that are neutral (like HSL) makes the basic sliders more responsive.

    The sharpening/NR module ("details") has quite some impact.

    So it might be a good idea to turn of lens correction and "details" and do the basic adjustments first, then work your way down the modules.

    A somewhat unsatisfying workaround, but this program seems to need every performance boost you can get to feel responsive.

     

    Try the manual lens correction feature.  I could have sworn I heard my laptop actually backfire.  It was almost comical watching the image spasm and distort for a good minute after I took my finger from the track pad.

     

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 8:19 AM   in reply to j. scriba

    I am starting to believe it's a graphics driver issue. All the people who reported that LR4 is snappy have ATI while the others (me included) who reported slowness have Nvidia or Apple.

     

    Not sure if it's related as well, srolling the text in the about window is so sluggish!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 8:27 AM   in reply to hinzo

    I haven an ATI Radeon HD 5770

    Three monitors connected. Sluggish LR4, snappy LR3.

     

    I am starting to believe it's a graphics driver issue. All the people who reported that LR4 is snappy have ATI while the others (me included) who reported slowness have Nvidia or Apple.

     

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 8:37 AM   in reply to hinzo

    Sluggish on this for me:

     

    Chipset Model:NVIDIA GeForce 9400M
      Type:GPU
      Bus:PCI
      VRAM (Total):256 MB
      Vendor:NVIDIA (0x10de)
      Device ID:0x0863
      Revision ID:0x00b1
      ROM Revision:3427
     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 3 ... 43 Previous Next
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (3)

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