Skip navigation
This discussion is locked

Experiencing performance related issues in Lightroom 4.x

Aug 6, 2012 3:58 PM

  Latest reply: Victoria Bampton, Dec 18, 2012 11:37 AM
Replies 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 43 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 18, 2012 2:28 PM   in reply to BCormier

    I would just like to add my voice to the growing audience of folks who find that Lightroom 4 is slow, I mean really slow.  I haven't changed a thing on my hardware/OS configuration - Intel Core 2 Quad Processor Q9300 with a 6MB L2 Cache running at 2.5 GHz, 8GB Memory, Nvidia GeForce GT220 (1GB) Graphics card,  1TB HD running under Win 7 Premium Home, 64 bit.  How slow is it - well I would say things that were done almost instantaneously under LR3, now take a few seconds or more under LR4.  It is slow to the point of being absolutely frustrating.  I did not use the Beta version.  I am using my "old" catalog that I imported.  Not sure if that is an issue or not.  As well, I am converting images to the "new" process as I go along, with new imports being done under the new, 2012, process.

     

    If this is the best they can do, then I will go back to LR3 until they can make it move faster, but I guess I can't do that can I as I have imported my old catalog - lessons learned - I supposed I could always return to one of the backup versions as I do a backup every day - hmmmm.  I am not really interested in work-arounds - shades of Microsoft???

     

    WesternGuy

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 18, 2012 3:09 PM   in reply to WesternGuy

    As well, I am converting images to the "new" process as I go along,

    Don't convert groups of images to the new process in batch, especially if they already have edits done in previous process versions. The result is unpredictable and sometimes quite drastic. It has to be done one at a time.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 18, 2012 4:17 PM   in reply to BCormier

    In following some of the instructions that I've seen people post, I have created 1 to 1 previews of the wedding I'm editing, upped the cache to 200gb, cleared out over 300gb of images on my main hard drive and now I'm back to working on these pictures and I honestly believe that LR4 is slower now than it was 2 hours ago. It's so unresponsive that when I select an image, it takes 3-5 seconds before it actually shows as the selected. If I try to move a slider, it hesitates and eventually moves after a few seconds, often times yielding various results because I want minor tweaks as I'm looking at the image but I can't get them. When trying to Sync the develop settings across a handful of images, you might as well forget it. You'd think I'm trying to render a Hollywood blockbuster on a laptop. I have a machine that is more than capable of running this software, which has all been detailed on a previous page.

     

    When my clients demand the best from me and we get such a questionable upgrade from Adobe, it really makes things difficult.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 18, 2012 4:50 PM   in reply to Jim Wilde

    nice one Jim,  I have recreated my "Lightroom 4 Preferences.agprefs" and it is as good as gold now.  Happy days!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 18, 2012 5:27 PM   in reply to Scooby007

    Thanks, Brett, this was really helpful. I'm on a 4 year 24" iMac, and it was approaching unuseable for Lr4.

     

    Read the article first, since your machine & mileage may vary.

     

    Here's what I did:

     

    - set preview size to 2048 for my 1920 screen.

    - increased the ACR cache to 20 GB.

    - turned off modules I'm not using, unchecked showing them in the contextual menu.

    - switched everything to solo mode.

    - closed Navigator & Histogram (when I'm not using them).

     

    Faster, newer computers might only need the first 5. I also did:

     

    - trying to minimize other apps open (including Safari, which can be a hog).

    - eliminated started items I don't really need.

     

    Finally, one I saw a couple of years ago. Do a G them minimize thumbnails so they all show, watch that the "..." in each image is done. Scroll through sections of thumbnails for a large folder.

     

    This seems a lot better. Thanks again.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 18, 2012 6:44 PM   in reply to stationarymotionOKC

    stationarymotionOKC wrote:

     

    When my clients demand the best from me and we get such a questionable upgrade from Adobe, it really makes things difficult.

     

    Right there with you -I've tried it all, and this update to Lightroom has been lackluster to say the least.

     

    You're not alone.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 18, 2012 6:47 PM   in reply to Blind Monk

    I know Adobe is working on it, so I'm not trying to throw them totally under the bus. It just makes me wonder how much testing in different environments is done, it seems like the beta testing would have provided this same info that they're 99% there, but not quite .

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 18, 2012 6:58 PM   in reply to stationarymotionOKC

    Really great words. It's hard to remember these thoughts when you're relying on Adobe to be consistent.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 18, 2012 8:46 PM   in reply to BCormier

    OP said

    Lightroom is slow... My system is:

    2.10 ghz Intel Core i3 Sandy Bridge

    8 GB Ram

    640 GB Hard Drive

    Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bit

     

    Not to poke you with a stick, but that's honestly not a very robust system for something as demanding as Lightroom. Your performance would increase dramatically with a fast i7 processor, night and day

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 18, 2012 10:44 PM   in reply to BCormier

    There may me multiple issues that slow LR4 down, but mine seems to be running a dual monitor.   Not sure if its an NVida problem with LR4 (didn't happen on LR3) or just LR4 with all brands.  LR4 works fine with one monitor on my system, no slow downs.  Curious to see if switching the video card makes any difference.  I have a feeling - no.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 18, 2012 10:49 PM   in reply to bob frost

    Bob, let us know.  Mine LR4 is fine on single monitor, and while I can temporarily live with it that way for a while, I hope Adobe fixes it. Sliders in develop are instanteous (altho screen refresh takes about a quarter of a sec - a guess) with the one monitor.  

     

    I also hope (ADOBE -  IF YOU ARE LISTENING) that its not an issue when CS6 comes out as I DEPEND on two in Photoshop!!!!!!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 12:43 AM   in reply to A C G

    yes, but only took me minute to make my preferences as a like it, but adobe really needs to optimize the coding of lightroom 4.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 4:15 AM   in reply to Scooby007

    Brett,

     

    "Not to poke you with a stick, but that's honestly not a very robust system for something as demanding as Lightroom. Your performance would increase dramatically with a fast i7 processor, night and day"

     

    My LR 3.6 works find on a 32bit Win 7 system with a mere 2gig of RAM. At times I have even had LR4 working perfectly on it from time to time. Snag is the software is not stable as we all are concluding.

     

    It makes a mockery of a 60 UKP upgrade if one needs a new PC to run it on.

     

    I well understand you folk with these PC's with enough chips to run Cape Kennedy but that's not what good software is about.

     

    Tony

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 9:54 AM   in reply to A C G

    I well understand you folk with these PC's with enough chips to run Cape Kennedy but that's not what good software is about.

    Tony

     

    MS Notepad is good software, so is Maya. One is free, tiny, and could run on a calculator processor, the other is huge, $3,500, and needs a powerhouse workstation for optimal perfromance. Not all software is the same.

     

    Tony

    My LR 3.6 works find on a 32bit Win 7 system with a mere 2gig of RAM.

     

    There's no way in the world you can fairly expect LR to perform on a system with 2gb ram. I've seen LR 4 using 11gb of my ram all by itself, not to mention the operating system. This isn't 2005

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 9:56 AM   in reply to Scooby007

    There is something (or more likely somthingS) going on here ...

     

    I have a quad-core 64-bit PC running windows-7 -- standard builtin intel graphics and 8Gb of memory.

     

    That is NOT a powerhouse!!!

     

    I have all modules loaded and have used all modules.

    I have a 20,000+ catalog (and a 3 others around 5,000).

    I converted all to LR4.

     

    It runs just as fast as LR3.

     

    So what is going on

    • are all the people complaining about performance "out-to-lunch" (I doubt it)
    • are all the people NOT complaining "out-to-lunch"? not using it to full capacity?  (I doubt it, too many saying its fine)
    • are we dealing with out-of-date vidio drivers? - likely in some cases
    • are we dealing with some other application causing issues? - again likely in some cases
    • is it dual monitor issues? - seems likely as some have seen that make a difference
    • is it a change in how LR uses the video, multi-cores, ...
      • this in my mind is the most likely -- but then why does it work well for some and not others
      • this may again be related to driver versions or similar
    • are there real issues with LR4 re performance? - again likely, but not readily detectable or they would not be there
      • many things can cause this kind of thing in S/W and they can be some of the most difficult to deal with -- if 100's of people have no problem, there is good chance none of the systems used by the LR development group have a problem

     

    So if I had a REALLY badly slow LR4, I would try a few things, wait patiently - remember this is a .0 release, and if my livelyhood depended on LR I would probably go back to LR3 for a short time.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 10:32 AM   in reply to Dennis Smith

    Dennis...

     

    You did not say what disk you are using...  for LR

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 10:42 AM   in reply to LR_Mowang

    ... You did not say what disk you are using...  for LR

     

    Sorry, thought my post was long enough

     

    Actually I don't know the details.  I buy from our office supplier and just say "configure me a Win7 PC".

     

    So its physical drives, raided -- speed I don't know.

    That is for my .lrcat and previews (on C:\).

     

    My photos are on a USB-2 external 1TB drive -- this does NOT seem to slow things except on import

    which I expect and don't care that much about -- I just go get a glass of scotch while I wait a bit

     

    I have an LCD/LED-IPS monitor (24") which replaced my LCD-TN 22" -- that did not affect anything so far as I could tell

    except cleaner colours and brightness.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 1:03 PM   in reply to Dennis Smith

    If it is a raid disk system... then you will get great response.  It is

    my belief, LR4 has increased the writing to disk ( or changed how and

    when) and that has impacted the performance for even beefy systems with

    average disk drives.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 1:16 PM   in reply to LR_Mowang

    This type of raid (2 drives mirrored) will not affect performance.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 1:16 PM   in reply to LR_Mowang

    Simple raid (2 drives mirrored) will not improve performance at all -- no effect

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 1:23 PM   in reply to Dennis Smith

    Dennis @ My photos are on a USB-2 external 1TB drive -- this does NOT seem to slow things except on import

     

    This will slow you down if you have auto-save metdata to files enabled. Also on export, but I wouldn't imagine by much. Doesn't it also slow you down in the develop module since it references the original to create develop cr cache?

     

    I would definitely move to usb3 or esata though, for something as critical as the primary storage of your photo files. Even esata is much, much faster than USB2 (about 3x faster on average in practical use, which is huge)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 2:01 PM   in reply to Scooby007

    Once the develop is open, there are no more disk accesses.

    I don't write .xmp files or .dng files, so the only updates are to the catalog which is on c:\

     

    I have USB-3 ports so I could upgrade, just never felt the need to.

     

    Export?  I guess it has to access  the main phopto, never thought of that -- but if I export 5 or 10 photos I don't see it slow,

    more might be, but I see that as a background activity so I don't worry about it.

     

    At first I kept the originals on the C:\ drive, but had space issues -- moved them to USB-2 on Win-XP and did not notice

    much change.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 2:10 PM   in reply to Dennis Smith

    I would have thought there was no more disk access, but if you start the

    MS performance monitor you will see LR accessing the disk. And the

    number of processes open is huge.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 3:28 PM   in reply to Scooby007

    "There's no way in the world you can fairly expect LR to perform on a system with 2gb ram"

     

    But it does. Well 3.6 does.

     

    Sorry to challenge the opinion with fact.

     

    Tony

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 3:53 PM   in reply to A C G

    OK -- I am one of those nasty people who does not seem to have a performance issue

     

    I have a 4-core CPU, Win-64, 8Gb

     

    I started the MS performance monitor and ran LR4.

     

    Picked a photo and sat dragging some of the sliders non-stop back and forth.

    Response (updating my view of the photo) was basically instantaneous, so far as I could see.

    I tried, exposure, black, shadows, sharpness, noise, contrast, clarity ...

     

    Memory sits at 2.64Gb, and changes at most +/-0.01Gb (2.63 to 2.66).

    CPU's (all 4) go up to abouit 66% (all of them), except for noise reduction where

    I was able to push them to 80%.

     

    Again, my photo's view was updating continually and so far as I could see

    instantly following the sliders.

     

    No additional processes created that I could see -- just the one "Lightroom Process".

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 4:04 PM   in reply to A C G

    "There's no way in the world you can fairly expect LR to perform on a system with 2gb ram" But it does. Well 3.6 does. Sorry to challenge the opinion with fact.

    Tony

    If you're used to X speed, then it will become satisfactory. And if it is then good. And of course having X speed in LR3 and LR4 being much slower isn't acceptable.

     

    I prefer to run software at the fastest possible speed I can so I don't waste time, and since you can get a vertiable supercomputer at $1k for an excellent win764 tower for example, there's little reason to spend three times as long doing everything on your computer. Plus memory is about the cost of a nice dinner, and it's never been more useful. I can't imagine you aren't swapping all the time with 2gb ram, and that makes performance tank.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 7:50 PM   in reply to BCormier

    All the tricks not helping, I'm exhausted, back to Lightroom 3.6,

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 7:57 PM   in reply to BCormier

    I am curious -- of those who have serious slowness problems with LR4 -- how many are using SSD's for the drive holding either the catalog or the photos??

     

    I ask this because we ran into a problem with an object database we use running on SSD's -- its lightning fast except when we do a long series of writes, the longer

    the sequence of writes goes, the slower it all gets, and attempting to run anything else while that is happening is terribly slow.

     

    Just a thought.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2012 9:31 PM   in reply to Dennis Smith

    My Lightroom 4 katalog and photo is on non SSD 7200RPM different drive, Using win7 x64 ram 8Gig i7, dual monitor with ATI 5850. Lightroom 4 is unuseable to me due to very slow process. Already tried all the tricks mentioned.

     

    My conclusion is Lightroom 4 is not ready yet, yes some have no problem but many have expererienced the slowness problem.

     

    Never had problem with lightroom 3.6

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 5:46 AM   in reply to BCormier

    Hi all,

     

    I just solved my issues by doing 3 things, as suggested above:

     

    • Updating nvidia drivers: Win7-64bit, 2GB GTX-560 by updating to 296.10, from whatever version was out in Nov 2011.
    • Moving Catalog and ACR cache folders to SSD - not moving previews folder.
    • Excluding lightroom cache and catalog folders from MS security essentials anitvirus.

     

    Issues were:

    - long time switching to develop module

    - very inconsistent performance on 36MP Nikon D800 raw images

    - laggy and slow performance generally

     

    I think the updated drievrs helped problem 1 more than anything, but can't be sure.

     

    This is on a SR2 - dual hexacore /24GB RAM at 4.0Ghz.

     

    Hope this helps somebody.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 7:20 AM   in reply to BCormier

    On 13 March (reported above) I created a new catalogue, importing around 2000 images, and this seemed to provide significant speed improvement.

     

    In the past 7 days I have added only 220 images to the catalogue but I am now finding the same symptoms as with the converted catalogue ... very sluggish, jerky responses, 3 or 4 seconds to swithc between modules, significant lag when zooming images in the develop module, slow exports with 100% processor usage, very slow response/high processor usage when making adjustments (especially denoise)

     

    Same kit as before:

    Lenovo G770 (i7-2620M, 2.7GHz

    6GB RAM

    Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit

    LR4-64-bit

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 8:51 AM   in reply to bob frost

    bob frost wrote:

     

    From: "shamus1585

    Any readers using two monitors where it's slow with the second, what type

    card are you using?

     

    I noticed BoHandsome and I are both using GTX260 NVidia cards.  Mine was a

    special that came from Dell with 2 gigs onboard.

     

     

    Mmm. Mine is a nVidia too -  GTx460. I don't have any ATI cards to swap it

    out.

     

    Bob Frost

     

    Just bought a Radeon 6870 card. It doesn't make a lot of difference compared to my previous GTX460; slightly faster, but then the  card is faster overall.

     

    Also tried an older 8800GT card, and various ages of drivers with all three, but no magic effect on the secondary monitor problem.

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 8:58 AM   in reply to bob frost

    bob frost wrote:

     

    Just bought a Radeon 6870 card. It doesn't make a lot of difference compared to my previous GTX460; slightly faster, but then the  card is faster overall. Also tried an older 8800GT card, and various ages of drivers with all three, but no magic effect on the secondary monitor problem.

     

     

    On my fast Win7x64 desktop, the answer to the secondary monitor problem is NOT to use the lens correction panel. Use good lenses and unless there is something that obviously needs straightening out, don't correct for lens aberrations. DON'T use lens profile corrections as an automatic initial preset if you want to use a secondary monitor. If you have to use lens corrections, turn the secondary monitor off.

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 9:29 AM   in reply to bob frost

    Thanks for the tip, but on my system, didn't seem to make a difference.

     

    I contacted NVidia and was advised:

     

    "Lightroom 4 does not use any GPU acceleration for its User Interface or filters nor does it use it for RAW file decoding. Were not aware of this being a NVIDIA bug.

    Adobe seems to be aware of this problem and is investigating it along with a few other hot issues. "

     

     

    Guess we'll have to wait for 4.1

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 1:00 PM   in reply to BCormier

    Just wanted to add my voice here... LR 4 is slow to the point where it's unuseable for me. Luckily I didn't uninstall 3.6, so I'll just keep using that until LR 4 gets a speed boost, I truly hope that happens, otherwise I'll have to look for another RAW converter....

     

    The increase in speed when going back to 3.6 after struggling with 4 is dramatic, just unbelievable. Hard to believe they're different versions of the same software.

     

    I agree with previous poster who thinks LR 4 is not ready.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 3:19 PM   in reply to wrodge

    Like others, I also wanted to add my voice to complaints about how slow LR4 is. I'm on a Mac Pro, 8-core, 2.26 MHz, 16 GB RAM, 256GB Solid State Drive, four fast HHDs, etc. It's a pretty fast machine, but LR4 is a DAWG! It often takes 4-5 seconds for sharpening to show up in the detail tab, another 4-5 seconds for a new image to display, etc. Sliders are herky-jerky and slow. This is NOT real time performance. I'm processing Canon 5Dmk2 files that have been imported as DNG files.

     

    I also created a new catalog, hoping it would help. If it did, it isn't enough. Turned off the Catalog Preference to Automatically write changes to XMP. The catalog and previews are in the same folder.

     

    Performance is unacceptable, which is a shame, since many nice features have been added. It needs some serious rework to speed it up. Adobe should be ashamed to release a product that is so obviously slow. It's not possible that they didn't know this before rushing it to market.

     

    Lou

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 3:59 PM   in reply to Lou Dina

    Lee Jay has found a very neat trick that may literally quadruple slider performance in some instances:

    http://forums.adobe.com/thread/977664?tstart=0

     

    I checked it out myself: got lucky. Everything is smooth because I'm just under 1/4 of the original resolution and my 2nd gen i7 can hold up with that. But going full screen is a total game changer.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 11:41 PM   in reply to slarti3

    I would like to report in with success in getting my LR4 running very smoothly including dual monitor activity even 'Live' at 1:1 zoom on 2nd monitor. I did upgrade computers toward the end of the beta so it is a little hard to keep track of the performance changes linearly but after some spotty periods LR4 seems to be running much better than LR3 ever did on the earlier computer I had and that was certainly not the case a few days ago. Unfortunately, as I have done quite a few of the optimizing suggestions, there is no one magic bullet I can point at. This is a powerful computer that did run as a laggard for a bit so this seems to be a case that says that even if powerful processors are tripping up somehow this can be 'tuned' around.

     

    Configuration:

    i7-2600k

    8 gigs 1600mhz Ram

    p68 Intel motherboard

    nVidia GTX 460-2

    Dual Samsung Syncmaster 2493 HM 24" monitors @ 1920x1200

    C: 64gb Samsung SSD drive = WIndows OS only

    D: 250 meg 7200 HDD = Program Files/User Folders/LR Cache@35Gb (now holds catalogs/previews)

    E: 1 Tb 5600 HDD = Newer Photos and other data (previously held catalogs/previews)

    F: 2 Tb USB 3.0 External = Older Photos

    3 USB 2.0 External Backup Drives

     

    Environment:

    Windows 7 64bit Professional, Adobe Design Premium CS5, MS Office Pro 2010

    Windows managed swap file (highly researched with my SSD, might do differently with HDD OS)

    Main Lightroom Catalog = 94,000 images most being 12mp Sony .ARW Raw files

    Secondary smaller Catalogs (not tested, one not converted yet)

    jfSmugmug Publish/ Picasa Web Publish Services

     

    History:

    I installed LR4 beta on my previous Core 2 Duo/4 gigs ram and that gave me the kick in the pants that it was time to finally bite the bullet and upgrade hardware as it was pretty clear that Lr4 was going to be too demanding on that one. Had a lot of performance trouble at the beginning especially with photos imported from LR3 catalogs, less with fresh photo imports. During the beta period I built the new computer spec'd above and then ran the beta on that for just over a week until the final release came out.

     

    With the final release installation I failed to uninstall the beta before running the final install so my install was an 'overlay' from the get-go. This is counter to procedures that have been suggested subsequently of making sure to uninstall the beta and to do a fresh install but I didn't notice any problems doing it this way. My first catalog conversion was from the beta catalog I had been using for a couple months. Performance seemed not too bad as I recall, though not as fast as I had hoped. After testing this I then did a conversion of my main catalog which held 87,000 photos at the time. Speed was not ideal after this so after watching the forum patter I followed a recommendation (from Victoria?) to export out of 3 first and then do a fresh import from the exported file. I trashed the original conversion and started over with as little baggage brought in as possible. This may have helped a bit. I have now combined the main catalog with the converted from beta catalog to a total of 94,000.

     

    Key Points:

    - My catalog was running so-so at the beginning but then seemed to suffer a slow-down last week which finally peaked at 1.5-25 second delays. It was not this slow at first.

    - I also did not do much early dual monitor work so my baseline on that is lacking a bit.

    - My LR Cache is on my fastest HDD drive D: where my program files are (including LR). The cache is set for 35Gb although less than 5 are in use.

    - My previews are and have been set to build at 2048.

    - In thinking back to what I may have done that could have contributed to my biggest experienced slow down there are two things that have a timing coincidence that I wouldn't have expected to be a problem. First is I optimized the catalog. Second is I turned on and setup my Exif Overlays. Most likely coincidental but my brain keeps going back to the overlays for some reason.

     

    What I have done, all or any of which may have helped cure the sluggishness:

    Followed Subdoods excellent advice on page 6 of this thread (thanks dood!):

    - Created exceptions in my Norton Internet Security for .lrcat files and excluded the catalog and preview folders from any Norton scanning. [ I am a MSAccess programmer and I know how critical this can be in improving database performance for Access .mdb files. This could be a significant factor and I wonder if there might be other SQLLite exceptions that might be implemented on top of this?. ]

    - Disabled Windows indexing services on the catalog folder trees. Makes total sense to me. 

    - Disabled the CPU Power down and Sleep modes.

    - Bumped LR's CPU thread usage priority to High! under Services. Another one that makes tons of sense. I did download and install Prio Priority Saver to facilitate this as suggested. This could be important.

    Other things I have done:

    - Following another suggestion I downloaded the latest nVidia driver for my GTX 460 v2. It appears that this driver is only a few weeks old. Always good to do.

    - I moved my catalogs to a different drive than any of my photos are on. I went back and forth on this setup as I kind of wanted to have the catalog and the cache on different drives and these two are my fastest outside of the SSD OS drive. I went with the catalog and photos together and the cache separate but now I think that moving the catalog to the fast drive with the cache away from the catalog may have been a big contributor to speeding things up. I have not yet played with moving the cache.

    - When I built the system my research had led me to believe that LR would be relying on the processor much more than the ram as long as I had around 8 gigs. I went strong on processor and medium on ram. What I see now though is that my Task Manager shows good utilization across all of my cores but also that my ram usage has regularly crawled up to 7.5 out of 8. I have 8 more gigs coming UPS tomorrow as I think LR4 may actually put to use more than 8 if it is available from the looks of what I am seeing.

     

    What I did not try that has been suggested:

    - Turn off reverse geo-coding. Never got around to it, my photos aren't gps tagged and I haven't dropped that many on the map yet.

    - Rebuild all of the preferences folders. I was going to but hadn't gotten around to it when things kicked into gear for me.

     

    Other notes:

    - I am sure I have left out some things here.

    - I have not yet had a chance to experiment with Lee Jay's findings on the image scaling. With my resolution and image sizes my views should be less than 1:2 naturally. I will look forward to playing with that.

    - I am knocking on wood that nothing changes for now!!!

     

    Ciao,

     

    Gary

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 21, 2012 2:10 AM   in reply to wrodge

    What a lot of people don't seem to realise is that LR4 can process your images just as LR3 did! The processing in Develop has 3 methods - 2003 (the original), 2010 (in LR3), and 2012 (the latest). As anyone reading this thread knows, the latest 2012 develop process needs a lot more cpu power than the older methods.

     

    So if your computer is not yet up to coping with 2012, just continue using the 2010 method in LR4 i.e. don't upgrade the develop method by clicking on the asterisk, and for new imports go to camera calibration and select 2010 as the Develop method.

     

    Then you have all the other benefits of LR4, maps, books, softproofing, etc, without the pain of 2012 on a slow computer. That way you get to keep your Recovery and Fill sliders that a lot of people like, but you can still upgrade to 2012 in the future when you upgrade your computer, or when Adobe finds ways round the processing problems.

     

    No need to go back to LR3; that's shooting yourself in the foot. Just use the 2010 Develop process that is preserved for you to use in LR4.

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 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