Dude, just shut up already you're just being a d1ck. You're just trolling

people (including me) and you're not providing anyone any helpful

information except posting the adobe LR4.1 link.  Which I might add is in

the adobe site already.

You can post as much as you want from the other thread, but until a fix is

actually released, you're not doing any good here.  You may be filling your

ego by talking down to everyone here, but seriously, other than that,

you're not doing nothing helpful.  If you want to offer up your technical

expertise, please by all means go back to that other thread and help them

there.

You have brought no one in this forum, any closer than where we already

are.  No 'new' information provided by you solves anything nor does it help

any of us with workarounds.  Neither does you talking down to us or posting

info from the other thread.

Geoff the kiwi wrote:

 

There is a lot of frustration apparent and while it is understandable please make sure that we keep in mind the forum guidelines.

 

Right. But at least with the great new forum interface it's not clear who is being insulted

Their working hard on it but they have our money don't they Geoff?

Maybe this is a little of guided but I didn't think it was a deposit for Lightroom that I paid for.. Adobe advertised a complete working product. I didn't recieve the product as promised.

No matter how you put it.. I am have less funds and still no product.

We can try and bang our heads togather and come up with a soloution but for crying out loud isn't that defiying the purpose of buying the program in the first place? needs

Adobes needs to man up and honour their wrnty they give when they sell their products.

I agree, uphotography, and DNJ

Thanks for being the thought police Geoff reminding us all to mind our P's and Q's

Aside of rules, guidelines and the like, most posters have paid to upgrade to a piece of software that is not functioning properly, is buggy and is slow. "Adobe are working on things" so we are told by people in the know(?) - you, Lee Jay and a few others who've taken on the role of advising in the absence of feedback and communication from adobe.

This is a public forum,  so peoples views, opinions and comments, groans and frustrations are expected and needed, valued maybe and even taken under consideration.

polite policing does not help, rather feedback and communication from Adobe in the form of what they are planning to do to help those who've invested in a product that should not have been released as a public beta let alone paid for.

Or maybe they know exactly what is causing the problem.  In software

development, sometimes the difficulty is not in finding what exactly is

triggering a problem, but how to solve it.  in a case like that, additional

bug reports are unnecessary.

This is a private communication sent from my mobile device.  If you are not

the intended recipient, please delete this message from both your email and

your memory banks.

I would say yes, you are screwed until its fixed...unless you opt for Plan B which is to ingest in LR4, convert to DNG then edit in 3.6....which I simply won't do beause its a PITA!   Also, if you haven't already, pls post your experience/complait in the form that Adobe watches and add you name to the list here:  http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lr4_0_reacts_ext remely_slow

This is not going to get us anywhere - but what has so far?

There are several IT gurus around here. Can one of you explain why Adbobe cannot 'borrow' one of the machines reporting no speed problems, borrow one with them, and work out where they differ? Damn it all. The USA is not that huge. Surely FedEx could get both to the same lab room within 24 hours.

It is years since I wrote crude progams in dBase 2 - but in those days we could put them into debugging mode and see where they were failing. I know that these days software is significantly more complicated but surely diagnostics must have moved on as well.

The Lightroom software team must have dozens of machines running LR. Surely not every single one of them is glitch free?

I have a cynical view that there is some beancounter at the top saying 'no more money on this - we must move on'. But that is a view of a cynic who used to be a beancounter myself before retiring.

IT man - tell me what you can't put a working and non working LR installation side by side and puzzle out why they perform differently, please?

Tony

Being a software engineer on numerous commercial projects I can tell you that it is not up to the IT guru. No more changes are allowed after the business has signed off on the product with exception of bug fixes. If you look at all of Adobe's change logs they only fix functionality related bugs. Performance is not considered functionality by Adobe and it is shown by their track record of each new bloated release (Photoshop, Acrobat, Lightroom). Not to mention optimisation requires more expertise and money than say, building the DVD burning module. Which one will the business choose?

When performance really becomes a problem, it is too late. The IT gurus will tell the business it wil cost millions to redesign, rewrite, retest the existing code, and the business will simply say "No, we wlll go with a temporary fix and push up the system requirements".

Mmm.. Juw177 how far are they going to push the System requirments up?

I'm currently on a $10k single PC setup and it is beyond frustrating when open 100 raw files quicker in Photoshop CS6 and review them as opposed to Lightroom 4, 4.1, 4.2 etc.
My current specs: I7 2600K @ 4.5Ghz, 32Gb 1866Mhz DDR3, GTX570 Graphics, 120GB SSD OS drive, Adaptec dual Raid setup (48 SAS) comprising of 500GB scratch/cache disk Raid 0 1400MB/s R/W and 16TB Raid 6 with hotspare 900MB/s R/W. Any other program thrown at just blitz along including CS6, Premerie and 3D CAD programs.

The only way Adobe will fix their product is with a class action for as far as I can see.

Another matter that "really" peeves me of is Adobe are still selling and recomending this product as if we are pronoucing a hoax.

Just Intaled RC2 and increased the Cache to 10gb...

I do think is somehow faster, but I only have 100 raw in my actual catalogue

Marcelo Trad

exactly Joe!  This is what Adobe has yet to provide us!!  I know we are willing!!  Pls post this in the bug reporting forum...PLEASE!!

juw177 wrote:

 

Bug reporting here is useless because software engineers most likely know exactly why the application is slow. They just can't do anything about it. They are not allowed to make high impact code changes after the product is released. They are also not allowed to gimp existing functionality. That's why all we get are some gimmicky workarounds.

That's all baloney.

LynneHarty wrote:

 

Okay all "oneupping aside", I am back to my basic question. I'm a professional photographer, and nowhere near the tech level of most of the people I'm listening to on this forum. Here is what I'm hoping to get answers for:

 

I had to upgrade to LR4 because LR3 won't open the files shot with my new Nikon D4, which I had to purchase after all my equipment was stolen in December, so it made sense to get the newest and best camera I could afford. I have about 50,000 images in my catalog (I'm unclear on whether that matters or not in terms of speed). I've been using LR since version 1 and using LR4 with these new files (yes, RAW, of course RAW) is unbearably slow in every way. Waiting for each image to "focus" to edit takes way too long, as do the rest of the adjustments. I can't shoot tethered with this camera either. I found a workaround with a free download called Sofortbild, or something like that, for my D700, but alas it doesn't recognize the D4 either. So now I have this sweet camera and new LR software and I feel like I'm in the dark ages.

 

There has been a lot of discussion about cache size and location. I have no idea where mine is or how to find it.

 

Am I just screwed until adobe fixes the issues with LR 4 and the nikon D4 compatibility? Do I have to shoot with my lesser D700 till then?

 

Thanks.

Lynne

Basically yes, you are screwed. Unless you start considering any of the competitor's alternatives to LR.

There are a few that are highly praised by reviewers. Some are paid, some are open source.

I am getting familiar with Corel After Shot Pro. Nice interface, (maybe not as elegant as LR, but IT WORKS!).

It was suggested to shoot RAW and then convert to DNG and then use 3.6. I wouldn't do that. First, you are only getting more and more tied to Adobe (I stopped DNG conversion altogether since some of the alternatives do not work well or at all with DNGs). Besides that, the thought of using a DNG converter (free) or even using LR4 as a mere DNG converter, that is very sad.

In case you want a list (I posted one somewhere else but it got buried in the "only last 15 posts are shown)

- Corel Aftershoot Pro (Paid - Free Win/Mac/Linux) http://www.corel.com/corel/product/index.jsp?pid=prod4670071&cid=catal og20038&segid=6000006&storeKey=us&languageCode=en

- Darktable (Free -Mac/Linux) http://www.darktable.org/

- RawTherapee (Free Win/Mac/Linux) http://www.rawtherapee.com/

- Cyberlink Photo Director (Paid Win/Mac) http://www.cyberlink.com/products/photodirector/overview_en_US.html?&r =1

I have tried all the them  except for Darktable (I run a Win gig) (either the full version or the trial version). I was pleasently impressed by Corel Aftershoot Pro and I find myself playing with it more and more. I really believe that Adobe decided to release an unbaked software because it has to be done before X (X being the release of Cyberlink Photo Director) As much as I like some of the features in LR4, well, it's like Adobe didn't actually implemented them since I cannot use it! I feel almost like having a long empty street and a Ferrari... but no gas (and no gas station anywhere to be seen).

Like it was mentioned before, it is a bit disturbing that Adobe employees only pop up here and there to "moderate" but never to inform. I don't want to get into a side-by-side comparisson BUT if the government of your country would be performing business the way Adobe is doing things now, I think there would have been riots on the streets a long time ago.

In any case, I am dissapointed on:

- How Adobe is handling this

- How Adobe released a product like this

- Adobe's support.

Stick with LR 3.6 Tony, Corel Aftershoot Pro is not nearly as good as Lightroom and it doesn't support Dng, I tried it when I couldn't get LR4 to work properly, I also looked at Elements 10 but ACR has less controls than LR 3.6 ie:- no gradient tool and noise reduction lacks some of the control in LR 3.6.

Robbie.

I didn't know whether you were still lurking. I re-tried your idea of putting the RAWs, the cache and the catalogue on Drive J (C is my operating drive) and it ran with fewer crashes (is this a complement you rightly ask) than with everything on C.

I guess that the number of times the screen went totally white was reduced - so do I smell progress?

Would you say that 3.6 is still better than running LR4 in 2010 mode?

What I have learnt using LR4 that its often best to start with the highlight recovery and fill shadow sliders at the extremity and then to ease them back (maybe but not always) as the exposure settles to what I want. But then I could do this with 3.6 of course.

Tony

A C G wrote:

 

uphotography,

 

For me a useful post. It does seem that I am going to have to wait for LR5 (I started by saying 'we are' until I remembered all the folk around here who say they don't have a problem) for software that runs smoothly.

 

In the meantime do I jump ship and move to Corel Aftershoot Pro - or do I move back to the 2010 process alternative in LR4?

 

You say "As much as I like some of the features in LR4,". Would you like to list them? I'd never use LR to make a book, a web folder or a map. All I want it to do is to produce the best tiff or jpg from my RAW files. I like the new slider arrangement in LR4 - but are they actually extracting more from the RAWs than 3.6 did? If not then I'm stupid not to move back to the 2010 process.

 

I worked on some pretty tricky images yesterday, using 2012, and love the results. Does anyone think I would not have done so well in 3.6? I suppose I ought simply to try. In fact I will - but I'd love a second opinion.

 

Tony

No, I don't use book creation. That's one of the things that baffles me. There were several suggestions on how to improve LR (from 3 to 4) and instead of delivering a sturdy LR4 , Adobe gave us a tool full of things that are not that important (in my opinion). It looks to me that Adobe wants to play catcher, pitcher and bat at the same time.

To give just one of the examples of things I like from PV 2012 is the possibility of having a white balance brush. Noise reduction is also a tad better. In general I find that I'm getting closer to what I had in mind when I shot the photo than I managed before. But, I can only do it 1 or 2 photos at a time. Then it is so non-responsive that I need to close it and open it up again. I feel I could be faster in a darkroom than with LR. The other day it took me close to 4 hours to export around 400 photos.

I cannot wait 1 or 2 years for LR5 to see if they solved the problem. Maybe then they also added other "convenient" features like a studio management tab. Maybe then they will sell LR with its own Computer as a way to ensure it works.

Corel AS doesn't support DNG? ok, then I stop dng conversions. Corel doesn't have the features LR4 has? Well, what's the use of having them if you cannot use them? Like I said, with LR4 I feel like I have a Ferrari, the highway for myself and no gas in the tank. I have work now, I have work "yesterday" and I have a great tool that doesn't work, and a good tool that works. It would be easier to wait if we would know for how long, what's the process, the diagnosis, ANYTHING.

I have to go with what I have, and that is:

• No information from Adobe
• A release that doesn't work (for me) + 2 RC that also doesn't work.
• Limited time to finish assignments
• A software that is not perfect but works (Corel AS Pro)

But that's it for me.

Download LR4.1 RC2 (Release Candidate)

It should have drivers for the D4 and also improvements in some way of

speed.

One thing I did and read on this forum was to increase the raw cache to

10gb instead of 2 gb that came as standard...

That gave some improvements in terms of speed!

Marcelo Trad

Marcelo,

How do I increase the raw cache? I' m on a mac. Thanks
Lynne Harty

Hummm...

I have a PC, maybe it´s the same. Go in the menu "Edit" then "Preferences"

then under "File Handling" tab. You should be able to see in the botom of

that window the size of the cache!

Did it help?

Marcelo Trad

juw177 wrote:

 

Why is that baloney?

This is:

Bug reporting here is useless because software engineers most likely know exactly why the application is slow. They just can't do anything about it. They are not allowed to make high impact code changes after the product is released.

Saying that they won't fix a major bug or bugs that are making the application unusable for a portion of the user base because management wouldn't allow it is baloney.