• Global community
    • Language:
      • Deutsch
      • English
      • Español
      • Français
      • Português
  • 日本語コミュニティ
    Dedicated community for Japanese speakers
  • 한국 커뮤니티
    Dedicated community for Korean speakers
Exit
Locked
0

[Consolidation-Locked] Lightroom 4.1 Performance

New Here ,
Jun 04, 2012 Jun 04, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

hello my lightroom 4.1 copy is so slow, in the develop module when switching between raw files the "loading" logo keeps spinning for a long time before I can edit the file, and the same happens when I click on the image to zoom in, takes forever to do so.

I run windows 7 64 bit

Xeon 16 core 2.4 gb

32 gb ram

the OS and the raw files are on two seperate sata 6 SSD drives

theres is no way  it should be so slow to simply switch from raw files or zoom in?

Even in loupe mode when clicking on a file to zoom it takes forever.

Photoshop cs6 camera raw does not show performance issues, when importing the same raw image in photoshop zooming in is immediate instead of many many seconds in lightroom.

I tried the optimization suggestion by adobe, setting the camera raw cache to more than 10gb, optimizing the catalog etc... but nothing changes. (http://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/optimize-performance-lightroom.html)

If you have any suggestion I am very interested because at the moment it is very frustating to use the software

Message title was edited by: Brett N

Views

34.4K

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines

correct answers 1 Correct answer

LEGEND , Jun 04, 2012 Jun 04, 2012

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/971581

[Moderator: This topic is already being discussed at length on thread linked above, please post further comments there]

Message was edited by: Brett N

Votes

Translate

Translate
Enthusiast ,
Jun 04, 2012 Jun 04, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Are you saying it's just slow, or that it's slower than LR 3.6? 

I have both LR 3.6 and 4.1 installed, and doing the test you describe (going from one raw image to another in Develop Module) the speed is about the same in both. In Develop module, switching to the next image takes 2-3 seconds or less (that's choosing images not edited recently, so probably not in the ACR cache).   It can sometimes take up to 5-7 seconds initially to switch to Develop Module, but usually less. 

That's using an i7-930, 12G RAM, W7 64-bit, SSD drive C with ACR cache, conventional 7200 RPM single drive D containing images, catalog and previews. 

LR 4.0 seemed a bit slower than 3.6 and  4.1. 

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Jun 04, 2012 Jun 04, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/971581

[Moderator: This topic is already being discussed at length on thread linked above, please post further comments there]

Message was edited by: Brett N

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Jun 04, 2012 Jun 04, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Can you try converting one of your raw files to DNG in LR4.1 with the new fastload and see if that improves the load time please.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jun 05, 2012 Jun 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

That was very useful thank you.

I tried with the same raw files (btw the slow raw files in question are: phase one .IIQ files from the IQ 160 digital back which are 60mp images) and the speed increase is very noticeable.

Around twice as fast as before.

When zooming in it gets to a pixelated version of the image and then directly switches to the proper resolution so it's close to instant.

When switching between dng files I still get the loading icon but it's twice faster to load as with the previous format so much more enjoyable to use.

Considering the read speed of sata 6 drives I'm sure there is room for performance improvements when handling raw files in lightroom but that will most certainly do for now.

Many thanks for the help

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Jun 05, 2012 Jun 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thank you for that. I'll pass the information on to the ACR team.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jun 05, 2012 Jun 05, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I found LR4.1 to be extremely slow and unacceptable.  After screwing around with different suggestions I found one that workde amazingly well.  It seems that the preview file from LR3 has some sort of issues in LR4.  My solution was to discard all 1:1 previews via LR, shut down LR, and drag the preview file tot he trash, start up LR4 and let it create a new one and then re-render my 1:1 previews. 

Worked like the proverbial charm!  Before doing that, even though images were rendered 1:1, they still would seem to take about 3-4 seconds to render on every viewing or zooming.  Trying to drag image files from one folder to another was taking about 20 seconds for each file!  Afterwards files flew from one folder to another just like they did in LR3.  I think importing & 1:1 rendering is faster too but not sure since I normally import files just before leaving the studio and let it run overnight, but right now each 1:1 rendering is taking about 5 seconds.  Just curious, if this is normal, fast or slow?? Anybody??  I'm on a 2009 Mac Pro Dual-Quad with 16gB RAM and a graphics card that I should replace (a NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 512k vRam...I'm embaressed to admit). 

BTW, thinking of getting a Nvidia GTX 285...anybody care to chime in on what kind of performance boost I could expect in LR from that??  There seem to be conflicting opinions on how important a vid card is with LR.

KInd of a pain in the b*tt to have to re-render my library considering it number close to 100,000, half of which are RAW 35mB files but computers work while I sleep so not a big deal.

Anyway, Hope this helps others since this sort of sluggishness is just plain rediculous and almost had me going back to LR3.  I really have to wonder why Adobe didn't make this issue (and solution) more obvious.  I really have a love/hate relationship with Adobe.  They make the most amzing software but never seem willing to admit faults and offer effective workarounds...oh well, what can you do?

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jun 06, 2012 Jun 06, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Why Lightroom 4.1 is so extremely slow???

Writing extremely slow I mean about 2-3 minutes to open one photo in develop module and then to zoom it (1:1)

I think a lot of "spot removal (Q)" is making this slowness.

My "slow" pictures has about 200-300 add-and-update spot removal, brush for skin, and other global correction.

In this workflow - lightroom is totaly useless.

During opening photo in develop module overall processor load is 12,5% at 3.8 Ghz. It looks like during this operation Lightroom can't work as more than one thread application. Processor has 4 cores + ht = 8 threads. 100% / 8 = 12,5%. Even if Lightroom could work on 8 threads simultaneously, still would be too slow (aproximately 15-20 seconds)

Exporting one photo to JPG takes about 40 seconds.

I tried to remove all cache file. It changes nothing

Other pictures works rather ok. However opening raw photo without any changes and open it in develop module takes 3-4 seconds.

My configuration is:

Lightroom 4.1

Catalog size is: 1.4GB

Photos are from Canon 5D (12Mpix/RAW)

Intel Core i7 3.6 Ghz (Sandy Bridge 3820)

16GB RAM (4X4GB Corsair)

ASUS P9X79

SSD 120GB (Lightroom catalog and cache)

HDD 2TB (RAW Photos)

Gainward GTX 680

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Guest
Jun 06, 2012 Jun 06, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I am working on RAW files predominantly from a Canon 50D and am disappointed by Lightroom 4.1's performance having just upgraded from 2.4.

I am running a much lower spec machine (AMD Phenom Quad core 9750 2.4GHz/Win Vista/4Gb RAM/standard SATA drive) than the ones often described in these posts and frankly the problem with LR4.1 does not seem to be affected by how powerful your machine is as I should be a lot worse off than you guys.  

I have tried a few of the fixes including those above and they did not seem to help much. 

I then immediately went through looking for options to turn off that I was not going to use. 

I have turned off all the metadata options in the catalogue settings (in particular the "suggest settings" one)  - which did not seem to have much effect. 

I then went into the view options settings in both the Develop and Library modules (why these are not on the edit menu options I don't know) and turned off the "show message when rendering or loading photos" option.  Not only does this get rid of the "Loading" message it also seems to remove quite a bit of the delay that I am experiencing in connection with "Loading", particularly with images that I have recently viewed.

Well it doesnt fix everything but, it's worth a go...

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Participant ,
Jun 09, 2012 Jun 09, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Indeed the spot healings are the culprits. I have one image that takes over 6 minutes in a 12GB i7 980X hexacore oveclocked to 4.3 GHz. But those that don't have an over-the-top number of spot heals are much faster, and of course those with few if any load pretty much instantaneously. But I do have quite a few that take over two minutes.

Whatcha gonna do? Grin and bear it for now .

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Enthusiast ,
Jun 10, 2012 Jun 10, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

What I find very strange is that some people are saying "it's totally unacceptable and unusable" and others (like me) saying "it's OK".  Now I don't suppose any of us is lying, so is this just difference in requirements, or are there factors that lead to very different performance?

I came home yesterday with 650 images from an event, selected 130 all of which needed processing.  The event was indoors in poor light, mostly with flash, but leaving uneven illumination requiring graduated filter, local adjustment brush and some spot removal (sometimes extensive).  And all of them required major work in tone mapping in the basic panel.  As I was under time-pressure to get stuff back to the organisers, I used Photoshop only for those where I definitely could not do the job in LR (about 5 images).  Some of the images have extensive edit lists, including long lists of "Update Spot Removal" and "Add brush stroke".  Most had clarity adjustment.  These were not causing major slow down on rendering.  There are times (for a minority of images) where I get a 5-10 second wait in opening a fresh image for develop; maybe that's a bit slower than LR3.6, but most operations are similar speed.  It would certainly have been slower to do all the work in Photoshop. 

I can't see this simply as a difference in perception or requirement.  I just don't think I'm getting the delays others are reporting.  My machine isn't top performance - a 2 year old i7-930, 12G RAM, slow-ish SSD for drive C and ACR cache, normal speed hard drive for images and catalogue. 

So why the difference?

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Jun 10, 2012 Jun 10, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

CSS Simon wrote:

I can't see this simply as a difference in perception or requirement.  I just don't think I'm getting the delays others are reporting.  My machine isn't top performance - a 2 year old i7-930, 12G RAM, slow-ish SSD for drive C and ACR cache, normal speed hard drive for images and catalogue. 

So why the difference?

Some of us have made this point umpteen times, Simon - the problem cannot be purely of Adobe's making.

There must be something "local" in each case which is hurting Lr's performance: some factor that's specific to the user's machine, and not specifically correlated to its spec, which is causing Lr to lag.

My Win 7 64 bit machine "only" has 8 gb of RAM, and a mid-range Intel Quad Core (lower spec than an i7) and yet Lr 4  fairly zips along. Images are on external drives, the cache is on the same drive (not an SSD) as the software, and I have no performance concerns.

It's not lower expectations on my part either, just before anyone decides to go there - I came home from a shoot earlier this week with over 1000 images (over 600 after an initial cull) and I was done with the conversion of these files (Canon 7D Raws converted to 16 bit tiff) within a morning. This included a lot of per-file adjustment, too - it wasn't a "fire and forget" batch job.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jun 11, 2012 Jun 11, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

In response to keith reeder.  Don't know about the others, but with no obvious changes to my machine (software has been updated, but I haven't added any new programs), the final version of 4.1 has become very annoying to use because switching between files takes a noticeable amount of time.  I had no previous issues with the release candidates, not sure if they were faster or slower than LR 3 or 2, but there wasn't this noticeable delay even though I am not using a pro state of the art machine.  It would appear to me (based on my experience) that something changed in the final 4.1 code that  affects certain people with certain machines.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Participant ,
Jun 10, 2012 Jun 10, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I believe the differences are in the local environment. Every image is different - some have lots of micro texture, others are smooth. Some spot heals are just that, small dust spec removals, others may be taking out an unwanted SUV :D. Same for local adjustments.

Differences in the images and corrections easily account for different processing times, all other variables remaining equal, which they won't in addition. I see these differences in my fairly high-powered system.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jun 10, 2012 Jun 10, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Where it that easy to simply guess what is happening with others.  I took the same batch of photos to another machine on which I installed Lightroom 3 - a marked improvement in speed and performance was realized. No delays, no lookups, no waiting. This is not an issue of expectations nor of image differences.nit is an issue of a software problem.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Participant ,
Jun 10, 2012 Jun 10, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

If you read my post again, you'll see I'm saying different images with different processing needs will make a difference, given all else remains the same. You took the same images and moved them to a different processing environment, of course it will probably make a difference . No discussion on that from my post!

And indeed, it's hard to hazard a guess at what's happening in somebody else's rig.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Jun 10, 2012 Jun 10, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Kensound wrote:

I took the same batch of photos to another machine on which I installed Lightroom 3 - a marked improvement in speed and performance was realized.

That hardly undermines the "local issues" argument, though - the fact that on another machine you got better performance really doesn't provide evidence that Lightroom is the problem.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jun 10, 2012 Jun 10, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Just installed 3 on the SAME machine. Problems disappeared. Marked improvement. Like many are saying, 4 has a problem. I'm leaving 3 on it until 4.2 or whatever comes out.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Jun 10, 2012 Jun 10, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Kensound wrote:

Like many are saying, 4 has a problem.

And - like many are saying - it hasn't, on their machines.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jun 10, 2012 Jun 10, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Then explain to me why LR4 works normaly when i change PV from 2012 to 2010 and the moment I change it back to 2012 it is like all hell broke loose. LR 4 has a problem and Adobe should do something about it.

And I am happy for you not having issues...

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Jun 10, 2012 Jun 10, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Ripster1981 wrote:

Then explain to me why LR4 works normaly when i change PV from 2012 to 2010 and the moment I change it back to 2012 it is like all hell broke loose. LR 4 has a problem and Adobe should do something about it.

And I am happy for you not having issues...

How in God's name should I know? Because you run Lr on on a barebones, low-spec box with multiple browser instances open, PS running HDR in the background, into twin 30 inch monitors with auto-write XMP on, while playing HALO?

It's very well known that PV2012 is very resource intensive - it's clearly hitting a bottleneck on your machine.

But it's an utterly irrelevant question. What you should be asking is: if it's only Lr that's the problem, what's special about my modestly-specced machine that completely isolates me from the slowdowns others are seeing? Surely, if the problem is only Lr, wouldn't we all be seeing the lag?

I've asked that question a number of times now. Still haven't seen anything like a cogent answer...

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Participant ,
Jun 11, 2012 Jun 11, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

When I installed LR4.0, it was workable in comparison to the reports of other users. Version 4.1 rc 1 was less smooth, version 4.1 rc 2  was even worse and version 4.1 didn't resolve performance issues for me. Working with Lightroom has become something I try to minimize. I reverted back to Bridge and Camera Raw - witch works very smooth with PV2012. I'm happy that LR 4.1 is working well for a number of users. Maybe it is a local problem. Maybe it depends on the graphic card. Maybe ...

I now upgraded my motherboard, CPU, hard drive and RAM to a higher standard and did a clean install of W7 64 bit. It did not make LR 4.1 smoother in any way.  I also tried every suggestion made in this forum with no luck. I see users with massive powerfull systems having even slower response when working in LR than I have.

So I have come to the end of the line. If there is still a bottleneck in my system that prevents a smooth working LR4, then so be it. My other Adobe software (PS6, Illustrator 6) is working great by the way.

Jos

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jun 10, 2012 Jun 10, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I'm running v4.1 and certainly seeing slowness on the 1:1 previews, or at least this is where it's interrupting me the most.  More specifically it's in Develop that I expierience it, the loading delay is in the region of 5-10 seconds but my 1:1 previews in Library are loading as I would expect.  More generally working in Develop feels slower than v3.x but I haven't directly compared yet, like some others I've also noted a dificulty using the spot remval tool, my CPU spikes for a little while which makes it awkward to use, I guess there's alsways going to be some form of hit here I'm just not sure on the best way to optimise around it.

As the performance optimisations page suggested I've increased the Camera RAW Cache size for good measure, now I've figured out it was more about Develop mode I'm not sure whether this was necessary in my situation.

I've tried converting a few images to DNG to see if flicking between them in Develop is made any quicker and I didn't observe any noticable improvment.  That being said over the course of writing this my use of the modes has become more controlled and I'm moving about quite quickly, I'm deliberately using Library when scanning through and making multiple spot removals on an image and performance is good where as earlier it I was finding the mouse become jerky quite frequently and encountered frequent loading messages on 1:1s.

Feels like some of my problems may be with how I'm choosing to move around in Lightroom, 2 hours my first serious editing in v4 and things are getting easier.  I've also just gone through a 2,000+ image import so not sure if that has any bearing on things, all of the above was expierienced after the import had finished and previews rendered etc.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Jun 07, 2012 Jun 07, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

LR 4.1 is soooooo slow for me also! When editing pictures in the library module, after 15 to 30 mn, pictures become very slow to load, as LR4.1 is rebuilding preview. And I have to close LR and launch it again. Never happened with LR3.6. Raw files from 5d MKIII, on windows seven 64 bits and a powerful pc :

12 Gb RAM

ATI FirePro V4800

Intel Core i7 Extreme 980X

my catalog is on a 256 Gb ssd

LR is my main working tool after my camera and LR4.1 is making me lose so much time these days...

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Enthusiast ,
Jun 07, 2012 Jun 07, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Rico_LR3 wrote:

LR 4.1 is soooooo slow for me also! When editing pictures in the library module, after 15 to 30 mn, pictures become very slow to load...

How slow do you mean?  I find that opening an image in Develop Module takes anything from less than a second to about 3 seconds if it's been edited recently (i.e. it's probably in the ACR cache) or up to about 5 seconds if it's not been edited recently.  Very occasionally (less than 1 in 20) it takes up to 10 seconds.  Your machine is quicker than mine (I have i7-930) so ought to be a but quicker.  Is that very slow?  I guess I'd prefer it always to be instant, but for me it's acceptable.

I assume from your comment you're getting much longer delays?  Have you tried increasing the size of the ACR cache?  Edit menu, Preferences, File Handling tab.  I've set 20G.  That should increase the chance that files open in develop module faster. 

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines