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 ... 24 25 26 27 28 ... 43 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 23, 2012 8:36 PM   in reply to Bob_Peters

    I remember back in the days of LR2 on my 2006 MP 1:1 previews took on the order of 3-5 seconds. With each version of LR since then, this got longer and longer, until LR 4.0 streatched it to 10+ seconds. LR 4.1 cut a couple seconds off, but working in LR was still more a chore than something I look forward to as I did 3 years ago. Last week I bought a new 5,1 Mac Pro (yes I know, the processor is 3 years old). It's the 6-core model (3.33 GHz) with 24 GB of RAM and a 512 GB Crucial SSD, to which I moved my LR master cataloge. I'm happy to report that, $3600 later, I'm zipping through 1:1 previoew in 2-3 seconds, even in Develop mode.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 23, 2012 10:49 PM   in reply to Neil Whelan

    your going to LOVE this bit of troubleshooting. coming from the idea that a better computer is what causes problems with LR. I installed Linux. Created a virtual box to install windows7. this virtual box is setup as a 4 core system with only 8g ram. then installed LR 4.1 in this. Guess what. it runs like a charm. If I could figure out how to share drives between the Linux VM and real windows without mapping drives in the VM I would do all my work in linux untill adobe figures this out.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2012 4:04 AM   in reply to Stephen_Carpenter

    From: "Stephen_Carpenter

    Yes but if you make any changes in develop then in library mode it will

    have to re-render the 1:1 preview when you look at it at 100%. This

    operation takes almost twice as long as rendering a 100% view in develop.

     

    Just got the answer to that one. It takes longer for Library to render a 1:1

    than Develop, because Library has to render the whole 1:1 preview - the

    whole image - to save. Develop only renders the part of the image on the

    screen at 1:1 so that is quicker.

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2012 6:15 AM   in reply to akadmon

    akadmon wrote:

     

    I remember back in the days of LR2 on my 2006 MP 1:1 previews took on the order of 3-5 seconds. With each version of LR since then, this got longer and longer, until LR 4.0 streatched it to 10+ seconds. LR 4.1 cut a couple seconds off, but working in LR was still more a chore than something I look forward to as I did 3 years ago. Last week I bought a new 5,1 Mac Pro (yes I know, the processor is 3 years old). It's the 6-core model (3.33 GHz) with 24 GB of RAM and a 512 GB Crucial SSD, to which I moved my LR master cataloge. I'm happy to report that, $3600 later, I'm zipping through 1:1 previoew in 2-3 seconds, even in Develop mode.

     

    Are those D800 files?  If so, I confused...again.  I returned a 6-core MacPro to Apple last week because the 1:1 generation was taking about 6 seconds.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2012 6:39 AM   in reply to Bob_Peters

    These are Canon RAW, roughly 20-25 MB each.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2012 9:42 AM   in reply to akadmon

    From: "akadmon

    These are Canon RAW, roughly 20-25 MB each.

     

    OK so half the size of your D800 files, bob, and half the time to render.

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2012 10:52 AM   in reply to bob frost

    bob frost wrote:

     

    From: "akadmon

    These are Canon RAW, roughly 20-25 MB each.

     

    OK so half the size of your D800 files, bob, and half the time to render.

     

    Bob Frost

     

    Agreed.

     

    Now I still want to know why it takes longer to zoom an existing preview to 1:1 in the Library module that it does to render the NEF in the develop module.

     

    And why does my aged MacPro only use a single core to perform the zoomiing operation in the Library?

     

    And why in a 2-core, i5 MacBook Air the same operation still uses a single core at a time.  There is some activiey on 2 cores but the overlap is slight and the virtual cores are bystanders?

     

    And why I keep beating my head against this wall

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Victoria Bampton
    5,302 posts
    Apr 1, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2012 10:55 AM   in reply to Bob_Peters

    Bob_Peters wrote:

    Now I still want to know why it takes longer to zoom an existing preview to 1:1 in the Library module that it does to render the NEF in the develop module.

     

    The 1:1 preview was rendered before you made Develop adjustments, and now needs re-rendering?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2012 11:13 AM   in reply to Bob_Peters

    Bob_Peters wrote:

     

     

    Now I still want to know why it takes longer to zoom an existing preview to 1:1 in the Library module that it does to render the NEF in the develop module.

     

    And why does my aged MacPro only use a single core to perform the zoomiing operation in the Library?

     

    And why in a 2-core, i5 MacBook Air the same operation still uses a single core at a time.  There is some activiey on 2 cores but the overlap is slight and the virtual cores are bystanders?

     

    And why I keep beating my head against this wall

     

    Zooming an existing preview to 1:1 should be more or less instantaneous in Library. If it isn't, my guess is that there isn't an existing 1:1 preview, or if there is the previews database doesn't think there is, or you have done something in Develop that makes it necessary to re-render the preview.

     

    As to why your macs are only using 1 core while rendering the 1:1 preview, I'm lost. I've never used a Mac in my life, so I don't understand their foibles. AFAIK most of LR is multithreaded, and rendering certainly uses all of my 6 cores.

    If you delete the 1:1 previews of some files, and then set LR to build them again, does it still only use 1 core, or does that make it use all cores?

     

    As to why you're beating your head against the wall, I think it's called 'Mac Syndrome' 

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2012 11:18 AM   in reply to Victoria Bampton

    Victoria Bampton wrote:

     

    Bob_Peters wrote:

    Now I still want to know why it takes longer to zoom an existing preview to 1:1 in the Library module that it does to render the NEF in the develop module.

     

    The 1:1 preview was rendered before you made Develop adjustments, and now needs re-rendering?

     

    No.

     

    I imported some files, made no adjustments, cleared the ACR Cache and then rendered 1:1 previews.  All measurements/observations were made after that time.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2012 11:23 AM   in reply to bob frost

    bob frost wrote:

     

    Bob_Peters wrote:

     

     

    Now I still want to know why it takes longer to zoom an existing preview to 1:1 in the Library module that it does to render the NEF in the develop module.

     

    And why does my aged MacPro only use a single core to perform the zoomiing operation in the Library?

     

    And why in a 2-core, i5 MacBook Air the same operation still uses a single core at a time.  There is some activiey on 2 cores but the overlap is slight and the virtual cores are bystanders?

     

    And why I keep beating my head against this wall

     

    Zooming an existing preview to 1:1 should be more or less instantaneous in Library. If it isn't, my guess is that there isn't an existing 1:1 preview, or if there is the previews database doesn't think there is, or you have done something in Develop that makes it necessary to re-render the preview.

     

    As to why your macs are only using 1 core while rendering the 1:1 preview, I'm lost. I've never used a Mac in my life, so I don't understand their foibles. AFAIK most of LR is multithreaded, and rendering certainly uses all of my 6 cores.

    If you delete the 1:1 previews of some files, and then set LR to build them again, does it still only use 1 core, or does that make it use all cores?

     

    As to why you're beating your head against the wall, I think it's called 'Mac Syndrome' 

     

    Bob Frost

      I always follow the same prescription:

    (1)  clear the ACR Cache

    (2)  select the images of interest

    (3)  discard 1:1 previews for those images

    (4)  render the 1:1 previews for those images

    (5)  observe zooming in the Library and Develop modules for only those selected images.

     

    This is the sequence of events and I never deviate from that sequence.

     

    "Mac Syndrome' sounds as good as anything I'veheard so far

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Victoria Bampton
    5,302 posts
    Apr 1, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2012 11:46 AM   in reply to Bob_Peters

    Bob_Peters wrote:

     

    I imported some files, made no adjustments, cleared the ACR Cache and then rendered 1:1 previews.  All measurements/observations were made after that time.

     

    So when you view the photo in Develop, it just processes the bit you can see on screen if you're viewing a zoomed view, or processes a screen res view if you're zoomed out.

     

    When you create a 1:1 preview in Library, it applies the full processing pipeline to the whole full res photo, so that's slower.

     

    The bit I'm not clear on - are you saying you've just created this 1:1 preview in Library, made no further Develop adjustments, and yet it's slow to zoom in to that ready-built preview?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2012 12:39 PM   in reply to Victoria Bampton

    Victoria Bampton wrote:

     

    Bob_Peters wrote:

     

    I imported some files, made no adjustments, cleared the ACR Cache and then rendered 1:1 previews.  All measurements/observations were made after that time.

     

    So when you view the photo in Develop, it just processes the bit you can see on screen if you're viewing a zoomed view, or processes a screen res view if you're zoomed out.

     

    When you create a 1:1 preview in Library, it applies the full processing pipeline to the whole full res photo, so that's slower.

     

    The bit I'm not clear on - are you saying you've just created this 1:1 preview in Library, made no further Develop adjustments, and yet it's slow to zoom in to that ready-built preview?

     

    Please see the response I sent to Bob Frost.  It's just prior to your post.

     

    I always follow those steps and zoom out before zooming to 1:1.  Zooming to 1:1 on an existing 1:1 preview in the Library is slower than performing that operation in the Develop module. This is true for my 5-year-old Mac Pro and my 2011, core i5 MacBook air.

     

    And for both computers there is essentially one core active at a given instant when zooming to 1:1 in the Library module.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 25, 2012 8:56 AM   in reply to BCormier

    Must I use PV2012 upon importing new Canon 5D MIII RAW images?  This cam is only compat with ACR 6.6, the newest ACR.... I dont see a workaround to save it to PV2010....?  thanks

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 25, 2012 10:19 AM   in reply to andreas603

    I dunno if you can have legacy PV as default, but you can apply a develop preset after importing with preferred PV.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 25, 2012 1:28 PM   in reply to Bob_Peters

    Why was the posting of this message delayed?  I don't understand this at all.

     

    Bob Peters

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 30, 2012 7:35 PM   in reply to Bob_Peters

    Somebody PLEASE tell me there's a set of optimizations somewhere, that make drastic improvements in LR4.x performance...

     

    Anyhow, in case it matters....  i7 processor clocked at 4GHz, 12GB of memory, SIX SATA spindles so everything associated with the O/S and LR is on a different drive, CREATED a catalog from scratch, CONVERTED the raw D300 files to dng, and on and on... I even rendered 1:1 previews for everything I was going to work on tonight, and it STILL takes a visibly perceptible amount of time JUST TO SET A LABEL (massively slower than v3).  My Develop issues are similar to those already stated here by many others. 

     

    So, please tell me there's a fix (fixes?) out there that I've just missed (with a pointer, please)...  Or some set of optimizations specific to LR4 that'll help.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 30, 2012 7:44 PM   in reply to DavePinMinn

    No magic bullet(s).

     

    There's scads of things you can try - some have found some relief from some of them, others: not so much.

     

    But, you gotta scour the forum(s) for them.

     

    One option: hope Lr4.2 is better for you (Lr4.1 is pretty darn zippy for me: win7/64...).

     

    Sorry I'm not more help,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 30, 2012 11:40 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Victoria Brampton mentioned a week ago she was going to collate some of the work arounds into a blog.

     

    I have just looked at her forum. I can't see them.

     

    Does anyone know if they got published?

     

    Tony

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 1, 2012 5:18 AM   in reply to A C G

    Cool.  Hopefully, we'll have some consolidated bunch of things to try soon...

     

    BTW:  I haven't seen this particular symptom, but I'm sure it's been mentioned in here...  Even AFTER rendering 1:1 previews, LR4.1 is still perceptibly slow to display when using loupe view in the library AND when moving from image to image in Develop.  Again, it's a LOT slower than V3 was.  When walking through a series of images that'll be put together as an hdr group or focus stack, it's really disconcerting because you go from image to image and nothing changes for at LEAST a second, generally even longer. 

     

    Anyhow, for the time being I've gone back to doing all the initial processing in Bridge - labeling, rating, renaming, image examination, and I'm just using LR for storage.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Victoria Bampton
    5,302 posts
    Apr 1, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 1, 2012 12:47 PM   in reply to A C G

    A C G wrote:

     

    Victoria Brampton mentioned a week ago she was going to collate some of the work arounds into a blog.

     

    I haven't forgotten, but I'm getting conflicting information left, right and center.  I think I'm nearly as confused as you are at this stage!!!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 1, 2012 3:33 PM   in reply to Victoria Bampton

    Just remember, Victoria, we're NOT laughing at you, we're laughing WITH you!

     

    At this point, I've looked through a bunch of stuff, and I have NO idea what to do...  LR4 is acting SO differently than 3 did, that I"m not even sure where to start... 

     

    Again, BTW:, at the moment I've got a catalog with 214 images, imported as .dng, created just for this, and I rendered 1:1 previews.  In the Library module, putting the main monitor in loupe view, when I look at a series in 1:1, it takes between FOUR AND FIVE SECONDS to finish loading.  I thought the whole point of rendering the 1:1 previews was so they'd be "instantaneous", but that definitely isn't happening.  And these are just regular 12 megapixel images from a Nikon D300. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 1, 2012 4:39 PM   in reply to Victoria Bampton

    Victoria Bampton wrote:

     

    A C G wrote:

     

    Victoria Brampton mentioned a week ago she was going to collate some of the work arounds into a blog.

     

    I haven't forgotten, but I'm getting conflicting information left, right and center.  I think I'm nearly as confused as you are at this stage!!!

     

    I have absolutely no answers for you, Victoria.

     

    I honestly suspect there is something amiss in the guts of Lightroom.  It is not using all cores all the time as I would have expected.  I have personally seen this behavior on the following systems,  all running OS X (10.7.4):

     

    (1)  MacPro 1,1, 9GB RAM, dual 2-core, 2.66 GHz Xeon processors; 128 GB SSD, 2 1TB Seagate

    (2)  MacPro (2012 release), 16 GB RAM, 6-core, 3.33 GHz Xeon,  128 GB SSD, 2 1TB Seagate

    (3)  MacBook Air (mid-2011), 4 GB RAM,  2-core i5, 128 GB SSD

    (4)  MacBook Pro (Retina display), 8 GB RAM, 2.6 GHz 4-core i7, 512GB SSD

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 1, 2012 4:40 PM   in reply to DavePinMinn

    davepinminn wrote:

     

    Just remember, Victoria, we're NOT laughing at you, we're laughing WITH you!

     

    At this point, I've looked through a bunch of stuff, and I have NO idea what to do...  LR4 is acting SO differently than 3 did, that I"m not even sure where to start... 

     

    Again, BTW:, at the moment I've got a catalog with 214 images, imported as .dng, created just for this, and I rendered 1:1 previews.  In the Library module, putting the main monitor in loupe view, when I look at a series in 1:1, it takes between FOUR AND FIVE SECONDS to finish loading.  I thought the whole point of rendering the 1:1 previews was so they'd be "instantaneous", but that definitely isn't happening.  And these are just regular 12 megapixel images from a Nikon D300. 

     

    How many cores were active at a given time when you zoomed to 1:1 in the Library module?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 1, 2012 6:14 PM   in reply to Bob_Peters

    I just fired up LR to check...  I walked through images in loupe mode and kept them loading.  Watched the performance monitor...  All 8 threads are "active" doing something, but only one shows the REALLY high usage as I keep "loading" images.  But, moving through images I can push a 4GHz i7 to 85+ percent busy...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 1, 2012 6:44 PM   in reply to akadmon

    The external module for converting raw to dng seems faster than lightroom.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 2, 2012 1:30 AM   in reply to Victoria Bampton

    Thanks Victoria,

     

    "I think I'm nearly as confused as you are at this stage!!!"

     

    I knew I could rely on a down to earth answer from a fellow Brit.

     

    And I second that comment that we are laughing with you, Victoria. At times like this a sense of humour comes in handy.

     

    Tony

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Victoria Bampton
    5,302 posts
    Apr 1, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 2, 2012 5:31 AM   in reply to A C G

    Better to laugh than to cry!

     

    I'm not even so sure it's always something on the computers themselves.  I was talking with my business partner over the weekend, and he's noticed significant performance issues on one particular camera (a 5DMk3) but other cameras of the same model (so more 5DMk3's), with the same mix of high ISO etc., are as fast as LR3.  It's a situation that most users wouldn't notice as they're only processing their own photos, whereas he's processing for a number of professional photographers, so we get a mix of high end cameras.  I'm wondering whether there's a difference in firmware, perhaps a camera setting or extra metadata that's tripping LR up... who knows!  The investigations continue!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 2, 2012 6:49 AM   in reply to Victoria Bampton

    An interesting new thought, Victoria.

     

    As you say most of the threads are from posters trying new computer configurations on the same camera. Few will have tried different cameras on the same installation of LR.

     

    Tony

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 2, 2012 10:39 AM   in reply to A C G

    Since I re-installed my Mac and install the LR4 as a full version and not as a upgrade, it seems to be a little faster.
    But still not as fast as LR3 of a software like Photomechanic.

     

    Kr,
    Ashvin Ghisyawan

    www.totaalfotografie.nl

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 2, 2012 11:53 AM   in reply to Ashvin Ghisyawan

    I'm glad I'm not the only one.

     

    LR 4.1 is pathetically SLOW. SHAME ON YOU ADOBE!

     

    I just bought the full upgrade from LR 2, which was MUCH faster.

    I'm a Professional photographer and LOVED LR 2. It was a DREAM for editing, and that's what I needed it for EDITING.

     

    I do anywhere from 3 to 6 big shoots a week, shooting anywhere from 50 to 700 images a shoot. I need to come back to the studio and edit the 700 images down to 50 to 100 to give the first edit to my editors or clients.

     

    LR 2 was great as this process was quite speedy and efficient. When carefully sifting through 500+ images, you'd be VERY surprised how much a lag of 5+ seconds on each image is (LR4)

     

    I upgraded to LR4 thinking the algorithms of the image qulaity would be MUCH better, not thinking LR 4 would triple my workflow time. Time is money and after having LR 4 for only a week or so, I feel almost duped. I feel I traded in a Honda for a BMW but got a Yugo instead.

     

    Here's my little contribution as I'm DESPERATELY trying to speed this thing up;

    In Prefs, in interface, in filmstrip dialog prefs, I un-checked all boxes except the first one (ratings & picks) the theory being, the fewer demands on each photo will reduce process time per image. But its slow as hell.

     

    I'm close to asking for a refund.

     

    I'm on an Apple Mac Pro (dedicated Photo machine, I only use LR and PS on this) Running Snow Leopard

    2 x 2.8 quad-core Intel Xeon

    10 gigs DRAM

    No other apps open

     

    Eric Striffler

     

    www.striffler.com

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 2, 2012 12:13 PM   in reply to strifflerphoto2

    I can empathize with your performance issues.  When I put my original note in, I had to edit out all the screaming 'cause I figured it wouldn't do any good.  Adobe got screamed at when they released V1 and performance was atrocious.  They got screamed at when they released V2 and performance was dismal.  They REALLY got screamed at when they released V3 and it wasn't just Windows machines that sucked...  Macs didn't run for stink either.  They've always excused miserable performance with the rationale "well, there are thousands of configurations of Windows machines.  We couldn't test them all."  But, when the Macs, with maybe a half dozen configurations sucked, that excuse didn't work too well...

    And now we've got V4, and we're going through the same thing again......

     

    In my opinion, this is the standard problem with the 800 pound gorilla.  A monopoly such as Adobe has breeds the kind of problems we keep seeing in every "major release" (in the case of V4, I don't think the addition of two sections that'll be used by a microscopic percentage of photographers qualified it for "major release", but again, the 800 pound gorilla gets to charge for what should be maintenance releases).  Since their isn't any reasonable alternative, they can release software with problems that adversely impact thousands of their customers. 

     

    Anyhow, I reckon we'll all just hang out and hope SOMEBODY at Adobe cares enough to at least investigate the problems, but given their past performance, I don't believe it's a high priority.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 3, 2012 10:25 PM   in reply to BCormier

    I've also been shocked by the sluggish performance of LR4. Disappointing, to say the least. However, I do have a couple of tips that helped me resolve some of the sluggish rendering while reviewing photos in Loupe mode:

     

    1.) Be sure in Catalog Settings/File Handling you have the Standard Preview Size set high enough. This is sort of counter-intuitive (or was to me), as it seems a higher-res preview would take longer to create. However, it appears that if you render at a preview size that is smaller than your loupe view area — Lightroom re-renders the preview to scale it up on the fly. This causes a "Loading..." pause for each photo as you click through. I set mine to 2048, since my view area is in the neighborhood of 1500px.

     

    2.) If you can live with a Medium or Low preview quality (again, in Catalog Settings), it does speed things up significantly. I'm driven crazy by the jpeg noise, so it isn't a real option except when I'm doing a first pass review.

     

    3.) I created a development preset which only contains the Process Version and Calibration options for my camera. Setting this to be applied during import seems to trigger a Standard Preview rendering, which makes the photos available sooner.

     

    4.) If you are going to be working on a group of images and going and back and forth between Grid/Loupe/Develop — try selecting all of them, going to Library/Previews and rendering BOTH standard previews and 1:1 previews before you start. Having them both done up front takes time, but it's better than being interrupted as you try and work.

     

    Note: I haven't scientifically tested any of the above. Performance increases may be specific to my computer or just in my own mind.

     

    -- Joe

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 6:12 AM   in reply to joerivera

    Joe,

    Can you tell me how to create a preset for a specific camera? I'm not sure what you mean by it "contains the Process Version and Calibration options for my camera". Thanks.
    Lynne

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 6:37 AM   in reply to joerivera

    >1.) Be sure in Catalog Settings/File Handling you have the Standard Preview Size set high enough. This is sort of counter-intuitive (or was to me), as it seems a higher-res preview >would take longer to create. However, it appears that if you render at a preview size that is smaller than your loupe view area — Lightroom re-renders the preview to scale it up on >the fly. This causes a "Loading..." pause for each photo as you click through. I set mine to 2048, since my view area is in the neighborhood of 1500px.

     

    MIne has been set to 2048 for a VERY long time since the primary monitor is 1920x1200.  I haven't tried a lower setting other than when I've done "minimal" previews to speed importing, and that DEFINITELY makes things horrendous for any operation except the library grid.

     

     

    >2.) If you can live with a Medium or Low preview quality (again, in Catalog Settings), it does speed things up significantly. I'm driven crazy by the jpeg noise, so it isn't a real option >except when I'm doing a first pass review.

     

    I"ve tried medium and it didn't speed things up a perceptible amount if any.  But, again, I"ve been using high quality for a very long time - since at LEAST early V3. 

     

    >3.) I created a development preset which only contains the Process Version and Calibration options for my camera. Setting this to be applied during import seems to trigger a >Standard Preview rendering, which makes the photos available sooner.

     

    I don't know if this would matter or not since I've also been using an import preset for a very long time.  It makes sure everything is at default, does the lens correction, sets a process (2012 now) and a profile (one of the standards if it's not nature, one of the landscapes if it is). 

     

    >4.) If you are going to be working on a group of images and going and back and forth between Grid/Loupe/Develop — try selecting all of them, going to Library/Previews and >rendering BOTH standard previews and 1:1 previews before you start. Having them both done up front takes time, but it's better than being interrupted as you try and work.

     

    Tried that with a VERY small catalog I created with a couple hundred images.  Had it render previews at import and rendered 1:1 afterward.  My abysmal times are WITH the 1:1 previews.  I now shudder to think how wretched it would be with a slower box, external drives, less memory, and just standard previews.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 9:03 AM   in reply to DavePinMinn

    From: "davepinminn

    I don't know if this would matter or not since I've also been using an

    import preset for a very long time.  It makes sure everything is at

    default, does the lens correction, sets a process (2012 now) and a profile

    (one of the standards if it's not nature, one of the landscapes if it is).

     

    Probably not a good idea to put lens correction in an import preset.

    Although this may seem sensible, it is known to slow everything following

    down. Try leaving lens correction until near last if you have lots of

    develop steps.

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 9:08 AM   in reply to DavePinMinn

    From: "davepinminn

    MIne has been set to 2048 for a VERY long time since the primary monitor

    is 1920x1200.  I haven't tried a lower setting other than when I've done

    "minimal" previews to speed importing, and that DEFINITELY makes things

    horrendous for any operation except the library grid.

     

     

    With a 1920 screen, you are not going to need a 2048 preview are you? I

    doubt if the preview will ever be more than 1680 on the screen? Try 1680. I

    use 1440 on a 1600 screen, and have no slowness problems, even with a second

    monitor of same size.

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 9:24 AM   in reply to bob frost

    Bob, have you read somewhere or seen data that doing the default lens correction at import time slows subsequent operations?  It sounds interesting and I'd like to see why it would have this effect.  I certainly didn't clobber everything in V3, so I'm wondering what was changed that in V4 it causes problems.

     

    Now that you said it, you're probably right about preview size...  Even in loupe view in the middle of the screen, I'm guessing the size wouldn't exceed 1680, so I'll try reloading my little test catalog at 1680 and see what happens...  I can also try with the "Enable Lens Corrections" turned off to see if there's a perceptible change.

     

    One of the things I'm noticing is that when looking through a series of images, even after walking back and forth repeatedly, it STILL has a perceptible lag.  Not like the several seconds the initial "loading" takes, but if you watch the filename in the loupe info overlay, it takes a very perceptible amount of time to update.  On occasion, if I don't wait long enough to be SURE I'm viewing the next image, I've been fooled about focus point or exposure change or whatever differed between images...  It can be disconcerting!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 11:41 AM   in reply to DavePinMinn

    Looking through this thread, I don't see any response from Adobe?

     

    The speed issue also seems to be a very inconsistent problem which will make diagnosis difficult. I know this isn't helpful, but why can third party software show blistering performance importing and adjusting RAW files?

     

    There are dozens of thread on this forum and dozens of other forums full of complaints about the responsiveness and inconsistency in LR4 so Adobe are obviously aware of the disgruntlement. The fact they don't respond simply confirms my long held view that Adobe are a very strange company. They seem to insist on doing things their way and blow the user! This is apparent in Acrobat for example which is a cumbersome dog. Flash Player seems to think we need a massive banner plastered over the first ten seconds of a video to remind us to press ESC to exit full screen mode and so on. You can tell an Adobe application a mile away. The only exception is Photoshop strangely. Maybe that's because I've been using it so long?

     

    I've noticed that a lot of developers are now producing image processing software that rivals Photoshop in the functionality needed for pure camera image processing. These apps incorporate file management facilities as good as Lightroom, the best features from Photoshop such as adjustment layers and so on and are lightnng fast on lesser specified hardware.

     

    Adobe hasn't risen to that challenge and will regret assuming it can be top dog forever. Look at Lotus spreadsheets, Ashton Tate dBase, Novell netware, and more recently RIM. Nothing lasts forever Adobe.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 12:19 PM   in reply to bcw99

    From: "bcw99

     

    Looking through this thread, I don't see any response from Adobe?

     

     

     

    That is because this is a User-to-User forum, where users help each other.

    If you want to report bugs, problems, or make feature requests, you should

    either use Adobe's Help lines, or use the other Adobe Forum where Adobe does

    participate -

     

    <http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/products/photoshop_fami ly_photoshop_lightroom?sort=recently_created&style=topics>

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 ... 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