Actually, if I recall correctly, there are some of Adobe's Lightroom people that do participate here on a purely volunteer basis.  Unfortunately, given the performance issues that come up with every major release, they may have decided their time would be better spent elsewhere - hopefully figuring out how to speed things up...  But, I believe there are some around.  Of course, they may not be able to hop in here and tell us much...

I recreated my little test catalog.  It contains 146, NIkon D300, 12 megapixel images in .dng format.  I turned off the import preset.  I turned off everything as far as I know.  Imported and then did a 1:1 rendering.  My preview size is now set to 1680 with high quality.

I then recreated it WITH the import preset and jumped back and forth...

As near as I can tell, and this is PURELY anecdotal, NOT doing the lens correction didn't make any difference to how fast images display in loupe.  Nor did it change how fast they display in 1:1.  Nor did it improve performance in Develop, which is where the worst display speed is.  Not DOING anything, just moving from one image to the next. 

I'll have to go back to the "real" catalog to see how much improvement there is from going to 1680 instead of 2048 for previews, but it doesn't APPEAR to be much if any......

I could be more certain if I had a way to have something automatically open say 10 images in loupe, then go to develop and walk through 10 images to see how long that took, but I don't know of a way to do that in Lightroom.  So, I'm going with what it looks like when I manually hit the arrow to move from image to image and just watch the clock.  Not very precise.  What I CAN say with some confidence is that it's slower than V3.

Anyhow, it is what it is.  bwc99, yes, there are number of threads in a number of forums.  I've waded through some of them looking for a magic bullet, but so far I haven't found it.  I don't think Adobe's strange, I just think they're responding the way any company that has a virtual monopoly does. 

So, if I do 1:1 previews, nothing else matters.  That takes care of everything...

Interesting... 

BTW:  UNTIL V4, I NEVER RENDERED 1:1 PREVIEWS...  Literally, NEVER.  And it was STILL at LEAST as fast (and in truth I believe develop was FASTER) on the old version than V4 is WITH 1:1 previews...

That's good to know Rob... 

When you walk through images in the library module, how fast does the loupe info update?  'Cause on mine, the previews aren't instantaneous, but the loupe info text is definitely BEHIND the image update.

From: "davepinminn

When you walk through images in the library module, how fast does the

loupe info update?  'Cause on mine, the previews aren't instantaneous, but

the loupe info text is definitely BEHIND the image update.

Presumably that is simply due to retrieval time from wherever you store your

previews and catalog. I assume the image info has to be got from the

catalog, after the correct preview has been selected from the previews

folder. Putting your catalog and previews on a SSD will speed retrieval up.

Bob Frost

From: "rpavich1234

I'm sorry but I've been following this thread and the whole discussion is

just comical.

 

The ever-growing list of things to do to make LR4 even in the same

performance neighborhood is staggering.

 

Imagine buying a new car and have it perform worse by a large margin than

last years model that you currently drive. Then imagine changing the

motor, suspension, tires, fuel system etc...all in an effort to get it to

even perform CLOSE to what last years model did.

Sorry, but LR 4.1 runs fine for thousands (or millions?) of people,

including me. So we have to try and work out what is different about the

computers/images/catalogs/previews of those who find LR 4.1 doesn't run

fine. I used SSDs for my catalog and previews in LR3, not just for LR4. It

speeds everything up, since retrieval from disk is usually the slowest bit

of most computers. An SSD in my cheap Samsung laptop makes it fine for

demonstrating LR 4.1 in lectures - no slowdowns or hangups.

I also did various of the things I have listed (export catalog to a new one,

create all new previews, etc) when upgrading from LR2 to LR3, so nothing new

there. A 'clean' setup usually runs faster than a dirty one, just as with

OSs.

I doubt if LR 4 will ever be faster than LR3, because it does a lot more

things, and does them better.

Might be a good idea if people stopped asking for new things to be added.

They all add 'weight to the car' and slow it down. 

Bob Frost

rpavich1234 wrote:

 

Bob,

 

this is big enough to cause discussions on many many forums and in the blog-o-sphere in general....

Only because the internet is self-selecting for complaining - like it or not, there's simply no evidence that this is anything like as pervasive an issue as your (necessarily skewed) interpretation of the relevance of the "blogosphere" suggests.

You didn't really say anything new in your response...just repeated what you've already said..

Uuuumm... Pot calling the kettle black? You're hardly breaking new ground in your posts, are you? Actively choosing to ignore the inherent validity of Bob's comments doesn't make 'em any less valid.

I'll ask my usual question: if Lr is the problem, why aren't we all suffering? Until someone comes up with a convincing answer to that question, you're not going to win the argument.

fliplip1 wrote:

 

There is obviously a problem with the program for some

By definition, this must mean that the problem lies with the local environment on which the software is installed.

Uuuumm... Pot calling the kettle black?

Yep....observing how lame LR4 is isn't a new complaint.

You're hardly breaking new ground in your posts, are you?

Nope...no new ground...we all know the problems LR4 has.

Actively choosing to ignore the inherent validity of Bob's comments doesn't make 'em any less valid.

I'm not actively choosing to ignore them....I only made the observation that he's repeating how we can "fix" LR4...which was what was so comical in the first place!...what hoops we discuss to jump through to get even acceptable performance out of a "better" piece of software!

I'll ask my usual question: if Lr is the problem, why aren't we all suffering?

Because whatever bugs are involved; aren't following certain patterns...that's all. It's not as simple as "all old machines will lag" or "all people who use SSD's will have acceptable performance"...it's more complicated.

I've been in your shoes on other software releases...defending a buggy piece of software because I didn't happen to have the worst of the ill effects where others did....after MANY dicussions just like the one we're having,, the software company issued several bug fix releases and cleared up the performance issues. That's what I'm hoping happens here.

I hope that one day we can all have your experience...without having to change the motor, suspension, undercarriage, AC, drive train, tires, fuel system...et al.

Until someone comes up with a convincing answer to that question, you're not going to win the argument.

There is no argument to win...there is definitely some remaining major bugs in this particular piece of software that need to be ironed out...that's not even a question.

Well, i dont want to annoy the others but thats my thinking.

It shouldn't be this way so i feel the blame lays at Adobes door, but i dont think anything in LR can be changed by the user to fix the issues. Its not goin got be that easy.

As ive said before, i changed my hardware but not my HDD, so other than new drivers everything was the same, and this fixed my issues instantly.

I also have PC's at work that have with been through the LR3 - LR4 upgrade (inc catalogue) or fresh installs and none have had any issues. All i5's or lower, no SSD's etc.

It is 'funny' that some computers have problems with LR 4.1, and that others

don't, but not in the sense that you mean. 

 

Some people are just waking up to the fact that processing D800 files (40MB

compressed) takes a lot longer than processing D700 files (20MB compressed),

and even longer than processing D100 files (10MB compressed), and that's

without the extra processing that 2012 does. They take longer in 2010 as

well.

And some aren't.

This would be a good point if LR3 wasn't so lightning fast processing big files.

What LR3 does in milliseconds....LR4 (on my machine and others) is so slow as to be unusable....20 seconds or more. I'm not speaking of barely noticable issues.

The latest cameras have faster processors in them to cope with this, they use faster cards to store the images on, and  ............................

need faster computers to process them. It's just logic, not 'lunacy'.

Again...that would hold water if LR3 was choking but LR3 works great...so fast on the SAME FILES that I have to look twice to see if it actually processed!

PS: It's not just a "faster computer" issue and you know it. There are people posting these same issues who are using HUGE machines...it's across the board, not just on the slow / old machines.

Sorry that nothing seems to solve your problems. It's 'funny'.

That's not what I said was funny. You seem to have tunnel vision. I said that the amazing lengths some users have to go to to TRY and get usable performance is what's comical.

Like I said in another post; I've been right where you are now...rabidly defending a buggy software release because I wasn't experiencing the worst of the problems reported...and all of the usual responses were given (just like on this thread about how it's only a "small portion" of folks having the problems and how it's probably their "crappy machine")  been there...done that.

It turned out to be the software...

From: "fliplip1

I agree, all these tips shouldn't be needed, and wont get LR4 working as

it should.The fact that many peoepl dont have this issue, and have not

made any major chages to how they work show this.

But they may have completely different software on their machines! Someone

recently found updating his Wacom drivers cured his LR problem, others have

found updating video drivers sorted their problems out, there may be

problems with Quicktime from what I read, and so on.

If I had tried all the usual tweaks and none worked, I would backup my

system drive, install a fresh OS, and only install LR 4.1. That would

eliminate a lot of possible culprits. I know; I've done this many times over

the past 30 years or so that I've been using and trouble-shooting PCs.

I'm NOT saying that LR 4.1 hasn't got bugs in it; it has. But they are not

creating a problem for me or many/most others. The next version of LR will

no doubt be better/faster than 4.1, but it may not cure software or hardware

problems in some computers. It might - if they could identify the problem in

your computer.

Bob Frost

Bob.

Im not sure if you are agreeing with me or not, i certainly agree with your last post, and that does seem its more localized as Keith said.

I was just reading another thread and it seemed the guy fixed his issue with a new graphics card. While im not suggesting the card is the fix im wondering if un installing the GPU and deleting the drives, then letting windows re boot and re install may help.

"Or, perhaps, some camera's raw files are problematic, as Victoria suggested above?"

I have only been using LR4.1 on Panasonic GH2 files and it has settled down to a useable system with no screen flashes.

On Monday I imported five Panasonic G3 files from a friend's new camera.

When I started to work on them the white rectangles I used to get on the screen started again. I had not seen them for weeks on my GH2 only catalogue.

It would be great if one of the posters around here who tell us that LR4 runs without a glitch tried loading some RAWs from another camera and told us if there was any difference.

Tony

From: "A C G

It would be great if one of the posters around here who tell us that LR4

runs without a glitch tried loading some RAWs from another camera and told

us if there was any difference.

Well, I have nefs from my old D100, D70, D200, D300, D2x, D3, D700, D90,

D60, D40, and current D7000, D800, and V1, and jpgs from a P7000, P5000,

P5400, Canon S50, and S60 in my catalog. No problems, but most are Nikon

files. Some had previously been edited in Nikon Capture and Nikon Capture NX

before LR was invented.

Which just made me think - I wonder if some people have been editing their

raw files in other raw processors and LR doesn't like those edits?  Just an

idea!  I do keywording in PhotoMechanic but I always open them in Nikon

ViewNX afterwards to make sure that PM hasn't done anything that corrupts

them. I did once corrupt some nefs with an editor, but that was my fault and

not the programs.

Bob Frost

Actually, thinking about ACR, you've got an interesting point...  Because of things that are much easier for me to do in Bridge than LR, my initial processing is usually done there.  And when in Bridge, I can open a hundred images in ACR, and walk through them quite quickly.  In fact, I just opened a quick chunk of 90 images, some jpeg, some .nef, some .dng and shoved them into ACR.  Then I took the whole bunch and told them display at 100% and started walking through them.....

It was perceptibly quicker to load any of them than I'm able to do in develop in LR4.  Even at 100% it was finishing loading a .dng or .nef in less than a second and was ready for me to shove the sliders around....

BUT, I presume this is all because Bridge caches everything up front, and in ACR I presume when I grab all the images and tell them to display at 100% it's doing SOMETHING so they're "ready"?  In either case, yes, for ME, ACR doesn't show the same lag I get in LR.  I reckon I"d best go back to doing all my initial examination, evaluation, renaming, keywording, and all that in Bridge, which I only stopped doing 'cause everyone kept telling me I should import directly into LR and do it all there...

Tony.

At that time anything i did in LR4 (any any version, i went through them all) would take between 5 sec and 20 secs. Moving between modules, moving sliders, zooming in etc. Almost anything would cause LR to become unresponsive until it had doen waht it was doing. I also couldnt export a JPG and use LR at the same time.

If i was to open PSCS6 and go to file/open, and select a raw file ACR would open and i could move freely around the tabs/sliders etc, zoom in and out , with hardly any lag. Certainly as fast as LR3.6 was. Of course this was only with one file at a time.

I dont use Bridge, at all, so not sure if that would have done the same.

Victoria, no, never used PhotoMechanic.

From: "Victoria Bampton

Oh oh oh!  Any of the rest of you using PM?  One of the slow 5DMk3s I

mentioned earlier, I know the photographer uses PM before sending the

files.  And he also said his date modified changes on the raw files when

he uses PM.  It's a real long shot, but....

But my computer isn't slow! I use Photomechanic mainly because it stores my

keywords in the nefs, not just in the catalog as LR does. So if and when the

day comes that I have to use another program instead of LR, I won't have to

re-keyword everything. It stores the keywords in the nef files same as Nikon

CaptureNX does. No problem.  PhotoMechanic is also easier to use, imo, with

its structured keywords panel on one monitor and the grid of images on the

other, doing this is much easier than with LR.

Using PhotoMechanic or Exiftool to add keywords or GPS location data (from

LR) to my nefs doesn't change the exif dates in the nefs. Lots of people

seem to use PhotoMechanic without problems in LR. I was thinking though that

there might be other editing programs, less widely used, that could upset

LR.

Bob Frost

davepinminn wrote:

  I have a completely separate spindle for the O/S and programs (Seagate 7200 rpm).  A separate spindle for the catalog and several other partitions not related to image processing (Hitachi 7200 rpm).  A separate spindle for images (a 1TB HItachi 7200 rpm that has about 350GB available).  And, TWO spindles for scratch files (each a Hitachi 7200 rpm with at least 50% available - these are internal backup drives, so they're just sitting there except when backing up).

From a I/O perspective LR no longer uses the ACR cache extensively. In develop it's reading the RAW file directly each time and that may make things a bit slower than before (but the read blocksize is quite large so a SSD isn't necessarily the answer). Also SQLite is a prodigious user of TEMP space so if your going to put in a SSD place catalog + previews + TEMP on it.

From what I see on my system the slowness seems to be more of a CPU than I/O issue. Users with the problems seem to have decent spec systems (Core i7 most commonly) so it could be the new 2012 process some locking/threading issues.