Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Is the consensus that LR 4+ is slow?

Jul 22, 2012 5:55 AM

Tags: #cs4 #version #lr #slow_performance #4+

I've been using LR since v.2. WHen I upgraded to 3.0, there was a dramatic slowdown in processing time. Now, I read from time to time on this forum same news about 4+. Is the current version of LR so much better to risk another slowdown?

 

Additionally, I'm at CS4. If I go to LR 4+, will I still be able to edit in CS4 or will I have to upgrade this one too?

 

Thank you very much to anyone who would care to take the time for a reply to this post.

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 22, 2012 6:05 AM   in reply to Oliver P.Smile

    No, it isn't the consensus. Many of us haven't had any significant slowness. For some people it is slow, but they are a much smaller number than when 4.0 was released. There's no clear pattern, so install and try for yourself.

     

    Editing in CS4 will be just as before.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 22, 2012 6:25 AM   in reply to Oliver P.Smile

    There have been one or two posts on this subject to this thread: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/971581?tstart=0

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 22, 2012 6:32 AM   in reply to Oliver P.Smile

    "Is the consensus that LR 4+ is slow?"

     

    No.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 22, 2012 6:48 AM   in reply to Oliver P.Smile

    olvierpsmile@yahoo.com wrote:

     

    Do you know if it would be reversible, i.e. if I find it does not work for me, would it let me go back to my previous version?

    Sure. LR4 creates a copy of your LR3 catalogue.

     

    John

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 22, 2012 7:08 AM   in reply to john beardsworth

    johnbeardy wrote:

     

    olvierpsmile@yahoo.com wrote:

     

    Do you know if it would be reversible, i.e. if I find it does not work for me, would it let me go back to my previous version?

    Sure. LR4 creates a copy of your LR3 catalogue.

     

    John

    However, stuff you subsequently do in your LR4 catalogue can't be converted back to LR3 catalogue format. 

     

    PS - I agree that there is no consensus about LR4 being slow.  Some report severe reductions in speed, but I (and I believe the majority of users) find it similar to LR3 for most functions, slower for some (e.g. switching modules, especially the first time in a session). 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 22, 2012 2:58 PM   in reply to Oliver P.Smile

    olvierpsmile@yahoo.com wrote:

     

    Is the current version of LR so much better to risk another slowdown?

    Yes. The quality of results in Lr4 is significantly better than Lr3 (once you learn it).

     

    On my machine, Lr4 is a little slower than Lr3 at some things - the price for improved quality. At some things, it's faster than Lr3 (Adobe also made some marked performance improvements in some areas).

     

    If it's *a lot* slower, then there is problem...

     

    The trial will tell you if Lr4 will be problematic on your machine.

     

     

    olvierpsmile@yahoo.com wrote:

     

    Additionally, I'm at CS4. If I go to LR 4+, will I still be able to edit in CS4 or will I have to upgrade this one too?

    I don't know, but a valid concern - definitely check it before purchasing...

     

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 22, 2012 6:23 PM   in reply to Oliver P.Smile

    Concenus = no, but yes many of us have experienced poorer performance. Mine was terrible initially, but after finding info via these forums regarding negative caching and corrupt preference files, my performance, while slower on certain tasks, is otherwise now similar to 3.6.

     

    I'd download it (all 800 MB !!!!) and give it a whirl ....... overall I find that the new process version is a nice improvement.

     

    I don't think the version of Photosop should be a problem, as you basically create a new image to work on in PS e.g. JPEG, TIFF or PSD. Obviously the version of ACR with CS4 will be a problem, but I assume RAW processing will be entirely done in LR

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 23, 2012 5:53 AM   in reply to Oliver P.Smile

    I attempted to move over to 4.1 after its release; I'd given up on 4.0 as too slow. 4.1 is faster, but still takes waay too long to render dng files in Develop. I'm going back to 3x.  I have been attempting to research suggestions/comments made here and elsewhere, but it's very hard to do so: I tried on the term "negative caching" and wound up on a thread devoted to Windows users (Mac here). This should not be so hard to learn.

     

    If there are known, actual 'fixes' which will pull 4.1 up to appropriate speed, a sticky here would be of invaluable help.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 23, 2012 6:31 AM   in reply to Etnier

    I too went back to 3.6 and uninstalled 4.1.

    I also failed to get a  refund, so sadly, I'm stuck with software that's

    useless to me at the moment.

    I hope that one day, there will be a patch that makes V 4 work to a

    reasonable speed on a Win 7 machine.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 23, 2012 8:55 AM   in reply to howmanypigginnamesdoitry

    howmanypigginnamesdoitry wrote:

     

    I hope that one day, there will be a patch that makes V 4 work to a reasonable speed on a Win 7 machine.

    Aaaaand here we go again...

     

    Lr 4.x runs at a (more than) reasonable speed on my Win 7 machine already - no patch needed.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 23, 2012 9:05 AM   in reply to Oliver P.Smile

    olvierpsmile@yahoo.com wrote:

     

    THank you, Thank you, thank you!

    You've not moved forward much since your original question and my answer. There is no consensus that it is slow, but there is consensus that some have a problem. Install it yourself and make your own mind up.

     

    John

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 23, 2012 9:15 AM   in reply to Keith_Reeder

    ???

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 23, 2012 9:50 AM   in reply to howmanypigginnamesdoitry

    LR 4.1 runs at a reasonable speed on my Windows 7 (64 bit) computer.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 23, 2012 10:45 AM   in reply to dj_paige

    I get 30 mpg out of my RV, others with the same one only get 24.

    I guess it depends what else you run, screen, HDD, memory, and all sorts

    of variables.

    I'm glad you get good performance, I can only hope for it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 23, 2012 11:40 AM   in reply to howmanypigginnamesdoitry

    Performance on my modest Win 7 64bit, 2.6 Ghz processor and 4GB Ram is very acceptable.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 23, 2012 11:49 AM   in reply to DdeGannes

    I've only got a 2 gig CPU in a win 7 32 bit laptop.

    Saving madly for a decent machine, but still unsure whether to go Win 64

    bit or Mac.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 23, 2012 12:35 PM   in reply to howmanypigginnamesdoitry

    howmanypigginnamesdoitry wrote:

     

    ...unsure whether to go Win 64 bit or Mac.

     

    There is no concensus on whether Lr is more likely to run well on Mac vs. Windows (or vice versa). So, get the machine you like, but consider testing Lr with it before you commit.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 24, 2012 3:15 AM   in reply to GKN 100

    FYI - I'm running Win 7 32 bit .... this is what helped me...

     

     

    Corrupt preference files: http://photocamel.com/forum/computers-software/162752-help-lightroom-4 -1-slow-performance-problems.html

     

    Negative caching - this from another poster (John Spacey)....... http://forums.adobe.com/message/4535489#4535489 (see #37)

     

    ******************************************************************

    Here's an update on what changed in RC2 relative to Develop performance.

     

    For starters, in RC1 we experimented with turning off sharpening while sliders were moving. We got a fair amount of negative feedback on that, and have reverted that behavior. Instead, we moved more of the rendering to a background thread, which keeps the sliders moving smoothly. One caveat with the behavior in RC2 is that those background renders can pile up if you're moving fast. The final 4.1 release will do a better job of trimming these when possible.

     

    I worked with a number of you who volunteered to try an experiment a couple weeks ago that turned off something we call negative caching. The results were mixed; a couple people said it was a clear improvement, others didn't see a benefit. But I'll offer it here in case it helps others who find performance starts out reasonably then suddenly, consistently goes south until a restart.

     

    What the following will do is turn off a cache which saves some of your most recent work done in Develop such that if you revisit a recently touched image, it loads faster. However, if our calculations are off, this cache can sometimes get too big and cause ACR to use virtual memory instead of RAM.

     

    To try it:

    1. Create a text file called “config.lua” and put the following line in it: AgNegativeCache.enabled = false

    2. Launch Lightroom, go to the Preferences dialog, Presets tab, and hit “Show Lightroom Presets Folder”.

    3. Close the Preferences dialog, quit Lightroom.

    4. Drop the attached config.lua file into the Lightroom folder that was opened in step 2 (do not put it in one of the preset subfolders). So the path to the file will look like this:

     

    Mac: /Users/[yourname]/Library/Application Support/Adobe/Lightroom/config.lua

    Win: C:\Users\[yourname]\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\Lightroom\config.lua

     

    You’ll know this switch to turn the cache off is working if you see the “Loading...” symbol even when you revisit the previously edited image in Develop. (When caching is on, you can often revisit a recently edited photo without the Loading warning showing.)

     

    ******************************************************************

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 24, 2012 4:12 AM   in reply to GKN 100

    Thanks very much for this helpful information!

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

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