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 ... 28 29 30 31 32 ... 43 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 19, 2012 6:10 PM   in reply to Another Photographer

    If Lightroom 4.1 was performing like molasses in winter, on my machine, I'd try Bridge/Photoshop/ACR instead, after trying all the usual stuff including BIOS update, stripped system..., I mean, and if still no go:

     

    See what happens when running Lr4 via a different OS, or in a virtual machine...

     

    Mac users: try booting Windows and running the Windows version of Lightroom, or boot Linux and run Lr on a Windows virtual machine.

    Windows users: try running in a Windows virtual machine, with Linux host, or Windows host.

     

    Recommend vmware, although Mac users may be able to use Parallels.

     

    I know you don't want to do this, or think you should have to, but desparate circumstances sometimes call for desparate measures...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 19, 2012 10:45 PM   in reply to Victoria Bampton

    Victoria Bampton wrote:

     

    Sacha, have you tried this yet? http://forums.adobe.com/message/4366597#4366597

     

    Thanks. Yes but only briefly until now. I didn't have time to edit photos in the last two days. It looked like editing was faster with the negative caching enabled though. I'll write as soon as I spent some time in LR4 again.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 20, 2012 12:56 AM   in reply to Another Photographer

    From: "Another Photographer

    I think I found a solution that would work for me:

     

    (1) Provide support for Nikon D800, Nikon D4 and latest Canon cameras in

    LR3.

    (2) Refund LR4 upgrade price for people who have problems with LR4.

    (3) In the meantime, Adobe, take your time do all of the required testing

    to iron out the issues with LR4.

    Sounds fair, doesn't it?

     

     

    Why can't you use LR4 with 2010 develop processing (as in LR3)?

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 20, 2012 1:37 AM   in reply to bob frost

    Bob,
    You asked:

     

     

    Why can't you use LR4 with 2010 develop processing (as in LR3)?

     

    I'm being serious when I say...why do that?

     

    Why not just use LR3?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 20, 2012 3:50 AM   in reply to rpavich1234

    From: "rpavich1234

    I'm being serious when I say...why do that?

    Why not just use LR3?

     

    Because LR4 lets you use the latest cameras, lens profiles, etc without

    converting to dng. It also lets you use the new modules - books and maps. It

    also has improvements to Publish, softproofing for Prints, Email, and loads

    of other improvements as listed at

     

    http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/page/3

     

    I think that is what I would do if Develop process 2012 was causing serious

    problems for me.

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 20, 2012 5:38 AM   in reply to bob frost

    bob frost wrote:

     

    From: "rpavich1234

    I'm being serious when I say...why do that?

    Why not just use LR3?

     

    Because LR4 lets you use the latest cameras, lens profiles, etc without

    converting to dng. It also lets you use the new modules - books and maps. It

    also has improvements to Publish, softproofing for Prints, Email, and loads

    of other improvements as listed at

     

    http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/page/3

     

    I think that is what I would do if Develop process 2012 was causing serious

    problems for me.

     

    Bob Frost

    Ahh..I should have thought of that....thanks for pointing it out.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 20, 2012 6:35 AM   in reply to rpavich1234

    this is my biggest beef of all....not being able to use LR3.6 with Canon 5D MIII Raw.... I don't like/do DNG.  While I certainly understand the notion that by ending upgrades to LR3/ACR it forces people to buy a new product its unreasonable to expect that cycle to not have problems at some point....like with LR4-  Adobe is chosing to hold firm despite 'some' unhappy users....I'm not that technical but don't understand why they couldn't allow the ACR 7  plugin to function with 3.6 for a few months until they fixed this.  Isn't thats why its called a 'plug in'?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 20, 2012 7:37 AM   in reply to andreas603

    Stopping support of old software is one thing, but to stop support immediately upon releasing an upgrade is not the norm.  Microsoft still supports Windows XP, which was released in 2001.  And until recently, Adobe software still ran on Windows XP--so basically Adobe wants to have their cake and eat it too.  They're happy that Adobe is supported on old OS, but they refuse to support new cameras that were released days after LR 3.6 was retired.

     

    And given that PV 2010 in LR4 supports the new cameras, I doubt there is a technical issue.  I believe they could have supported the new cameras in LR 3.6 if they wanted to.

     

    I am not a conspiracy theorist, but the way LR 4 was rushed out the door unfinished just days before three ground-breaking cameras were released by Nikon (and maybe Canon, I don't follow them as much)...makes you wonder about their motives.

     

    On top it, there is a lot of chatter that D800 files look better on CaptureOne than they do in LR 4.  But I was already too dependent on LR 3.6.  Working on changing that in the near future.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 20, 2012 8:07 AM   in reply to Another Photographer

    Another Photographer wrote:

     

    Stopping support of old software is one thing, but to stop support immediately upon releasing an upgrade is not the norm.  Microsoft still supports Windows XP, which was released in 2001.  And until recently, Adobe software still ran on Windows XP--so basically Adobe wants to have their cake and eat it too.  They're happy that Adobe is supported on old OS, but they refuse to support new cameras that were released days after LR 3.6 was retired.

     

    MS announced Office 2013 will not support Vista or XP.  Doesn't look lke their applications support it any more.

     

    You cannot compare Operating Systems to Applications.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 20, 2012 8:18 AM   in reply to Rikk Flohr

    MicroSmurf is ending all support for WinXP in June 2013 ('bout *******' time, I might add).  I know it's their most popular OS, but it's time to move on.

     

    One more thing.....Apple separates Camera Raw support from their applications.  Namely, even if you're running iPhoto '09 or Aperture 2, it'll support editing RAW files for the latest cameras since Apple's Camera RAW is separate from the program.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 20, 2012 12:15 PM   in reply to BigCPixelbender

    Much as I hate to try to drag the urination festival back to the subject of "Lightroom is Slow"........  I tried the suggestion from Peter Green over in the other forum, and it seems to have improved things in develop at least slightly.  I'm suspicious 'cause I figure I'm a prime candidate for the placebo effect at this point...  Kinda like putting the loud exhaust on the car and deciding it MUST be faster 'cause it sounds faster!

     

    But, I'm also still using the bat file to start LR, and wondering if I should just go back to letting it use all the cores or not?  I don't see any difference with or without the bat file, but at this point I"m sufficiently flummoxed I'm doing what Rob recommended and just back to using Bridge for all the important initial stuff, just using LR for a catalog/database...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 20, 2012 1:05 PM   in reply to DavePinMinn

    davepinminn wrote:

     

    I"m sufficiently flummoxed I'm doing what Rob recommended and just back to using Bridge for all the important initial stuff, just using LR for a catalog/database...

    So ACR is OK? Lightroom is the problem?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 20, 2012 2:57 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Yeah, as I said in my very first "hey, this is slow" entry about 10 pages ago (which even I can't remember any more), I don't have the same performance issues in Bridge, but as Victoria and some others pointed out, although they're the same engine, there are differences in what the tools do that may account for the difference in performance...  I mostly used Bridge/ACR even in V3 because it's faster and easier for me to do a lot of what I do there than in LR...

     

    But, with V4, I decided to try everything in LR, did the import directly, the initial exam, the rating, the deletion of garbage (I have a LOT of garbage), renaming, keywording, metadata location update, and so on....  Needless to say, I discovered how painful it was, thus adding my voice to the other 70+ pages of people with performance issues.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 20, 2012 3:06 PM   in reply to DavePinMinn

    Thanks. I would think it's a big clue if develop module is slow in Lightroom but not ACR.

     

    Are there differences in what the develop tools do? Or are we talking about edit-history and such stuff.

     

    Sorry if this already discussed, my memory isn't as good as it used to be... - mostly just a curiosity, for me, at this point.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 20, 2012 4:57 PM   in reply to Rikk Flohr

    Rikk Flohr wrote:

     

     

    MS announced Office 2013 will not support Vista or XP.  Doesn't look lke their applications support it any more.

     

     

     

    The crucial differences:

     

    I don't have to upgrade to Office 2013 if I don't want to.  I still use Office 2007 on one of my machines and it supports the same files.  Not so with LR3 since it doesn't support the latest cameras from Nikon and Canon that were released.

     

    I can use Windows 7 OR Windows 8 with Office 2013.  If Microsoft wanted to be jerks, they would have forced Office 2013 users to upgrade to Windows 8, which will be released BEFORE Office 2013. 

     

    Adobe have ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD REASON to pull support of the new cameras.  NOT EVEN APPLE does that.  MS has very good reasons for pulling the plug on XP and Vista.

     

    LR4 is full of bugs.  LR4.1RC is full of bugs.  LR4.1 still has its fair share of bugs.

     

    Are the class action lawyers working on this yet?

     

    I will now sign off of this thread.  Good luck to everyone figuring out why LR4.1 isn't working as you expected.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Victoria Bampton
    5,302 posts
    Apr 1, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 21, 2012 1:46 AM   in reply to Another Photographer

    Another Photographer wrote:

    Adobe have ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD REASON to pull support of the new cameras.  NOT EVEN APPLE does that.  MS has very good reasons for pulling the plug on XP and Vista.

     

    Adobe haven't pulled support.  LR3 still supports exactly the same cameras it always did. They aren't going back and recoding old software to add new cameras, but they do make it possible to use that old software with new cameras via the DNG Converter.  Apple offer new camera support via their operating system, Adobe do it via DNG.

     

    I'm sorry you're being hit by performance issues though.  We'll carry on fighting to track down the causes.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Victoria Bampton
    5,302 posts
    Apr 1, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 21, 2012 1:48 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

    Are there differences in what the develop tools do? Or are we talking about edit-history and such stuff.

     

    History for one.  But there are also lots of extraneous bits that LR's doing that ACR's not - building previews, updating thumbnails and Navigator, secondary screens.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 21, 2012 8:52 AM   in reply to Victoria Bampton

    Yeah, I thought I remembered this from before, that LR has other stuff going on that ACR doesn't have to do...

     

    In any case, it APPEARS - and as always, take this with a huge shaker of salt - that by getting rid of the temp files, and fiddling with the lightroom folder, I DID get some improvement...  For a WHILE.  After approximately an hour it seemed like develop was back to being just as slow to open images......

     

    It also APPEARS that initially, after doing the above stuff, it ran better WITHOUT starting it from the batch file that only used 3 cores...

     

    Is the slowing down after a bit (30-60 minutes) indicative of a something not being cleaned up properly?  I do notice that as I use LR, my memory usage always increases.  It doesn't ever seem to go down, but it rarely gets above about 2.5 GB or so of memory.  Usually starts at a bit over 1GB.  Unfortunately, I normally have to start CS6 somewhere in there and I presume going back and forth must do something 'cause with those two open I can EASILY get to the 10GB (yes, 10), or more.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 21, 2012 2:49 PM   in reply to DavePinMinn

    davepinminn wrote:

     

    Is the slowing down after a bit (30-60 minutes) indicative of a something not being cleaned up properly?

     

    Probably indicates something not getting cleaned up, or something getting messed up.

     

    PS - Memory leaks may not, in and of themselves, cause slowdown until memory becomes scarce. However, they are always an indicator of abnormal behavior, something is amiss, and Lr is allocating more memory even though it shouldn't need to, and the underlying cause for the memory leak may cause a slowdown, before the memory constraint itself kicks in.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 23, 2012 5:52 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    I can't find the post, but am sure it was in the last week.

     

    Victoria Brampton mentioned 'negative cache'.

     

    I tried it and I am pretty sure it has made my LR 4.1 easier to use and am almost totally sure that my Export to jpg was much faster.

     

    If some kind soul could find the post by VB it might be worth sufferers making a try with it.

     

    Tony

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 23, 2012 7:28 AM   in reply to BCormier

    As a LR 1 (and the first Beta) user I am so sad to say:LR4 is unuseable SLOW. My system is

     

    Mac OS 10.7.4

    Mac Book Pro, 2.7 GHz / i7 / 8GB Ram

     

    Please, help us, Adobe!!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 28, 2012 2:39 AM   in reply to Argosfoto

    Is it any faster with lossy dngs, or same as raw?

     

    What about tiff, or jpeg files - also same as raw?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 28, 2012 2:58 AM   in reply to A C G

    A C G wrote:

     

    I can't find the post, but am sure it was in the last week.

     

    Victoria Brampton mentioned 'negative cache'.

     

    I tried it and I am pretty sure it has made my LR 4.1 easier to use and am almost totally sure that my Export to jpg was much faster.

     

    If some kind soul could find the post by VB it might be worth sufferers making a try with it.

     

    Tony

    Not sure where the post is, but here is what you do:

     

    create config.lua text file and put this line in it:

     

    -------------------------------------------------------------

    AgNegativeCache.enabled = false -- false kills the ram caching of recently visited images in dev module.

    -------------------------------------------------------------

     

    then save in folder for lightroom app-data, then restart Lightroom.

     

    You can tell if you've done it right by enabling the loading message in Develop module view options (if not already), then toggle the selection of 2 different files in develop module - back and forth... If it always says "Loading" when you switch, then it's working (cache is disabled).

     

    If this doesn't help, i.e. improve performance somehow, then delete the config.lua file (and restart Lightroom), since it's better to cache negatives unless it's causing a problem for you. You can tell caching is enabled and working for you if switch back and forth between two files in develop module and it doesn't say "Loading" after the first time.

     

    lightroom app-data folder on windows is:

     

    C:\Users\{user}\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\Lightroom

     

    It's a similar place on Mac.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 2, 2012 11:48 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    backed up catalogs and uninstalled lightroom. Feels good.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 2, 2012 6:58 PM   in reply to SavagePhoto

    I applaud you!  Unfortunately, the 800 pound gorilla doesn't care.  It got your money, so if you choose not to use their product 'til V5 they're ahead 'cause they don't have to listen to you whine about problems....  It would have a MUCH greater impact if all of us that have issues with LR4 could demand the money back.  Anybody out there figure we'll ever smarten up enough not to keep contributing to the Adobe annuity when they keep putting out products like LR3 - remember all the issues? - and LR4 - noticed the lack of response from Adobe even acknowledging they're aware of a problem?

     

    As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."  We (including me 'cause despite KNOWING their history of releasing products with major issues, I bought the thing), keep supporting the gorilla...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 2, 2012 8:32 PM   in reply to SavagePhoto

    SavagePhoto wrote:

     

    backed up catalogs and uninstalled lightroom. Feels good.

     

    Good for you. I've always said, the best software to use for whatever is the one that runs the best on your machine.

     

    So, what's next? Giving up photography altogether, or do you have another raw converter?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 2, 2012 10:23 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

       The best place to spend your money is with people and companies who care enough to put out a quality product. Adobe thinks that they are too big to crumble and that is what will break them. Rob .... Do you work for adobe or get some ki9nd of kickback? If so now is the time to start working on your resume. The freeware and other paid competition are getting really really good.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 2, 2012 10:40 PM   in reply to SavagePhoto

    SavagePhoto wrote:

     

    Rob .... Do you work for adobe or get some ki9nd of kickback?

     

    No. I have no stake in Adobe, nor so I care whether you or anybody else does or does not use Lightroom. I think one reason Adobe can get away with what they do is that they don't have much competition, or should I say *any* serious competition, at least not on the Windows platform, that I'm aware of. C1 ya think? - do tell...

     

    I adore PV2012 because Lr4 runs fairly well on my system and I'm getting great results. If it was choking to death, or I couldn't figure out how to use it, I would be complaining and or seeking an alternative.

     

    (actually it would have to be pretty bad for that, because I have thousands of hours invested in plugin development and use dozens of plugins regularly as part of my workflow. - still, the point stands).

     

    So I ask again: now that you've uninstalled Lightroom, what are you using to process your photos? I'm curious, and I'm sure people who are as fed up as you would love to know which competition you consider "really really good".

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 2, 2012 10:51 PM   in reply to SavagePhoto

    SavagePhoto wrote:

     

    If so now is the time to start working on your resume.

    Dream on. You're hugely overstating your own importance if you think that your decision reflects the opinions of the majority of Adobe's (and especially Lr's) userbase.

     

     

    The freeware and other paid competition are getting really really good.

    Like Rob, I'd like to know which software you're talking about. I'm completely converter agnostic; use, or have used, pretty much everything out there; and I know of no other converter that provides Lr's results or bang for the buck.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 3, 2012 4:29 AM   in reply to Another Photographer

    If Lightroom was designed from the ground up to be what it is, we wouldn't see the seam between library & develop

     

    When I had my business I had a library and a darkroom. I did not store and index images in my darkroom just as I did not do my printing in my library. Lightroom reflects that division between tasks as far as I can see.

     

    Suits me.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 3, 2012 5:53 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    I agree with Rob about Adobe.  My reference to the 800 pound gorilla is that Adobe doesn't have any meaningful competition and thus MAY be acting in a manner less optimal for the customer base than would a company that HAD to ensure that their product was superior to their compeition.

     

    At one time, I had hope that a photo editor that was being worked on at Microsoft (yeah, I know a lot of us don't like Microsoft), would provide significant competition.  Some components I was shown did things 7 years ago that are only now showing up in Photoshop.  I don't know what happened, but it appears to have gone quietly by the wayside...

     

    I believe the best thing that could happen to us as consumers would be a real, fanny-kicking, spectacular set of tools to compete with Adobe.

     

    But, reality is what it is, and here we are, months into this new release, with pages of topics dedicated to performance issues, and still not even an acknowledgement from Adobe that they're aware there's a problem...  I haven't gotten to the point of removing LR, and won't since I've found ways to work around the worst of the problems - by using Bridge, mostly - but it would sure be nice if somebody from Adobe that lives in a room with a door on it stood up and said SOMETHING...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 3, 2012 8:18 AM   in reply to DavePinMinn

    since we're bantering.... Dave, you nailed it....we need a fanny kicking competitive threat... the few out there excel at different aspects (I personally have tried Apterture and Capture One) but not as many as LR has- but it depends on your focus... LOVE the rendering and thethering speed of Cap One but it lacks editing features and an intuitive process and at nearly triple the price of LR not efficient for me to switch.... I'm personally at a cross roads...this is a slow time of year for me so I'm not dying but because I've upgreated to Canon 5D MIII, I have to use LR4 (dont get me started on the DNG thing)... I'm hoping Adobe does something by Sept to speed this dog up otherwise I may have to switch to CO.

     

    At the end of the day, I honestly believe that this is about business at Adobe and return to shareholders....they look at their overall product portfolio, see where the rev is coming from and maximize for shareholder return.  Why would they spend too much time on a product that costs $75 bucks that has no meaningful competition and its existing customer base is locked in (forced to upgrade) if they bought an SLR that is less than 6 months old... They know we are here..they know about the problems....its a calucated risk that this willl blow over and not damage their brand.  Its won't and shouldn't stop any of us from pushing and complaining or trying to help each other.... My hope is that someone like Phase One steps up and takes a run at LR and begins to chip away at their marketshare...but sadly, I'm afraid it feels like its about has realistic as a competitor stepping up to Comcast and offering me an alternative cable solution

     

    I would go back to LR3 in a heartbeat if ACR v7 was supported there

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 3, 2012 8:47 AM   in reply to DavePinMinn

    From: "davepinminn

    But, reality is what it is, and here we are, months into this new release,

    with pages of topics dedicated to performance issues, and still not even

    an acknowledgement from Adobe that they're aware there's a problem...  I

    haven't gotten to the point of removing LR, and won't since I've found

    ways to work around the worst of the problems - by using Bridge, mostly -

    but it would sure be nice if somebody from Adobe that lives in a room with

    a door on it stood up and said SOMETHING...

     

     

    They have said something, but as has been pointed out several times, this is

    NOT the forum where Adobe responds to users; this is a User-to-User forum.

    On the other forum where Adobe does respond, there is a response  from Adobe

    to a similar thread:-

     

    <http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/do_not_upgrade_t o_lr4_until_speed_issues_are_resolved?do=reply&utm_content=reply_link& utm_medium=email&utm_source=reply_notification&what=reply_9500266#repl y_9500266>

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 3, 2012 8:57 AM   in reply to andreas603

    andreas603 wrote:

     

    since we're bantering.... Dave, you nailed it....we need a fanny kicking competitive threat...

     

    [snip]

     

    At the end of the day, I honestly believe that this is about business at Adobe and return to shareholders....

    I think Adobe is getting a fanny-kicking, but not in the photographic market.  Adobe is losing market share for video and rich media web content (i.e. Flash), in favour of HTML5 content. 

     

    So will Adobe hunker down, and milk the CS/LR cash-cow, where it has no significant competition?  Avoid innovation and risk: just keep it going, and just far enough ahead of what competition there is to maintain market share?  There are signs of that - trying to move customers to a recurring revenue cloud-based model, without actually having to innovate too much. 

     

    On the other hand, LR4 is pretty innovative in quite a few respects. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 3, 2012 9:50 AM   in reply to CSS Simon

    To get somewhat back on topic, even Matt Kloskowski admitted in his Lightroom seminar that LR4 runs slow.  He also noted that Adobe DOES read the posts/monitor these forums (and sometimes even responds).

     

    That said, I'm personally a a point where I'm moving back to Aperture and will use ACR in PS CS6 for those photos that have heavy shadow problems.  Just wish I could get my $$$ back from Adobe for the purchase of LR4.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 3, 2012 11:30 AM   in reply to Keith_Reeder

    my statement about updating the resume was simply an observation. I have been using Adobe products since photoshop first came to PC.  I have seen them take more and more of a "hands off" "we know what's best for you" approach. This latest issue is the most obvious with Adobe telling us that there isn't a problem with LR4.x .  The Adobe of as little as 5 years ago would have been more interactive and acknowledging of the issues.

     

    As for alternative software

     

    Captue One - Paid

    Rawtherapy -  Free

     

    both provide excellent and in some areas better results than LR and ACR. I dont care to elaborate on this since I hate the old Mac vs PC or Nikon vs Canon (or film vs digital) debates.

     

    only speaking for myself - LR is really an excellent catalog but far from the best. I have found numerous other options each with their drawbacks (just as LR has its drawbacks). I do need the features of PS (which include ACR) so I know I need to keep that so all I am really missing is a catalog. I think in many ways this route is better because I get a much better catalog (in beta now but VERY VERY Sweet) and the same level of raw processing as I have with LR and I am in my own way telling Adobe that I am unhappy enough to devote this much time and effort to find an alternative. When a real alternative to Photoshop comes out I may also consider that. I know I am only one person but I know I am not alone. If enough people do the same Adobe might just get the message.

     

    So what brought me to this point. Adobe tech support running me in circles and basically telling me that the slowness is in my imagination. I would much rather hear "we are aware of the situation and are looking into a resolution. " than telling me I don't have a problem.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 3, 2012 12:09 PM   in reply to andreas603

    andreas603 wrote:

     

      Why would they spend too much time on a product that costs $75 bucks that has no meaningful competition and its existing customer base is locked in (forced to upgrade) if they bought an SLR that is less than 6 months old...

     

    Not locked in - convert images from a new camera to dng and you can use an older version of LR.

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 3, 2012 12:16 PM   in reply to bob frost

    I knew someone would talk about DNG.  Not a practical option for many of us

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 3, 2012 12:30 PM   in reply to andreas603

    From: "andreas603

    I knew someone would talk about DNG.  Not a practical option for many of

    us

     

    Just curious - why isn't it practical?

     

    bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 3, 2012 1:16 PM   in reply to bob frost

    Did a quick teat today

    I did a quick comparison to my older 2009 Mac Pro 2.66Ghz with 16gb ram, same SSD setup on both my Mac and my Win7 box.

    I did an import of 39 D800/E 14 bit NEFS 1:1 previews

    On the Mac Pro it took 6 minutes 34 Seconds

    On the PC it took 4 minutes 41 Seconds.

     

    So in all some improvement, I was hoping for twice as fast as my 3 year old mac, but not quite there.

    My i7 3770 chip is running at 3.4ghz then it has 3.9ghz turbo mode, not sure it running at that speed though.

    I opened up resmon.exe to see what was going on, first off as far as I can tell LR will only use up to 4gb of ram, at least during the import process and then I noticed all 8 cores of the CPU all at around 100% so I guess it does use all the cores.

     

    So would more cores = better performance? or is it a matter of raw CPU speed?

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 ... 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