Skip navigation
This discussion is locked

Experiencing performance related issues in Lightroom 3.x

Aug 6, 2012 4:02 PM

  Latest reply: thewhitedog, Dec 3, 2010 4:44 PM
Replies 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 30 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 15, 2010 5:12 AM   in reply to Larry Loos

    Digit_eyes wrote:

     

    I am not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but it might help out those having speed issues.

     

    Try checking your Catalog Settings and turn OFF the "Automatically write changes into XMP". I have turned if off since version Lr1, so I don't know what the default settings are.

    I'd have to seriously advise against this. Any catalogue corruption and you lose all your work. It also means Br cannot read any LR changes if you use both. Yes you can backup your catalogue, but recreating work done since last backup can be very difficult, if doing anything creative and I've also had issues with backups being flakey. Writing to XMP used to be a problem until LR1.4 IIRC, but has been much faster since then. Also if you are backing up your HDs, then updating a few text files like XMP is faster and safer than backing up big catalogues as your image data is with your images not elsewhere.

     

    I do not use Virtual copies for the same reason as they are not saved in metadata. I use snapshots instead - which are actually much more useful for my workflow into Photoshop when using smart objects. But no indication of Snaphots being present in Library or in Br is a tad annoying as they are hidden.

    In many ways it's easier and less complicated to not have to worry about catalogues when moving and re-arranging files.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 15, 2010 7:06 AM   in reply to imajez

    I don't use the auto write to metadata setting either .... but I do write it out manually ... after a work session in a folder of images, I select all the images in that folder and save the metadata before leaving the folder .... if I forget to do this I will select all images and save metadata while working on something else ....

     

    On slower systems, the performance hit from auto write can be significant. Just have to be responsible and remember to update your XMP ....

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 15, 2010 7:42 AM   in reply to Butch_M

    Butch_M wrote:

     

    On slower systems, the performance hit from auto write can be significant. Just have to be responsible and remember to update your XMP ....

    Which is very easy to forget! Plus if you have issues mid session, you're stuffed. I'd take a bit slower over time wasted having to redo work, if you can even remember what you did in first place.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 15, 2010 8:04 AM   in reply to imajez

    It's a matter of training .... like much of what we do ... you teach yourself to work in a fashion that is appropriate for the task at hand and our individual needs and expectations ...

     

    Catastrophe of any kind can hit without warning ... using a keyboard shortcut for "Select All" and "Write metadata to file" before leaving a folder is a small price to pay for the increase in performance ...

     

    No different than your lack of appreciation for Virtual copies ... to some folks they are quite important ....

     

    Taking your time is quite a luxury for some ... for me, performance is of greater importance because much of my work is deadline based for publication that is measured in minutes quite often to meet my obligations to my clients. A pair of keyboard shortcuts at the end of a session is a small price to pay and has been a part of my workflow since the introduction of LR ... without issue ....

     

    No method is perfect or completely failsafe ... we all choose our own path and find a way that fits our own criteria ...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 15, 2010 8:32 AM   in reply to Butch_M

    Butch_M wrote:

    Catastrophe of any kind can hit without warning ... using a keyboard shortcut for "Select All" and "Write metadata to file" before leaving a folder is a small price to pay for the increase in performance ...

     

    And if things go wrong mid session [happened to me on several occasions], then you cannot save your work. And it's way too easy to forget to do so, particularly under pressure, when tired or if interrupted.

     

    No different than your lack of appreciation for Virtual copies ... to some folks they are quite important ....

     

    I do not lack appreciation for VCs. I just won't use them again until I can save them in metadata, just I can with snapshots. I lost a lot of VCs when a catalogue went squiffy and back ups can only be done so often, without eating into your time.

     

    Taking your time is quite a luxury for some ... for me, performance is of greater importance because much of my work is deadline based for publication that is measured in minutes quite often to meet my obligations to my clients. A pair of keyboard shortcuts at the end of a session is a small price to pay and has been a part of my workflow since the introduction of LR ... without issue ....

     

    Who said I like to take my time? I often have to work under time constraints and I am not keen on sluggish software either.

     

    No method is perfect or completely failsafe ... we all choose our own path and find a way that fits our own criteria ...

     

    And yet I've found saving to XMP saves time overall. Compared to time lost through not doing so.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 15, 2010 8:39 AM   in reply to imajez

    imajez wrote:

     

     

    No different than your lack of appreciation for Virtual copies ... to some folks they are quite important ....

     

    I do not lack appreciation for VCs. I just won't use them again until I can save them in metadata, just I can with snapshots. I lost a lot of VCs when a catalogue went squiffy and back ups can only be done so often, without eating into your time.

     


    Look up a plug-in called Snapshotter.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 15, 2010 9:03 AM   in reply to imajez

    imajez wrote:

     

    I lost a lot of VCs when a catalogue went squiffy and back ups can only be done so often, without eating into your time.

     

    Like I said ... there is no perfect failsafe .... for me ... the auto write to XMP does eat into my time ....

     

    I fell off my bicycle once and broke my arm ... should I have never taken the training wheels off? Or should I have learned to ride better and more safely? I chose to do the latter. All with the knowledge that someday, it would be possible to experience another fall ... but trusted my ability to become a better rider.

     

    I don't disagree with your opinion ... I only choose to reach my goal in a different manner and have the tolerance to accept your viewpoint ... for you it works ... but even using your method is no guarantee that all will end well if calamity strikes ...

     

    I never said you were wrong ... I simply choose a different avenue to travel to the same end result and trust myself to be diligent in my workflow ... I don't feel my choice of implementation is wrong .... just different ...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 15, 2010 9:10 AM   in reply to john beardsworth

    johnbeardy wrote:

    Look up a plug-in called Snapshotter.

     

    Downloaded and installed. Potentially useful new plugin. Thanks John.

    Wondering about how or whether to incorporate it it into my workflow.

    Minimising errors or loss of work is my main goal.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 15, 2010 9:21 AM   in reply to Butch_M

    Butch_M wrote:

    I never said you were wrong ... I simply choose a different avenue to travel to the same end result and trust myself to be diligent in my workflow ... I don't feel my choice of implementation is wrong .... just different ...

    Likewise.

    But I feel your method is far more risky and why I do not use it and I would have lost work on more than one occasion if I had used your methodology, due to crashes, power failures etc.You have to be extremely diligent and never ever make mistakes/forget or let any outside factors come into play. Being human and using software designed by other flawed humans, I choose auto save!  And I always recommend against manual saving to other humans as well.

    Not to mention that I also use Br, so it would be even more of a faff and would more likely lead to more mistakes and time lost..

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 15, 2010 9:42 AM   in reply to Pascal O

    Hi Pascal

    What camera are you using and are you processing raw files or jpeg?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 15, 2010 10:22 AM   in reply to Martin Ingle

    Martin,

     

    I have a D300 and I'm processing only 14bits RAW files. My current library contains around 18_000 pictures.

     

    Pascal.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2010 12:59 AM   in reply to Martin Ingle

    There seem to be just as many reports here that LR3 has problems with Mac as there are for windows, so you could just be having good luck with the mac laptop and bad luck with the windows. If you want a new machine it may be better to stick to windoiws and get a faster processor/more memory and hence better performance for the same cost.

     

     

    "Is it realistic, with today’s affordable technology, to expect 20 mega  pixel +  raw file images to be rendered and  displayed in Lightroom  with the  2010  process profile enabled in  1-2 seconds or do we  just have to accept the penalty of slow speed for improved IQ?"

     

    I think it is. On my 3 year old Dell desktop it takes 3-5 seconds on 5D2 RAW files depending on how many previews of other files it's generating simultaneously. I imagine on a brand new computer with more RAM, faster drives and CPUs but still under £1000 you'd get it to <2 secs per image.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2010 1:03 AM   in reply to laurencec

    Just because it's fun pile on the bandwagon, I too see massive memory consumption in LR3 after browsing a handful of images.

    Win7x64, LR3 x64

    6GB Ram

    Core i7 920

     

    I have to exit the app and restart it every 30 minutes or so because it consumes so much RAM (96% according to my meter) that even the OS takes many seconds to respond to simple commands.  Looks like a memory leak to me.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2010 1:25 AM   in reply to mei!

    mei! wrote:

     

    There seem to be just as many reports here that LR3 has problems with Mac as there are for windows

     

    Am I misreading that or did you mis-type it? There are as many reports that LR3 has NO problems with Mac as there are for Windows, but a cursory headcount for those reporting big problems shows sthg like a 15-3 Win64 to MacOS scoreboard.

     

    It may be there is a common bug for both, but it's hitting Windows users much harder AFAICS.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2010 1:18 PM   in reply to Eric_G_7D

    Oh man, I am building a similar pc right now for LR3.  I was looking forward to this, a new machine and LR3.  Guess I am going to stick with 2.7.

     

    I did not get a warm and fuzzy feeling from the development phase that they (Adobe) was on top of the performance improvements that photographers expected.  A 4ghz i7 with 12gb of ram should slice through raws like butter.

     

    Where's Abobe?  Why have they not said anything?  "Hello, we are working on it" would go a long way, geesh.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2010 1:35 PM   in reply to J.Simono

    J.Simono wrote:

    Where's Abobe?  Why have they not said anything?  "Hello, we are working on it" would go a long way, geesh.

     

    Although I agree that a better system of communication in the direction of "Adobe -> Users" would be a good thing. If you read around a little more you'll see that Adobe is aware of most of the performance problems and is actively working on them.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2010 1:56 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    For what it's worth:

     

    I have an i5-750 Windows PC with a nVidia GeForce 250 GTS graphics card installed. The OS is Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit and RAM is 4 GB. My 12 mp RAW files from Panasonic GH1 render almost instantaneously. LR3 performs better than LR2 in my case.

     

    I guess there are many factors which you need to consider. In my case, I have only the default Microsoft drivers (WDDM v 1.1) installed, no special stuff downloaded from nVidia.

     

    With my previous Intel E 6600 PC with Windows 7 32-bit and 2 GB RAM, I discovered sometime after purchase, that this machine had some drawbacks. While some components where pretty good speced (Graphics Card, CPU) some reviews noted that the mainboard wasn't so great (the vendor apparently saved on that), having certain throughput bottlenecks, from which especially disc access and other speed related stuff suffered.

     

    So, even if someone claims to have a well speced machine, chances are, that not all components where so well selected by the manufacturer (especially the one, which you cannot advertise with shiny numbers) and unfortunately one bottleneck could slow the things down enough. Adobe does not have influence on many of these parameters.

     

    I have to admit, that I do not have 20+ mpx raw files at hand, but I would expect that image rendering would only slow down relatively.

     

    Kind regards

     

    Thomas

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2010 5:57 PM   in reply to tgutgu

    Picture 1.png

    Rob,

     

    Would you kindly send a link relating to this thread or any thread about LR 3's slowness that an Adobe employee has said anything and actively working on them.  Apparently, this thread has continued so long, and I might have missed it.

     

    Arnel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2010 7:17 PM   in reply to arnelg

    arnelg,

     

    Becky Sowada (+becs), Melissa Gaul (MelissaJ.G), and Julie Kmoch are the responders that I can think of off the top of my head.

     

    If you look you'll find them, albeit very "sparingly".

     

    Try advanced search.

     

    PS - If you use the quote tool it'll save you from having to take png shots.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2010 12:28 AM   in reply to laurencec

    I believe I know why LR3 is so slow.

     

    LR3 is designed to fill available CPU and RAM headroom. Memory or processor utilization to 80% in and of itself should be no problem. But the net amount available for the system and other concurrently operating processes needs to expand disproportionally in absolute terms as it shrinks in relative percentage terms. .

     

    My system can handle 32gb of RAM. If LR3 grabbed 84% of that much RAM, that would leave about 5gb for windows and system requirements. Overall observed system performance should return to normal.

     

    A pretty expensive guess if I am wrong......

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2010 1:22 AM   in reply to Wanchese West

    Lr3 operates full-speed on my 4GB machine - Lr itself typically consumes between 1GB and 1.5GB and never goes over 2GB. My system total is generally between 2/3 & 3/4 utilized ram-wise - that includes a few servers and 5-10 applications.

     

    Lightroom version: 3.0 [677000]
    Operating system: Windows 7 Ultimate Edition
    Version: 6.1 [7600]
    Application architecture: x64
    System architecture: x64
    Physical processor count: 2
    Processor speed: 2.2 GHz
    Built-in memory: 4095.5 MB
    Real memory available to Lightroom: 4095.5 MB
    Real memory used by Lightroom: 1310.7 MB (32.0%)
    Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 1380.7 MB
    Memory cache size: 308.5 MB
    System DPI setting: 96 DPI
    Desktop composition enabled: Yes
    Displays: 1) 1920x1200, 2) 1920x1200

     

    I can't help but think that if you need massive amounts of RAM then you've got a problem with your system and/or its interaction with Lightroom. If more RAM fixes the symptoms, then who cares - I'm just sayin'...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2010 1:25 AM   in reply to Wanchese West

    I'm tired of this tread - the answer has nothing to do with PC vs Mac, this processor vs that one, 80% of usage this, and that...

     

    Simple - Adobe LR3 has a serious bug, its their product and its in their best interest to fix it ASAP.

     

    Play with LR3, but do actual production work in 2.7 -

     

    Thanks all, I'm off this thread!

     

    -David

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2010 1:40 AM   in reply to FeatherLightStudios

    FeatherLightStudios wrote:

     

    Simple - Adobe LR3 has a serious bug, its their product and its in their best interest to fix it ASAP.

     

    I agree. And, I bet Adobe wouldn't argue either if you got them alone.

     

     

    FeatherLightStudios wrote:

    Play with LR3, but do actual production work in 2.7 -

     

    I would think that would depend on whether you are one of the lucky ones or not.

     

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2010 5:37 AM   in reply to Victoria Bampton

    Victoria_Bampton wrote:

     

    areohbee wrote:

     

    I had to look a second, but I think I found the post to which you were referring.

    If you click on the name of the quoted person, it takes you back to the message

    Wow. Thanks for this tid bit Victoria.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2010 7:43 AM   in reply to FeatherLightStudios

    I agree with feather Light.  I read the responces by everyone because I'm waititng for an answer but all I see is equipment lists.

    Lets keep this thread to possible solutions and additional support.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2010 8:31 AM   in reply to laurencec

    The folks posting their computer specs aren't here trying to have a platform war (for the most part) but rather trying to provide information so the people who track bugs can start to see patterns emerge.  It's quite helpful for the programmers to know that the issue seems to affect Win7 x64 the most.

     

    Since initially replying, I've been watching LR3's RAM consumption much more closely.  On my 6GB system with no other major tasks running my RAM usage floats around 34%.  I open LR3 and immediately open in the develop module whatever RAW file I happen to be on (this is to eliminate the RAM hit that would come from browsing around the library) and I can see LR3's RAM usage instantly snap up by well over 2GB.  Use the adjustments brush a few times and I'm in the 80 percentile range of total system RAM usage.  Use the clone stamp tool a few times, and my disk starts thrashing as LR takes over all possible memory and starts forcing out data typically cached by the OS.  Cloning out a small dust spot takes about 30 seconds per occurrence.  At this point simply opening the Windows start menu becomes a click-and-wait process.  My memory meter indicates 10-20MB of free system memory.  I work in this state as long as I can take it, then I exit LR which immediately cleans up the memory used by the app and leaves my machine floating around 20% RAM usage.  Without re-launching LR, the OS continues to respond sluggishly for a while as it attempts to re-cache data typically used to make the interface snappy, but had been forced out by LR.  Generally I re-launch LR right away to get some more work done.  I can't do any serious developing of more than two images without needing to restart the app.

     

    While the develop module is the fastest way to get LR to eat all my system memory, it's not the only way.  My sorting workflow in the Library module will do it, too.  Scanning through images, opening them in loupe view at 100%, scanning more, etc also brings the system to it's knees.

     

    Win7 x64, LR3 x64

    6GB RAM

    i7 920

    WD 2TB Black (data)

    WD Raptor (system)

    ATI 5870 1GB

     

    Message was edited by: Digihotaru for clarity

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2010 8:52 AM   in reply to BSC_PHOTO

    BSC_PHOTO wrote:

     

    Lets keep this thread to possible solutions and additional support.

     

    Naturally that's the goal ... but don't you think the more data that the engineers have can help lead to those solutions and support.

     

    The problems many of you are experiencing seem to be hit and miss and not across the board ... I really think that the comparison of the failures with the successes can help lead to the final fix many are in desperate need of.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2010 9:50 AM   in reply to laurencec

    Here I am - we're working on it.

     

    I appreciate all the computer specs - we haven't found a good correlation between a specification and slowness yet, so I appreciate all the data I can get a hold of.

     

    Couple more things:

     

    In a couple threads, I've seen suggeestions that optimizing your catalog can help with ram usage. (I have no idea why, but there have been reports). If you try this, please make a backup of your catalog first - because if it works for you, I want to see your catalog!

    -melissa

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2010 10:18 AM   in reply to Melissa Gaul

    Wow, Melissa, your post is very much appreciated and I am looking forward to your solution.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2010 11:00 AM   in reply to Melissa Gaul

    Melissa - I had a major issue with some corrupted JPG and CR2 files that pretty much rendered LR3 unusable on a very fast machine. You may want to incorporate "fault tolerance" into the next revision so LR3 ignores corrupted files. Once I deleted them, the program became very responsive.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2010 11:05 AM   in reply to Gavin Farrington

    Digihotaru's post (#125) describes my experience precisely.

     

    Win7 x64, LR3 x64

    4 GB Ram on  P6600 quad core

    mVidia card

    50,000 library, optimized

     

    Rory

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2010 4:28 PM   in reply to Melissa Gaul

    The really interesting question is why the beta2 worked simply fine and as soon as you shell out money you get a completely unusable piece of "bit-garbage". No matter if I get this running properly, probably the last buy from Adobe.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2010 4:53 PM   in reply to Melissa Gaul

    Thanks for the tip, Melissa.  In my case I've tried doing manual optimizations (File -> Optimize Catalog) and I have the box checked in the backup prompt at exit to optimize, which occurs daily.  Hope this works for others, but it hasn't made a difference for me.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2010 8:38 PM   in reply to Gavin Farrington

    Incredible thread. Long with many ideas but few solutions.

     

    LR3 is SLOW. Makes me reconsider Capture NX2---NO, not really.

     

    Still, I am going back to LR2.7 and hope and pray for an upgrade solution.

     

    I use iMac 27" i7 (4 core), 8GB, 10.6.3 and LR2.7 was "lightning".

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2010 8:42 PM   in reply to vinsolo-TR1ZPE

    I should have added that the library I am using currently has fewer than 6000 images, jpg,tif,nef. Catalog optimized each day. New hard drive with 13% space used.

     

    I agree with someone that 3.0 beta 2 was fast,fast bit 3.0 is slow, slow.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2010 8:43 PM   in reply to vinsolo-TR1ZPE

    vinsolo wrote:

     

    I use iMac 27" i7 (4 core), 8GB, 10.6.3 and LR2.7 was "lightning".

    That's a better specced iMac than mine & I've seen an overall performance increase. Have you upped your ACR cache?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2010 10:20 PM   in reply to laurencec

    Well, the main difference between 3b2 and 3.0 is the lens correction.

     

    People with problems: Are you using profile based lens corrections? What happens if you completely disable the lens correction panel for all your photos?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 20, 2010 1:26 AM   in reply to Melissa Gaul
    It's great that Adobe are taking an interest in this.  May I add my observations, for what they are worth?
    Dell XPS 420 Intel E8400 3G core duo 4G RAM
    Vista 32 SP2
    nVidia 8800GT latest drivers
    HDD Seagate 500GB X3 non-RAID
    Catalogue ca 3000 mixture of Canon CR2 (8M), DNG (18M) TIF (up to 100M)
    Installed LR1.4, LR3b2 uninstalled and catalogue deleted, LR3 installed over LR1.4, importing catalogue. I optimised and backed up my catalogue immediately after installation.
    Cache 5G on Drive K
    I have no problem with RAM consumption.  My RAM rest usage is about 35% which rises to 50% when LR is opened.  Opening a file to edit increases this to 54% which then falls back when the file is closed.
    Edits increase my CPU usage, during the edit, in both cores to almost 100% falling back immediately afterwards.
    Some particular points:
    1. Found LR3 slow to open collections/folders and slow to develop - discovered this was due primarily to creating previews.
    2. Rendered all previews - opens collections quickly
    3. Develop functions work fine with the exception of the lens correction module which remains slow compared with LR1.4.
    3.1  Perspective adjustment was particularly slow, apparently due to LR background activities (I can't see what these are).  After rendering previews, these background activities were greatly reduced and perspective adjustment fine - if I wait for background activity to subside, if there is any.
    3.2  Chromatic aberration sliders were dire, after sorting previews they are usable but I have to wait a second or two after each change (DNG 18M).  Does depend on file size, doesn't depend on preceding develop history.

     

    Message was edited by: frank0239 for silly typos

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2010 2:18 AM   in reply to Melissa Gaul

    Have also Performance Problems:

     

    - like most others in dev. Module RAW Rendering

    - Cropping Tool

    - Compare Function when zoom to 100%

    - and more

     

     

    I'm working with:

    - HP Z600 Workstation

    - Intel Xeon 5560

    - 6GB RAM

    - 2 sep. Disks On 1. Program and RAW Cache - On 2. RAW's, DB and Previews

    - Grafic NVidia Quadro FX1500 with dual DVI to 30" TFT

     

     

    Hope the Problem will soon be located. Yesterday when I worked 100 Pics I had double Time then in LR 2.7 before.

     

    Thanks and Greetings from rainy Switzerland

    Markus

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2010 2:22 AM   in reply to laurencec

    It seem like typical example of marketing trick. On Adobe website we can read:

    "Accelerated performance! NEW

    Get your digital photography tasks done fast and have more time to shoot and promote your work. Already quick performance has been dramatically accelerated in Lightroom 3, saving you time from first look to final image."

     

    But the truth is opposite. New Lightroom 3 is aproximatly twice slower than older version. To be honest I must say the new output image quality is much better and the speed is possibly caused by this complicated processing. But it can't explain slowiness of scrolling in grid view, switching betwwen pictures in develop module or switching between modules... I don't know any program (including 3D CAD/CAM, FEM analysis, Photoshop atc.) with slow user interface like this.

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 30 Previous Next
Actions

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