• Global community
    • Language:
      • Deutsch
      • English
      • Español
      • Français
      • Português
  • 日本語コミュニティ
    Dedicated community for Japanese speakers
  • 한국 커뮤니티
    Dedicated community for Korean speakers
Exit
Locked
0

Lightroom 3.3 Performance Feedback

Adobe Employee ,
Dec 02, 2010 Dec 02, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Please use this discussion topic for your feedback on Lightroom 3.3 RC and the final Lightroom 3.3 release when it becomes available.  The Lightroom team has tried very hard to extract useful feedback from the following discussion topic but due to the length and amount of chatter we need to start a new, more focused thread.  Please post specifics about your experience and be sure to include information about your hardware configuration.

Regards,

Tom Hogarty

Lightroom Product Manager

Views

108.0K

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
replies 640 Replies 640
Guide ,
Dec 02, 2010 Dec 02, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Area of interest:  The "blur" tool (local adjustments, sharpness from -51 to -100).

Specific issue:  It's slow - really slow.  I'm not so worried that it's application is slow as this is a processor-intensive operation by nature, but I am worried that it slows down the application of all the other adjustments.  I find it especially odd that it slows down cropping, which shouldn't be forcing a re-calculation of the pixels, at the very least until closing the crop tool.  Opening, changing aspect ratio, flipping or closing the crop tool is very slow.  Curiously, draging around the borders once the tool is active and in the desired ratio is not slow.

Noticed on:  Windows XP, Windows 7 64 bit, all versions of Lightroom 3 including 3.3 RC.

Notes:  It's easiest to see if you apply several applications of the tool, such as several gradients or several brush adjustments.  I'm not sure if overlapping adjustments make it worse or not as it's so slow it's difficult for me to test.

Workarounds:  None that I can find short of not using the tool.  Even shutting off the local adjustment panel doesn't bring things back up to normal speed.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jan 10, 2011 Jan 10, 2011

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I have recently upgraded from LR2.x to LR3.3. When opening an image edited in LR3.3 in CS4 (with lightroom editing) using photo/edit in photoshop the resultant image on screen is a very poor worse than the original nikon raw image. So this has dramatically affected my ability to print as the colours I get are incorrect once I do the work in CS4 to correct the poor quality image from LR3.3. This has only just started and the process I employed without problems with LR2.x and the same CS4 software produced prints (printing from CS4) that were good.

I have separately listed this problem on this forum but no-one has provided a solution or suggested solution.

I also lost many of the enhancement files resident in Lightroom when I upgraded from LR2 to LR3. Maybe they are still there maybe no but so far no-one has offered a possible solution for that problem either.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Jan 11, 2011 Jan 11, 2011

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Sorry guys for interrupting this very interesting thread

But I think this topic should be handeled in a different thread (not in the performane section).

I think I did not make myself clear in my original post about Spot Removal tool. My point was that I can't simply switch between LR and Bridge (there is no problem with the Spot Removal tool and jpgs) because the "Beschriftung" (I do not know the english wording for this feature therefore I used the term "color encoding", meaning you can use red or green to mark your image) is lost (I have a solution for this now).

I think nebosphere then got me wrong and thought I was talking about color garmuts.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Advisor ,
Jan 11, 2011 Jan 11, 2011

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi,

H.D. wrote:

"Beschriftung" (I do not know the english wording for this feature

Beschriftung means Label (in that case, color label).

MfG

--

Patrick

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Engaged ,
Jan 11, 2011 Jan 11, 2011

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

@ Sharpis: your problem relates, if I'm not mistaken, to an incompatibility between RAW processing in LR 3 and the older version of Adobe Camera Raw included with Photoshop 4. They simply don't match up. Thus, when you open a Raw Image you've processed in LR 3 in Photoshop 4, you get the results you describe. One way around this would be to save (export) the image first from Lightroom as a JPEG, TIFF of PSD file, which would render the adjustments you made in Lightroom; this should prevent the image corruption you are seeing now when you subsequently open the images in Photoshop CS4. Any Lightroom image you open in Photoshop is going to be rendered in any case when you save it. For Raw compatibility you will need to upgrade to Photoshop CS5, in which development of the ACR plug-in runs in parallel with Lightroom 3. This is done, at least in part, to prevent the kind of compatibility problems you are having.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jan 12, 2011 Jan 12, 2011

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi thewhitedog

I did not know that LR3 was only for CS5 or the associated ACR (mine I think is

5.7). It was offered automatically as an upgrade to what I had previously. So

what you say sounds imminently sensible and I will give it a try.

I do hope though that Adobe will be giving a fix (an ACR 5.7 upgrade) so that I

am able to use LR3.3 with CS4 (I didn't have the problem with earlier versions

of LR3). I do not use CS4 enough to warrant a new outlay fro CS5 and then CS6

sometime in the future.

Again thanks for your suggestion.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Advisor ,
Jan 12, 2011 Jan 12, 2011

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi,

May I kindly remind the participating members that this thread is titled "Lightroom 3.3 Performance Feedback" ?

--

Patrick

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Jan 13, 2011 Jan 13, 2011

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Samoreen wrote:

May I kindly remind the participating members that this thread is titled "Lightroom 3.3 Performance Feedback" ?

+1 vote -

Where "performance" means: the speed of things, especially things that are abnormally slow...

Not: "anything could be considered "performance" if you use your imagination..."

R

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Jan 13, 2011 Jan 13, 2011

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

You're like a turkey voting for Xmas. Step back 1 page and I counted 3 posts by your good self that have SFA to do with performance.

areohbee wrote:

Samoreen wrote:

May I kindly remind the participating members that this thread is titled "Lightroom 3.3 Performance Feedback" ?

+1 vote -

Where "performance" means: the speed of things, especially things that are abnormally slow...

Not: "anything could be considered "performance" if you use your imagination..."

R

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Jan 13, 2011 Jan 13, 2011

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Ian,

I'm getting inundated with posts on this thread that have nothing to do with Performance Feedback.

Suggesting we try and stay on topic a little more (and start new threads for new topics) does not seem like a bad idea to me, even if I too have slipped up on occasion - like this one, for example.

PS - I started zero off-topic sub-conversations in this thread.

PPS - Some people truly dont understand what Tom meant by "Performance" - I apologize if my explanation came off a bit smart...

Rob

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Engaged ,
Jan 12, 2011 Jan 12, 2011

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

@ Sharpis: I wouldn't hold my breath for an ACR upgrade for Photoshop CS4. They didn't do it for earlier versions. If you don't use Photoshop that often, then saving your image from Lightroom first to another file format would seem to be an adequate workaround. The major advantage in Lightroom 3 of opening in Photoshop is that, when you finish your Photoshop edits and save the file, it will automatically be added to the Lightroom catalog. This makes the Lightroom to Photoshop workflow smother - almost seamless - and makes keeping track of versions of your files much easier. Indeed, it's now simpler to use Lightroom for managing files and doing Raw edits in conjunction with Photoshop than using Bridge/Camera Raw/Photoshop. In my opinion, using Bridge and Camera Raw is far more tedious than using Lightroom, with it's integrated interface.

2

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jan 13, 2011 Jan 13, 2011

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

thewhitedog, I do not know how to save in Lightroom as it has never been

necessary. I edit and then open in CS4 to finish off with features there like

free transforms, a better clone tool and other tools. I did open an LR3.3 raw

file in Nik Efex Pro 3 and saved it (with no Nik Efex changes) as a TIFF and

opening that up in CS4 had the same result no embedded editing. Of course I can

make it work this way but as you say I do not like Bridge/cameraraw/photoshop

for the reasons you state.

So I am now in a position where I do not know how to proceed.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Jan 13, 2011 Jan 13, 2011

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Sharpis wrote:

thewhitedog, I do not know how to save in Lightroom

Using the Export dialog.

Lightroom has a pretty good Help facility - I recommend spending some time in there, then you'll find how to export your file as (say) a TIFF, and how to send it to your version of Photoshop.

It's not hard.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Engaged ,
Jan 13, 2011 Jan 13, 2011

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

@ Sharpis: you save files in Lightroom by using the Export dialog. Take some time to look it over - there are a lot of options to consider. The most important items are Export To - I generally save my file versions in the same folder they were opened from to make them easy to track, and File Settings - for a non-lossy image choose TIFF or PSD. Also important is File Naming - if you change the file format you don't necessarily have to change the name, as it will have a different file type suffix in any case. You can open the Export dialog from the File menu or with the contextual menu. Once you save a file as a TIFF or PSD, you can then open it in Photoshop CS4 without difficulty, bypassing the Adobe Camera Raw plug-in and avoiding the compatibility problems you were having. There is an option at the bottom of the Export dialog, Post Processing; in the After Export pull-down menu you can choose to open your file immediately in Photoshop.

Because Lightroom is getting more complex, it's not a bad idea to pick up a reference book you can consult when you have questions. I've found Scott Kelby's The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 Book For Digital Photographers to be quite useful. It doesn't answer every question, of course, which is why I'm active on this forum.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jan 13, 2011 Jan 13, 2011

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

thewhitdog

Again thanks. Yes I have saved by exporting before and the image still opens in

CS4 without the edits in LR3.3. As it is late here (Malaysia) I will look it

over tomorrow. I do have some Scott Kelby books but on Photoshop and Micheal

Evening (I think) on CS2 and 4.

Once again Thanks.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Engaged ,
Jan 13, 2011 Jan 13, 2011

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

@ Sharpis: If you export your files from Lightroom in JPEG, TIFF or PSD format the edits you made are not lost, they are "rendered", that is, applied to the exported file. If you want to retain the ability to adjust the Raw settings when you open a file in Photoshop, you will need to use the Edit In menu and choose Open as Smart Object in Photoshop. However, this will probably require Photoshop CS 5 to work reliably. There's no way around the fact that if you want to get the most out of a Lightroom/Photoshop workflow you will need to use compatible versions of both applications. For this you will need either to revert to Lightroom 2.x in order to use Photoshop CS4 or get Photoshop CS5 to use with Lightroom 3. Any workaround, however useful, will involve some loss of functionality.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Engaged ,
Jan 13, 2011 Jan 13, 2011

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

My apologies to everyone for going off topic. But when questions are posted here that I have an answer for, I don't feel comfortable ignoring them because they seem off topic. As some people have noted, they posted questions on other threads and got no answers. It seems natural they would move to an active thread to try to get some response. It's no one's fault, it's just a weakness in any system like this that people who know the answers are not necessarily scanning all the threads to see where they can help. Who has that kind of time? We don't, after all, get paid for our contributions; it's good will alone that sustains an effort like this. Shutting people out does not promote good will.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Dec 02, 2010 Dec 02, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Tom,

Aside from trying to analyze everyone's individual issues and system configurations, can we agree that many of us are using the Same systems with Lightroom3.x as we were using with 2.x and are now having varyied performance issues?

I trust you are looking at coding changes that have been made since 2.x as well as additional features added to 3.x ? That would seem a likely starting point.

Regards,

Karl

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Guide ,
Dec 02, 2010 Dec 02, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

appcoop1 wrote:

Tom,

Aside from trying to analyze everyone's individual issues and system configurations, can we agree that many of us are using the Same systems with Lightroom3.x as we were using with 2.x and are now having varyied performance issues?

I trust you are looking at coding changes that have been made since 2.x as well as additional features added to 3.x ? That would seem a likely starting point.

The basic demosaicing algorithms have been changed in LR3 from prior versions.  There are two basic results of this change - superior image quality and slower conversions of raw data.  While other portions of the application are faster than in LR2, image processing (and therefore preview generation, time for the "loading" indicator to go away, and exporting) are slower.  The only real way around this is more powerful hardware, specifically CPU and memory speed.  One thing the LR team has done to help alleviate this problem somewhat for some people is to expand the maximum size of the Camera Raw cache.  If you have the space available, using a large cache can help with some of these issues, especially in cases where all the images you are working on fit inside the cache and the cache has been populated by, for example, rendering previews.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Guest
Dec 02, 2010 Dec 02, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Lee Jay wrote:

The basic demosaicing algorithms have been changed in LR3 from prior versions.  There are two basic results of this change - superior image quality and slower conversions of raw data.  While other portions of the application are faster than in LR2, image processing (and therefore preview generation, time for the "loading" indicator to go away, and exporting) are slower.  The only real way around this is more powerful hardware, specifically CPU and memory speed.  One thing the LR team has done to help alleviate this problem somewhat for some people is to expand the maximum size of the Camera Raw cache.  If you have the space available, using a large cache can help with some of these issues, especially in cases where all the images you are working on fit inside the cache and the cache has been populated by, for example, rendering previews.

Lee:

I hope this hasn't been answered elsewhere already - are you talking about the setting for Camera Raw Cache on the File handling tab of Preferences?

How large do you recommend setting this (I have PLENTY of HD space available.) Should I put this on the root drive (C:) or on a separate partition of the same HD?

I have some externals, but I don't think they are fast enough for cache - they are prob only 5400RPM.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Guide ,
Dec 02, 2010 Dec 02, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

LydellPhoto wrote:

Lee:

I hope this hasn't been answered elsewhere already - are you talking about the setting for Camera Raw Cache on the File handling tab of Preferences?

How large do you recommend setting this (I have PLENTY of HD space available.) Should I put this on the root drive (C:) or on a separate partition of the same HD?

I have some externals, but I don't think they are fast enough for cache - they are prob only 5400RPM.

Yes.  Put it on an internal drive that's separate from the drives where you store your images.  Set it big enough to store as many raw files as you might normally work on at a time.  I think the max is not 200GB.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Guest
Dec 02, 2010 Dec 02, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Smart Collections are very slow in 3.2/3.3RC, as per this thread:  http://forums.adobe.com/thread/757607?tstart=0

All other operations for me are reasonably/acceptably fast. (Though I do any heavy re-touching/brushing in PS)

Surely SC's only need a query on the DBs (Catalogue and thumbnails for display), and would not need to access the actual images at all. Given that, I don't know why they take minutes to populate.  (I have quite a few complex, multi-level ones).

Also....  It would be nice to be able to refresh all thumbnails (eg Ctrl-A, 'refresh thumbs') without having to create previews for all images.  Paging down and watching numbnails update is annoying.

BTW - Quality improvement of LR v3 for my old high ISO 30D RAWs is fantastic!

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Contributor ,
Dec 02, 2010 Dec 02, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Lee Jay wrote:

One thing the LR team has done to help alleviate this problem somewhat for some people is to expand the maximum size of the Camera Raw cache.

Unfortunately, the ACR cache has very limited utility. It only caches demosaiced versions of the originals. None of the real image adjustments are cached. The latter (spot removal, local adjustments, etc) take up the bulk of the processing time. Hence the cache helps a little bit but it isn't the path to salvation when one experiences LR turning into molasses.

One thing that I find most surprising in LR 3.2. is that switching between images in the Develop module often causes an old preview to be briefly shown before the adjusted image is displayed. A new preview cache is only calculated if one changes to the Library module and steps through all respective images. Go back to the Develop module and now updated previews are available. That should not be necessary.

I don't know whether the issue still exists in 3.3 RC because on Windows it would replace my 3.2 and the latter has a working TAT tool. Does anyone know how 3.3 RC could be released with a broken TAT tool? It isn't a bug that is hard to spot, is it?

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Guest
Dec 03, 2010 Dec 03, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

TK2142 wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

One thing the LR team has done to help alleviate this problem somewhat for some people is to expand the maximum size of the Camera Raw cache.

Unfortunately, the ACR cache has very limited utility. It only caches demosaiced versions of the originals. None of the real image adjustments are cached. The latter (spot removal, local adjustments, etc) take up the bulk of the processing time. Hence the cache helps a little bit but it isn't the path to salvation when one experiences LR turning into molasses.

One thing that I find most surprising in LR 3.2. is that switching between images in the Develop module often causes an old preview to be briefly shown before the adjusted image is displayed. A new preview cache is only calculated if one changes to the Library module and steps through all respective images. Go back to the Develop module and now updated previews are available. That should not be necessary.

I don't know whether the issue still exists in 3.3 RC because on Windows it would replace my 3.2 and the latter has a working TAT tool. Does anyone know how 3.3 RC could be released with a broken TAT tool? It isn't a bug that is hard to spot, is it?

As you said: Version 3.3 is a release candidate submitted to the public for testing. It does not mean that it is ready for production, although close to it. If a broken TAT tool is a reason to hold back a release candidate is debatable, but I would not call the importance of it so high. The official production release is still 3.2 .

I thought that this thread is not for ranting, but purely for reporting and discussing solutions of performance issues including the exact specifics (as far as a user can tell it) under which the issue occurs and what the extent (timings) of the issue is.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines