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...

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.

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.

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

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!!

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

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...

   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.

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.

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...

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

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.

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

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

Yes, along with Matt Kloskowsky, Jared Platt also commented during his CreativeLive seminar.

I have gone so far as to uninstall LR. I am building a new computer today and LR will not even get installed there. As a pro I cannot use amature software and that is what LR 4 is right now. FYI I am using Bridge with ACR - It look a bit of getting used to but I am just as fast now as when using other ver of LR. I use actions and scripts in to do some post and so my workflow is actually faster over all. The only thing I miss from LR is the cataloging and there are many good options out there. a free one that I like and will soon support off line images (thumbs and ranking...) Daminion. I hope you find a solution that works for you!!!

What's even more disconcerting is that Adobe has its head stuck in the sand (or some other dark orifice) and refuses to say anthing about the issue, even in on the Lightroom blog.

I'm kinda surprised that Scott Kelby and company hasn't said anything publically about this.

Dave,

davepinminn wrote:

 

 

I know some of the LR development team are photographers and use Lightroom.  I too am surprised that they were willing to turn this loose given the problems, but they may also be in the 50% plus (I suspect at least half the users) are NOT having problems. 

I can offer a little insight here Dave, at the risk of invoking some wrath. But, I have four systems running LR 4.1:

System: 5 Year-old HP Desktop, Quad, 6 GB, No SSD, Win 7 64

System: New Desktop, 12 core, 12 GB , No SSD, Win 7 64

System: MB, Quad Core, 4 GB, No SSD, OSX10.6.8

System MB, Quad Core, 4GB no SSD, Win 7 64 via Bootcamp

In addition, I have had my hands personally on 7 other systems since 4.1 was released that are running 4.1,  Combining my 4 and 7 more that don't belong to me, I can tell you that in 11 systems, I have yet to encounter more than a nominal slowdown.  Considering my 4 as non-random because I built and maintaint them and just taking the 7 systems, if the problem were 50% or near it the odds would be 1/128 or there-abouts that I would have 7 satisfactory machines in my sample.

There will probably be a backlash of users saying, 'we don't (or are glad) care if your system works-ours doesn't) I am not saying there is not a problem. I am saying it is probably much smaller than it is made out to be. Forums gather people with issues. With one exception, no one logs in to a U-U forum to say "Wow, Lightroom's great!"

There was a concerted effort by an individual at the official forum:  http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/do_not_upgrade_t o_lr4_until_speed_issues_are_resolved  This poster published this link on many forums trying to garner support to demand Adobe act. In more than a month, in spite of a heavy campaign, much discussion and gnashing of teeth, only 26 people could be bothered to click a + 1 button.  Thats about a third of the amount of people wanting Linux support on the same forum. As unscientific as this is, it tells me that the actual number of systems with problems is probably small as a percentage, vocal as an aggregate but still is having real quantifialbe problems-problems which need addressing.

The first post of the link I've provided above contains (as the Official Response) an actual "official response".

Whenever someone posts an operation and an elapsed time, I try to duplicate it on my closest system. I just am not seeing the times being reported by those having issues. I would love to get my hands on one of these machines so I could test various theories.

If you are who I think you are, you are not very far away from me. Are you experiencing the massive slowdowns, Dave? I would love a look at your machine if you are.

Hi Rikk,

Yup, it's me!

I suspect, like you, MANY users aren't having performance problems.  I presume a pretty high percentage.  But, I also suspect that every user that puts an entry in a topic in any forum or facebook or wherever indicating a performance problem is represenative of many users that aren't reporting the problem.  I don't know if they represent dozens or hundreds...

I have to confess, I've been over to Peter's topic on the feedback site, and didn't realize there even WAS a "+1".  I read the topic, and even replied, but in my ignorance I never saw the button to add me to the people seeing issues.  I'm not sure how many other people with problems are even aware of the topic in the other forum, and of those that are aware, how many are like me and didn't realize the goal was to get numbers of people with problems.  Your note will hopefully make more us aware and get more people to hit the "+1".  At the same time, I presume Adobe is capable of hitting the many topics in a variety of forums and viewing the entries from people with problems

As far as "massive" slowdowns...  I've put notes in a couple topics relating some numbers.  I'd have to go rummage around to find them, but for example, the amount of time for Develop to open and display an image (up to 30 seconds), or the amount of time for a previously rendered 1:1 preview to display (typically 4+ seconds).  My favorite was the amount of time for Book to do the initial open (almost a MINUTE, but I don't use Book so I don't know what it's doing).  Either prior to my entries, or after them, other people also indicated times for operations similar to the above in the same range. 

In general, I'd say the whole of 4.1 is a lot more sluggish then 3.6 was, and some areas are significantly slower.  There are specific problem areas other people are hitting that I'm not, but I suspect it's mostly because I don't make heavy use of heal/clone or adjustment brushes in LR.

Fortunately, I have a viable alternative for my initial post processing - I use Bridge/ACR as it performs better.  And once done there, I put the .dng files into LR, and do basic adjustment there (as needed) prior to going into Photoshop to do the real work.  So, I'm aware that it's sluggish but it doesn't shut me down as it apparently does for some people that rely on LR heavily.  So, my desktop is usable, marginally compared to 3.6.  My laptop, an i5-720 with 8GB of memory is appallingly slow, but I don't do image processing in LR there any more with LR4.  I haven't even tried measuring anything there.

I wish the LR User group hadn't canceled again.  It might have been useful to see how the attendees would respond to a solicitation from the developers in attendance about performance issues.  Although, I don't have much confidence that the vast majority of that group would admit to having problems.