I have an XEON 2,67GHz, 6GB RAM, Nvidia Quattro FX1700, WD Velociraptor HDD, Single Monitor and LR4 is almost as fast as LR3. No trouble browsing through photos, geotagging photos etc. But it is certainly EATING MOMORY compared to LR3. Starting with 300 MB rising to about 3.5-4GB. The CPU Fan is running a lot - so it's certainly rather ressource hungry. But not slow to use.

I have not installed the beta prior to installing release version of LR4

So it realy seems like LR4 is having some hardware compability issues

Kaur 100 wrote:

 

I run i5@4.5ghz, 8GB ram, W7sp1. Initial impressions with LR4 beta were also general sluggishness in navigating around and when switching between 100% pictures to build the 1:1 previews. For me it improved when I deleted the folder "Previews.lrdata" (but kept the catalogue file!) and had LR4 rebuild the previews/100% views from scratch not relying on old database import from LR3.5 (appx 25000 pics). Also, the thing which I noticed is that in Library mode initially zooming into 100% view to build full view takes a bit more time than in Develop mode. But as it is currently only about 1.5 seconds for LR to build full 100% view, then it is not too bad compared with LR3.5 (roughly 1 sec). Sliders move around very smoothly and adjustments appear instantly as well.

 

 

This thread is virtually identical to threads about the LR1-LR2 and LR2-LR3 upgrades. LR3 was unuseable for me until I deleted all of my previews and recreated the standard previews for my entire catalog- a lengthy process on the system I was using at the time.

I just wanted to include my experience of LR4 in this forum.

I too have upgraded from LR3.6 and initially I came to this forum after experiencing performance issues that would have, in my opinion, made LR4 unusable.

I removed LR4 Beta  - as a matter of good practice - before loading the release version of LR4. I installed LR4 alongside LR3.6 (i.e did not remove 3.6 before 4).

I opened LR4 and pointed it at my "old" LR3.6 Catalogue and was promted to convert the catalogue for use in LR4.

I ran through the automated process and thought nothing of it. I converted all my photos to PV2012

Note: LR4 created a COPY op my LR3.6 CAT that sat alongside the old one.

400 images in my catalogue, some tiff, some NEF, some JPEG, some DNG!

I then noticed the performance issues, especially with flicking between images in the film strip ( ~3 second delay between redraw). I also noticed this with WB, Exposure and a number of other sliders lagging typically 1-2 seconds behind.

Note: I did not notice slow performance or other performance issues within the Beta (created a fresh catalogue anyway)

# My Resolution:

- Removed 3.6CAT (backed up to another folder of course)

- Renamed the LR4 CAT and Deleted .irdata folder and previews folder.

- Loaded LR4 and pointed it to the catalogue, waited for LR to create the default folders. (1-2 minutes, it did not take long)

- Rendered all previews in catalogue:  library>render previews and render 1:1 previews

- Ran optimize catalogue (as a peace of mind option)

LR4 not runs as well as 3.6, which, is all I could ask for.

If anything is not clear of you want to know more if i left anything out, let me know.

For what it is worth I have included my PC spec:
AMD Phenom, 3.7Ghz, 4GB RAM, ATI4850, WD Black 640GB.

LR4 is, IMO, a little more RAM hungry than 3.x

Message was edited by: Screenynamettr That should say LR4 NOW runs as well as 3.6

I have during today tried some similar things as per Screenynamettr.

Main thing was change the way I got my LR3.6 catalogue into LR4. This time I first optimised the catalog in LR3.6 and then directly opened that catalog in LR4 (NB open not import-from-another-catalog which was how I had done it before); LR4 prompts/warns that it will need to update the catalog and regenerate the previews. I let it do so, and actually forced it to re-update at a prompt as it warns it has already updated the LR3.6 catalog (as part of the earlier import-as-catalog process).

What I then get is a different behaviour to when I imported-from-catalog. Firstly the LR4 update/open process did not take anywhere as near as long as the import-as-catalog process (which took several hours, this took a few mins only). Now when I go into folders in the opened LR3.6 catalog I can see LR4 is regenerating the previews (whereas with the import-as-catalog they were already there).

Now for the important bit, having done it this way, LR4 is much faster at editing those original LR3.6 images that it was with an import-as-catalog (NB all along I am driving two monitors with the second one a 2560x1600 in loupe mode).

If I then do the convert one image to DNG it actually slows down.... so I went back and re-did the open LR3.6 step.

Now I am exploring further with deleting the LR4 previews file totally and just seeing what happens.

Also will do some experimentation with my display layouts swapped over in OS X. Then the main display would be the 2560x1600 and the second would be 1920x1200. There's a critical factor maybe in that once a display is over 2048px, then LR uses 1:1 previews for the loupe view on that. My images are also typically 24MP RAW.

Whatever is going on to create my LR4 slowness is clearly related to (maybe it's only 1:1) previews (as 1:1 is what is needed by a second 2560x1600 monitor) and how those are reference/related/generated/updated alongside especially to the structure of an imported 3.6 catalog. Opening rather than importing the LR3.6 catalog seems to be a different process resulting in a different structure (maybe, my deduction) in the LR4 catalog, and on my machine that has definitely resulted in faster LR4 editing performance, but a slower folder "open" inside LR as the previews are dynamically generated rather than pulled from a regenerated cache.

Lightroom 4 is VERY slow for me, but I wish it was "only" that... I also find the way he converts the image to the new version, really horrible.

In the new engine, all my images look greyish.

Here's a sample (crops), first the original (Lightroom 3 "2010" engine), then the new version (Lightroom 4 "2012" engine):

I simply can not accept this detriment in image quality.

Orio

Same issue here with sluggish sliders in LR4. LR3 was and still is much faster.

I'm on a MacPro dual 2.8 quad core w/20GB and it works quite well. 

LR4 is horrible!

Well, on my system it is anyway

It's very slow and unresponsive compared to LR3, fans are running like crazy just for cropping a few images (high CPU heat) and overall conversion from LR3 to 4 is a nightmare.

this happened to a catalog iI used to test LR4 with:

LR3 import, no editing yet, besides lens correction (screenshot/cropped):

and the LR4 'conversion':

The 'auto tone' function isn't as much fun as I thought it would be either...

Auto tone LR3

and the same thing (yes I did reset the image both times!) in LR4:

If this doesn't get fixed soon I will just go back to LR3 and be happy with it.

So the problem of LR4 being slow are the previews?

Well, in my test catalog of 600+ images the filesize of the previews is:

LR3 -> ~8 MB

LR4 -> ~450 MB !!!

Both use the same preview settings (1440 / normal).

I'll remove the LR4 cat and have it rebuild and see what that leads to.

ETA:

After rebuilding the LR4 previews the file is about 75% smaller (113 MB) but still 14 times bigger than the LR3 version.

The catalog itself seems to be twice as big. Is this what's causing the slowness then?

Message was edited by: SnewpersObiwan

LEASE dial it in a bit. Crunch that useless code!!!!!! This thing moves like a turtle right now.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the LR code, not fundamentally/across the board anyway. I have the same system specs as you and LR4 is lightning fast on my catalog of 50k images, even faster than LR3, which is saying a lot  Apparently something is problematic for some people, but it isn't bloated code.

Upgraded today, lightroom does a screen refresh/reload after each edit, its getting to the point where a refund seems like a good option. 2.8 i5 imac, 4g memory, and its like editing in treacle.

I know this was a cheap upgrade, but may have to go back to 3.6, unless this is a passing glitch this 'upgrade' was a complete and embarassing waste of money.

Just gone back into LR3.6, and on balance, I am going to junk LR4, I played with the LR4 beta, didnt get these problems, I like the new sliders and controls in the develop module, but as I dont use the book/video features, the downgrade in basic editing capability is not worth the upgrade(?) price.

Sry Adobe - I having the same Problem and my lightroom 4 iss very very laggy and slow.

If you cant speed up, i dont buy lightroom 4

Photoshop CS5 ist 10 Times Faster on my System as Lightroom 4

THATS REALLY FU.....ED

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

CPU:                            6 Core - AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 3,2Ghz Black Edition
Mainbopard :                 Asus M5A88-M Evo, AM3+, DDR3, SATA3, USB3.0

Grafik :                         HIS Radeon 5770HD 1024MB DDR5 DUAL DVI-I

RAM :                          4x4GB Corsair Vangeance CMZ16GX3M4A PC12800 1600Mhz @ PC10700 -> 1333Mhz
Working OS HDD :        Corsair Force Series 3 120GB SATA3 SSD 600MBIT
Working OS :                Windows 7 Ultimate
Monitor :                       2x Acer 23Inch Wiedscreens with 1680x1020px
Win 7 System Index :    7.5 (CPU 7.5 - RAM 7.5 - Aero 7.5 - Gaming 7.5 - HDD 7.9)

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

Has anyone tried to post a message on the Photoshop 'official' bug report forum?

http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lr4_0_reacts_ext remely_slow?utm_medium=email&utm_source=reply_notification&from_gs fn=true

I can't get it to work with Firefox or Opera.

No wonder they are not escalating this problem. We punters cannot even report it there and this is supposed to be no more than a User to User forum.

Tony

30 or so commenting so far?  Not sure what it takes to get their attention as a bug on another Adobe product I use has 36 "votes" on it and this is Adobe's put -- "we have reproduced the problem, but unfortunately, it does not get high enough priority to address in our current release. We track follow up messages and votes info for each bug".

I have installed LR4 30 day trial on to my Mac mini (quad core server version with 8GB RAM. dual disc - photos on HD, applications on SSD) to try it before deciding whether to pay for the upgrade.

I imported my LR3 catalogue file into a new LR4 catalogue so that it regenerated all of the previews as part of the import.

So far it is running quicker than LR 3.5 (I had not installed 3.6).

Having said that I have not yet tried any major image editing with LR4, only library functions & exporting.

so I subscribed to this thread...boy was that a mistake!  Given the HUGE number of issues with this and the nearly as huge number of fix ideas, why can't Adobe simply offer their 'official' recommendation how to upgrade from a prior version like delete previews, cache, etc.... There doesn't seem to be any one single way some folks are trying to fix this...and some try and succeed, some try and don't..... why oh why can't adobe just offer something up?  Adobe, are you listening??????

wow, this is interesting....when I move from photo to photo in Dev module, all the dev sub modules like tone curve, cam calibration, etc... ALL of this turn on then off       during the scroll....what I can't figure out is what is causing what.... is the slowness causing all these modules to switch on and off or is the switching the cause of such this unacceptable delay btwn each photo..... just wanted to share this.

Thanks Mr. Brett, for the info "Optimize Performance | Lightroom" page contains substantial information, actually my system meets the requirement as described, maybe I has to wait until an LR4 update will be released to tackle with the performance, hopefully Lightroom will prioritize the performance issue  as they did a great job in the enhnacement compared to LR3.

thx for the link piotrh01- nice to know that they dont consider speed important...soooooooo frustrating!!!!

That's why I've been encouraging people to go the official feedback site and post an input.

http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/problems/common