1 2 3 4 Previous Next 294 Replies Latest reply on Nov 4, 2018 12:02 PM by mcilrath Go to original post Branched to a new discussion.
      • 40. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
        brente978 Level 1

        Sorry for the long post!  Feel free to skip to the graphs...  :-)

         

        I appreciate all the comments and feedback from everyone and glad (not the right word) to see that others are also experiencing performance problems as I am.  It sounds like there is still much work for Adobe to do to address the user experience when it comes to performance, but it also sounds like they're trying, so hopefully they will continue to focus more time and resources on this issue.

         

        I still stand by my initial comments that my first experience with Lightroom Classic CC was AWFUL compared to Lightroom CC, when my expectations were that the new app should be a noticeable improvement over the old app.  I saw a level of performance degradation that just surprised the heck out of me, so was really disappointed in the Lightroom app update.

         

        While my subjective experience was negative, I decided to step back yesterday and try to perform some objective "benchmarks" where I repeat a number of steps to try to quantify what I am seeing when I use Lightroom.  I was shocked to find that when I performed these tests, I actually found Lightroom Classic CC to perform better at some tasks than Lightroom CC 2015 - when I saw "shocked," I mean that this was totally contrary to my initial experience that prompted me to start this thread.  That being said, I did experience a huge performance degradation when actually doing a series of steps to emulate a common workflow that I perform, with a degradation by as much as 50% with the new Lightroom Classic CC over Lightroom CC 2015, which I can see would make using Lightroom Classic CC a huge step backwards - but, I digress...

         

        For my test, I tried to emulate my initial experience of converting my existing catalog with Lightroom Classic CC, importing some images, and working with the images. I performed a series of steps with both a brand new empty catalog, and the same steps with my current catalog, using both Lightroom CC 2015 and Lightroom Classic CC.  Each set of steps involves performing the following operations:
        - importing and building previews.  For this test, I used 70 images from a Nikon D500, which has 20mp images, from RAW uncompressed 14-bit files - the actual files shouldn't matter as what is important is the relative performance in each scenario, and your mileage will vary.  For this action, I performed a drag/drop of the image folders into the Library module window.
        - after the import is complete, I selected the first image in the Library module, set the image view to be Fit, and then stepped through the images.  While normally one wouldn't just step quickly from one picture to another, measuring the amount of time to step from one picture to another is problematic as there is too much error related to reaction time, so expanding the test set provides a better measure of performance.  I guess one could take the time and divide it by the number of pictures to get the per-picture time, if one was so inclined.  When moving between images, I moved the next image, then waited until the UI completely finished.
        - I then performed the previous step in the develop module.  In this module, I closed each of the develop tabs as the contents of the open tabs are calculated/drawn/whatever each time the image is displayed, so this affects the performance of displaying an image. I also did not apply any settings changes to the images. When moving between images, I moved the next image, then waited until the UI completely finished - when in the develop module, this seems to be when the "Auto" button in the Tone section is available and not "greyed out."
        - I then performed the previous step again, but this time I opened the Basic, Detail, and Lens Correction tabs (ones that I commonly use when editing), with the rest of the tabs collapsed/closed.  Again, When moving between images, I moved the next image, then waited until the UI completely finished - when in the develop module, this seems to be when the "Auto" button in the Tone section is available and not "greyed out."
        - Since I had seen comments from users that said exporting was supposed to possibly be faster in the new Lightroom Classic CC, I threw in an export of the set of images to JPG images.  For the export, I stayed in the Develop module, selected the first image, did a Ctrl-A select all, then File->Export.

         

         

        new empty catalog...
        Lightroom CC 2015
        import & build smart previews and 1:1 previews: 3:22
        library nav: ~60 sec
        develop nav: 1:43  all tabs closed
        develop nav: 2:43.  Basic, Detail, Lens Corrections open.  rest collapsed
        export to JPG: 60 sec

         

        LR Classic CC:
        import & build smart previews and 1:1 previews: 1:47
        library nav: ~40 sec
        develop nav: 1:03  all tabs closed
        develop nav: 1:53.  Basic, Detail, Lens Corrections open.  rest collapsed
        export to jpg:  crashed.  "bad_module_info has stopped working"
        export to jpg: 55 sec

         

        LR CC 2015 vs LR Classic CC - Empty Catalog.JPG

        (All times, lower is better)

         

        existing catalog...
        LR CC 2015:
        import & build smart previews and 1:1 previews: 3:38
        library nav: 50 sec
        develop nav: 1:28 sec  all tabs closed
        develop nav: 2:06   Basic, Detail, Lens Corrections open.  rest collapsed
        export to JPG: 1:01

         

        LR Classic CC:
        import & build smart previews and 1:1 previews: 1:47
        library nav: ~55 sec
        develop nav: 1:05 sec  all tabs closed
        develop nav: 1:58  Basic, Detail, Lens Corrections open.  rest collapsed
        export to jpg:  53 sec

         

        LR CC 2015 vs LR Classic CC - Existing Catalog.JPG

        (All times, lower is better)

         


        Looking at the above measured times, it appears that Lightroom Classic CC IS faster (or should be faster) for tasks such as importing and navigating through images.  Again, that was not my initial impression, so these results surprised me.  These numbers do not directly reflect what I first experienced after installing Lightroom Classic CC, and Lightroom Classic CC did seem to perform better after exiting and restarting the app, so not sure what was up with that.  Also, the performance difference between working with the empty catalog versus my existing catalog was negligible (so that didn't account for my initial awful experience with Lightroom Classic CC).

         

        Ok, given that the above results encouraged me in expecting LR Classic CC should be faster than LR CC 2015, I decided to do real work and actually try processing my set of 70 images and see what happened...

         

        I went ahead and performed some common edit adjustment operations on my images including tweaking these settings:
        - increase exposure
        - increase contrast
        - lower highlights
        - increase shadows
        - lower black level
        - increase clarity
        - increase vibrance
        - increase saturation
        - increase the sharpen mask
        - increase sharpening
        - increase Luminance noise reduction
        - Remove chromatic aberration
        - Enable profile corrections


        I did this to the first image in the develop module, then synced all the settings through the set to apply the changes to all.  I then waited a short time while the settings were made.

         

        I then went back to the first image in the set and performed the above task of stepping through the images displayed in the Develop module...  and Bingo!   Lightroom CC 2015 was more than twice as fast as Lightroom Classic CC!  While the percentage varied from my very first experience with the new update, this was closer to the performance degradation that I initially experienced.

         

        existing catalog...
        LR CC 2015:
        develop nav with settings applied:  3:01  (versus 2:06 with no settings applied)

         

        LR Classic CC:
        develop nav with settings applied:  6:22  (versus 1:58 with no settings applied)

         

        LR CC 2015 vs LR Classic CC - Nav with settings.JPG

        (All times, lower is better)


        I expected the times to be slower with settings applied and the develop tabs open, and this is what the measurements show.  These results show that Lightroom CC 2015 is impacted by edit settings about 50% (versus when they are not applied) when it has to do the extra work with factoring in setting changes, but for some reason Lightroom Classic CC is impacted by roughly 225%!  For a performance-focused release of Lightroom, this is not what I would expect.  If you do the calculations here, when moving between images in the Develop module with settings applied, Lightroom CC 2015 averages roughly 2.59 seconds to move between images, and the new Lightroom Classic CC averages roughly 5.46 seconds (this is before the UI stops updating itself and LR finishes processing the image for display).  I also found some pictures displayed faster than others, and also that the further I moved through my image set in the develop module with Lightroom Classic CC, the longer it seemed to take (so, degradation over time).

         

        Granted, no one normally would step through one photo after another, BUT what this shows is that after editing an image and moving on to the next image, the workflow takes a huge performance hit while the user sits there waiting for Lightroom to finish updating the display before the user can begin the editing process.  While this may be no big deal working on a few pictures, factoring this in for working with a hundred pictures or more means that the user is idle more than the computer is, which should NEVER be the case.

         

        So, this should at least show, objectively, that Adobe has work to be done in the Develop module of Lightroom Classic CC to help improve workflow performance, and can actually represent a huge step backwards from Lightroom CC 2015...

        11 people found this helpful
        • 41. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
          Tim Leviston Level 1

          I'm appalled that they cannot get this together.  I have a brand new PC with 16gb of ram and this version just drags.  I'm really not starting to trust Adobe as this is the 2nd or 3rd time they've said that they have improved performance.  They clearly have not.

          • 42. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
            minko69 Level 1

            Adobe if you don't fix this issue within 2 weeks I am cancelling my subscription. How can you screw up a totally fine product.  "If it ain't broke then don't fix it"  This really pisses me off!

            • 43. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
              egorodet Level 1

              Same problem here. Recently I've upgraded my 5 year old PC from "Ivy Bridge" Intel Core i7 3770K (4 cores HT) to the latest Skylake system with Intel Core i7 7820X (8 cores HT), 16 GB RAM, NVM SSD, ATI Radeon 280. Unfortunately after this HW upgrade Lightroom didn't get any significant performance increase and still was slow in basic operations. So I've been waiting for major release with performance optimizations. When Adobe has release new Lightroom Classic CC 7.0 and promised increased performance, I've started testing it and initially I found some improvements with catalog navigation in Library mode. But after some time of processing photos, navigation in develop and exporting I found that it feels even slower than previous LR version... Test results provided by brente978 prove the develop performance degradation, which is absolutely unacceptable.

               

              I've been looking at using Capture One Pro instead of Lightroom in my photography workflow. In spite of significant differences with LR and lack of some features I've get used to, I must say that it has far more responsive editing UI and much better preview generation and export performance! It seems that now I have to switch from LR to C1 until LR won't be ACTUALLY FIXED and may be if I get used to C1 I will never switch back and won't have this lagging SW experience nomore.

               

              P.S. I'm processing RAW shots from Canon 5D Mark IV and you can find my detailed System Information attached.

              • 44. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                dustins12203369 Level 1

                I agree!!! This is absolutely ridiculous! I have 2000 photos to edit and at this rate it's going to take a year. I press a button and lightroom won't respond for at least 5 seconds. Sometimes it even takes 20-30 seconds. I have a top of the line macbook pro which ran the last light room fine. What a horrible update by adobe. It needs to be fixed asap!

                • 45. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                  vjpasq Level 1

                  I completely agree that THIS IS ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE!  This release is a complete disaster and I am right in the middle of post-processing several impending shoot deliveries!!!! It is taking me four times as long to process a single photo.  I have a powerful MacBook Pro with plenty of computer power, plenty of memory and at this point very little patience.  What was Adobe thinking?  Trying to force us into buying more cloud space maybe and using the cloud version?  I haven't and don't intend to as I like everything on my desktop locally.

                   

                  The smart preview option is a non-starter.  Read the (what I consider a warning) text under the selection box, which warns it will allow increased performance but may display decreased quality while editing..........  Oh boy, what rocket scientist thought that one up.  The reason we are editing is to improve quality, and I can just imagine how many over-worked photos that will result in.

                   

                  The worst part is it is on the weekend and can't even contact support.  What a mess, and we pay for this at that.  UGH!!!!!  Sorry for venting, but as you can tell - I AM SO FRUSTRATED and now days (which at this rate could turn into weeks before long) behind in post-processing!!!!

                   

                  I am up for plan renewal in three weeks and I can tell you if this isn't fixed, I am definitely looking elsewhere, but regret the thought as it took me almost six months to migrate over from Aperture to Lightroom (which until now and without question IMHO was leaps and bounds better), but just when you get comfortable and confident BAM- Adobe comes along and sends you into a state of turmoil!  UGH!

                  • 46. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                    paulp90455456 Level 1

                    Thank you so much for taking such a methodical approach and posting the results. Can you tell me what the resolution of your monitor is? I have read other reports of things working well in 1080 monitors but crawling when used with 4K monitors.

                    • 47. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                      Bosphotography Level 1

                      1080 is my current monitor. I uninstalled and downgraded to Lightroom 6 and things are much better now. Maybe when Adobe fix that problem I will give this Lightroom Classi CC a second try

                       

                      Enviado do Email<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> para Windows 10

                       

                      De: paulp90455456<mailto:forums_noreply@adobe.com>

                      Enviado:domingo, 22 de outubro de 2017 22:33

                      Para: Bruno Oliveira<mailto:desertoo23@outlook.com>

                      Assunto:  Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced

                       

                      Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced

                      created by paulp90455456<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.adobe.com%2Fpeopl e%2Fpaulp90455456&data=02%7C01%7Cdesertoo23%40outlook.com%7Ced524e2397b94e9d54e908d519b617 50%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636443192225498648&sdata=%2FYHSR7eedUvtNsA wnwWFp6qThrdugOx1rw61l%2Fv36mc%3D&reserved=0> in Lightroom Classic CC - View the full discussion<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.adobe.com%2Fmessa ge%2F9908539%239908539&data=02%7C01%7Cdesertoo23%40outlook.com%7Ced524e2397b94e9d54e908d51 9b61750%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636443192225498648&sdata=a3dzQtu%2BgA miJ7FGawiDIqyyIie2D%2B9ux4ICjZxOEnU%3D&reserved=0>

                       

                       

                      Thank you so much for taking such a methodical approach and posting the results. Can you tell me what the resolution of your monitor is? I have read other reports of things working well in 1080 monitors but crawling when used with 4K monitors.

                       

                      If the reply above answers your question, please take a moment to mark this answer as correct by visiting: https://forums.adobe.com/message/9908539#9908539 and clicking ‘Correct’ below the answer

                       

                      Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page:

                       

                      Please note that the Adobe Forums do not accept email attachments. If you want to embed an image in your message please visit the thread in the forum and click the camera icon: https://forums.adobe.com/message/9908539#9908539

                       

                      To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at , click "Following" at the top right, & "Stop Following"

                       

                      Start a new discussion in Lightroom Classic CC by email<mailto:discussions-community-lightroom-lightroomclassiccc@adobe-v8.hosted.jivesoftware.com> or at Adobe Community<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.adobe.com%2Fchoos e-container.jspa%3FcontentType%3D1%26containerType%3D14%26container%3D3316&data=02%7C01%7C desertoo23%40outlook.com%7Ced524e2397b94e9d54e908d519b61750%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636443192225498648&sdata=kSzlgdLlI1O1hHsyMdUwMUSWbsKk3g75UK%2Bt6i5%2BQpA%3D &reserved=0>

                       

                      For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1516624<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.adobe.com%2Fthrea d%2F1516624&data=02%7C01%7Cdesertoo23%40outlook.com%7Ced524e2397b94e9d54e908d519b61750%7C8 4df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636443192225498648&sdata=aMM3V3KPL5KBm2iEaDO7ZnH ptIyVJaqEc24V8OVJicU%3D&reserved=0>.

                       

                      This email was sent by Adobe Community because you are a registered user.

                      You may unsubscribe<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.adobe.com%2Funsub scribe.jspa%3Femail%3Ddesertoo23%2540outlook.com%26token%3D216b479c9676dc832a6e891f7e487e9 b2569853309cd2a94b0cbd6af376e7380&data=02%7C01%7Cdesertoo23%40outlook.com%7Ced524e2397b94e 9d54e908d519b61750%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636443192225498648&sdata=L fN%2BXrdJLO662sTNZt7TXXBfQ63FEcriOL17i4fyALk%3D&reserved=0> instantly from Adobe Community, or adjust email frequency in your email preferences<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.adobe.com%2Fuser- preferences!input.jspa&data=02%7C01%7Cdesertoo23%40outlook.com%7Ced524e2397b94e9d54e908d51 9b61750%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636443192225498648&sdata=FBZJG%2FtMup fcnW2uU%2Fu5sWUGPyHh0nqkVrfb%2FSaGsA4%3D&reserved=0>

                      • 48. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                        99jon Adobe Community Professional & MVP
                        Granted, no one normally would step through one photo after another,

                         

                        In fact that is how I tend to work.

                        Import with “embedded & sidecar” (no import preset & not import & convert to DNG)

                        Cull

                        Place picks into a collection & generate 1:1 previews

                        Go to develop and work through the editing one at a time. This seems zippy to me. I don’t see any loading overlay which suggests there is some pre-caching of the next couple of photos when moving along the film strip in order.

                         

                        N.B. I have not tested this on images with existing adjustments. Thanks for your own testing results brente978

                        • 49. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                          Nico.Ivn Level 1

                          Is realy very slow on devlop module and freeze every 2 minute on Windows 10 pro / I7 / 24 gb ram / ssd samsung evo / nvidia gtx 1060 6gb. In the library module is fast enough.

                          • 50. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                            brente978 Level 1

                            Here is my system configuration:

                             

                            Windows 10

                            i7-5960x CPU - 8 core, 16 threads

                            32GB RAM

                            SSDs for boot drive, application, pictures, cache, catalog, etc.

                            Nvidia GTX-1080 (8GB)

                            display resolution: 3840x2160 (4K)

                             

                            This machine should hum with Lightroom...

                            • 51. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                              woopadydoo Level 1

                              Hi All,

                               

                              I'm another one for the collection of complaints about Classic CC being slower than Lightroom CC 2015. I noticed it right away when importing it fired my cpu up higher than ever before, and took some time to process everything. After speaking with an adobe associate for some length, I decided the update did not offer up enough benefit to continue going through with. They were kind enough to show me how to revert back.

                               

                              After some time with both pieces of software, playing around with things, i can say without a doubt that CC 2015 is still faster on my machine for virtually everything. You know Classic CC has issues when you go to use a brush and after painting in some exposure, you have to wait a solid second to see the effects paint in. Wow!

                               

                              Now admittedly I'm running an older model mac, but it's an i7 @ 2.93ghz, with 16G ram, and a new HD. Oh and did I mention that the previous version of lightroom works perfectly on this machine?!

                               

                              Adobe, please get your act together on this one. A lot of us depend on your software to eek out some form of existence.

                              • 52. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                robertog30888239 Level 1

                                Sorry for my english. I agree with that. We cannot trust Adobe anymore. I think I´ve be waiting for a solution too long and I´ll give C1 one chance. I noticed a big performance drop when I upgraded my monitor from a 1080 one to a 4K.

                                 

                                System configuration: i5@3.3GHZ / 16GB / 480GB samsung SSD / Radeon R7 260x 2GB

                                • 53. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                  dnilp Level 1

                                  I just had them take remote control of my computer & they fix the speed issues. I recommend doing that.

                                  • 54. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                    brente978 Level 1

                                    I have no idea if Adobe reads these forum messages or not, but when I did a search to report bugs in Lightroom, I was pointed to another forum that mabe they read?

                                     

                                    https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family

                                     

                                    So, not sure how this forum and the other forum differs, but did see Adobe respond to posts in the other forum, so I reported the develop module performance degradation that I experienced.

                                     

                                    FYI...

                                    • 55. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                      brente978 Level 1

                                      Hi dnilp - do you happen to know what it is that they had you change?

                                      • 56. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                        alanterra Level 2

                                        Just to answer your implied question, brente978, this forum is supposed to be for communication among users and the other forum (feedback.photoshop.com) is for communication among users and between users and Adobe staff. I only monitor the feedback site, as often as not an issue that I think is based in confusion turns out to an actual problem with the software.

                                        • 57. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                          brente978 Level 1

                                          Thanks alanterra - Adobe made it easy to get to this forum, but not the other...     I had reported a bug in the past on the other forum, but forgot completely about it, so thanks for the confirmation.

                                           

                                          Hate to try to provide constructive criticism if no one that listens has any power to actually change it, so hopefully will see some progress with the feedback site (I did link back to this site and hopefully Adobe will see it).

                                           

                                          As a suggestion to others, check the feedback site and if you are encountering any of the reported issues, by all means mark it "me too" and maybe it will get the attention from the right people...

                                          • 58. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                            dnilp Level 1

                                            ufff man, it was complicated. They changed the "read & write" permits in like 2 or 3 different places, and added users to a couple of places. I did it via their Chat.

                                            • 59. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                              brente978 Level 1

                                              No worries.  Figured there was a magic "work faster" checkbox that was hiding somewhere that I missed... 

                                              • 60. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                                vjpasq Level 1

                                                Wow - what a day and still LIGHTROOM CLASSIC IS THE PITS!!! (and no progress on getting my post processing backlog worked).  I spent nearly 90 mins online in chat with Adobe Support, regarding the severe slowdown and lag in Lightroom Classic I am experiencing (as are so many others).  First the rep told me "we aren't aware of these problems" (when I told him the community support forum is loaded with complaints of the slowdown).  Second, he had me create a new library catalog, saying the problem was that the conversion when it updated was not successful.  At first we tried this with a test catalog and it seemed to fix the lag and slowness.  So, being assured this will be the fix and I would not experience any further problem (and I even demonstrated as we hooked up with remote live desktop takeover), I finished up the chat and ate dinner and sat down to work on my growing backlog.  It started out with great success.  However, VERY QUICKLY (like 8 pictures later) I started noticing some lag developing in the application and in using the brushes (which is where I had the problem originally).  Well as you would expect, it got worse and within 10 mins, I was experiencing 7-10 sec lag in a brush swipe, and that extended to 15 in some instances.  The program kept freezing and the worst part is I started seeing that infamous spinning ball - UGH!!!!!!!  (so here I sit back online trying to get to Adobe to find out if I can revert to LR 6 (in the photography plan) as I NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEM AND ALWAYS HAD SPEED, SPEED, SPEED IN ALL PRIOR LR VERSIONS.  This is absolutely unacceptable.  To make matters worse, I have gone from number 1 in the question to number 2 four times (not sure how that happens), but I am back to number 1 again.  We'll see what happens.  Bad part is I totally rely on LR for my post processing, so I am really in a pickle with my backlog right now. another UGH!!!!!! (would you believe I just went back to number 2 in line again?  I cannot figure how that could happen.  Maybe they count different in Adobeland.  2, 1, 1, 2 or something like that.

                                                2 people found this helpful
                                                • 61. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                                  michaelh99192563 Level 1

                                                  One more person stuck in the massive slowdown camp.

                                                   

                                                  I wish I'd seen this thread before I updated.

                                                  • 62. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                                    skornreich Level 1

                                                    My experience has been somewhat positive so far.

                                                    I have an older XEON 6 Core 3.5ghz 64GB ram Windows 10 Pro setup and I found the following

                                                    Import 161 Sony A9 Raw files building 1:1 previews and Smart Previews it took 5:28 in LR CC Classic and 9:41 with LR CC

                                                    So thats a pretty good improvement IMHO, I also noticed in the Develop Module images loaded much faster especially when I have the enable GPU acceleration turned on.

                                                    • 63. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                                      woutderidder Level 1

                                                      Thanx to everyone testing LR classic performance .. I tried the suggestions you posted .. but If my LR CC 2015 was working quite well, now it has become a nightmare : several seconds of lag between brush strokes or setting change in Develop, LR has become impossible to work with .. OK I have a rather basic machine, but it worked before .. now it doesn't ..

                                                       

                                                      I liked working LR, but do we have to consider alternatives now?

                                                      • 64. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                                        TheLandOfDustin Level 2

                                                        In 2018, no compromise should have to be made. No option to work with lesser quality should have to be set. No user should have to change their way to allow Lightroom to work faster. Adobe has not yet figured out software performance. Whether After Effects or Lightroom, Adobe has many many many years to go before their software performs up to hardware capability. A fully spec'd out PC or Mac should be able to use Lightroom flawlessly. Period.

                                                        • 65. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                                          PLPsweden Level 1

                                                          LR Classic CC is really a crap release! Performance is medieval at best. And that is on a Mac Pro 5.1 with 48 Gb of RAM, SSD, 6 core 3,46 Ghz Xeon, dual Radeon R9 290X! A couple of years ago I did a test between a PowerMac G4 DP 533 Mhz and a Mac Pro 1.1 2x2 Core running a number of tests in Photoshop of common tasks like unsharp mask, gaussian blur etc. The G4 was running first PS release support ting dual processors fully in OS X, and the Mac Pro the then latest PS-release. Even though the Mac Pro had something like 12x hardware advantage, the times were similar. There were 3 releases between them. Adobes software (I have been told by e former employer of theirs) is a huge gunk of obsolete code, and very little seems to get fixed. And much of the the old code gets recycled in ew software, like Lightroom inherited a lot from Photoshop and CameraRAW, so did the new version of Premiere etc. One thing… neither LR or PS utilises more than 2 cores on a machine with many cores. I do a lot of video and software like DaVinci Resolve 14 and iFFMPEG use pretty much all they can grab, unless you set them up to do otherwise. Adobe products you cant even set up to use more than two...

                                                          • 66. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                                            Bosphotography Level 1

                                                            Couldn’t agree more. I had this hugeee disappointment as my previous versio wasn’t the fastest performer but I could get the work done but this latest version was really bad very very slow compared to the already slow version.

                                                            • 67. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                                              bob frost Level 3

                                                              Strange you should find LR Classic only uses 2 cores! My setup (Win10) uses all 6/12 cores up to about 70% at the same time when rendering previews.

                                                               

                                                              Bob Frost

                                                              • 68. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                                                PLPsweden Level 1

                                                                Maybe it's another bug? Previous versions pretty much never used more than 2 cores. The only circumstance I can come up with where LR used more than two, is if I first start at batch of TIFF outputs, and then start a batch of JPEG's. Then LR might use 4 cores.

                                                                • 69. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                                                  PLPsweden Level 1

                                                                  Another test: Same for images, same corrections etc, output to 16bit TIFF, 24MP images on a slower machine with 20Gb or Ram and i3 3225 @ 3,33 Ghz CPU, SSD and Radeon 7970 GHz Ed. Lightroom CC: 64 seconds, Lightroom Classic CC 3 minutes 46 seconds. And then Lightroom CC used 2 cores while Lightroom Classic CC switched back and forth between 1 core and 3,5 cores (85% and 350% CPU usage). lightroom Classic CC uses loooooads of disc-cache by the way! Probably a huge memory-problem that causes this.

                                                                   

                                                                  While setting up this test, I tried switching to Develop-module in both versions, and Classic CC shows a black screen for 3-4 seconds and after running the test I tried painting masks in Classic CC… the beachball all the time.

                                                                  • 70. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                                                    pixellatious Level 1

                                                                    Thank god it's not just me. I have a new AMD based Ryzen 7 1700X system, with 32GB memory, 1TB SSD drives, Nvidia GTX1080Ti, and the performance of LR Classic CC is appalling, it's unusable. I even tried the trick to limit the number of threads to cores+1 in a .lua file, but it only helped a tiny bit. I'm getting huge freezes, screen going black for up to 20s, even taking 10s to switch to new photo in develop module, sliders unresponsive for up to 30s. It's unusable. LR CC 6 was much much faster. I now have to go to trouble of uninstalling to go back to LR CC 6 or just stop using it and move to C1 and DPP. Turning off the graphics acceleration helped a little with screen blacking out, but nothing else. I can't believe how this was pushed out as ready. It's like a pre-pre-alpha.

                                                                     

                                                                    I do have these issues with any other program including PS CC 2018

                                                                    • 71. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                                                      andreamrg Level 1

                                                                      I've the same issues stated before.
                                                                      I've catalogs with 30k+ images and I've noticed LR CC Classic tends to recreate all the standard previews for the new catalog everytime you access a folder.
                                                                      The slowdowns could depends on this process, which is CPU time consuming.
                                                                      Anyway, I've faced a lot of black preview when switching between images or between Libray and Develop module.
                                                                      Plus it happens when using brush for selective modifies and spot removal: it stops responding for 3-4 seconds.
                                                                      Closing LR CC Classic sometimes, after half an hour improve the performance a bit.
                                                                      Anyway is far from anything that can be called fast and efficient.
                                                                      I've a i7 3820 3.6Ghz (quad core), 32GB DDR3, 256GB SSD, Windows 10.
                                                                      All the catalogs and previews are on the SSD, images on a separate hard drive.

                                                                      • 72. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                                                        Green Tea Photography Level 1

                                                                        Dude, I have 12,000 photos to edit and 96,000 to cull.  Believe me I feel ya.  Thank God for Photomechanic for the latter.

                                                                        • 73. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                                                          mrjackson Level 1

                                                                          Upon the advice of a previous poster, I called Adobe and spent quite a bit of time with him. He helped me reinstall LR2015 which probably saved me some time. The changes he made in Classic didn't help, so I am (happily) back in LR 2015. I had made quite a few changes to my catalog over the four or five days while in Classic, so I had to resync a lot of my folders in 2015.

                                                                           

                                                                          I will delete Classic, then install it clean without updating my main catalog.  I can experiment with a dummy catalog before committing to it when they release a speed/bug fix.

                                                                           

                                                                          The tech said I would need to install and use LR Classic to be able to read Nikon D850 raw files. It's on order.

                                                                          • 74. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                                                            UEPSILON. Level 1

                                                                            I am using an iMac with a Intel Core i7 @ 3,4 GHz with 32 GB RAM and a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX 2048 MB. In comparison to Lightroom CC (the old one) is the "new", Lightroom CC Classic, ridiculously slow! What have you done to this piece of software. After working on a single image and about 10 steps, the software starts to think about every step. Please do your homework and update the software! I have installed the "old", one again!

                                                                            Modellname: iMa

                                                                            • 75. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                                                              Grafik-Burkhard Level 1

                                                                              After editing multiple images on my iMac 27 i7, Lightroom Classic CC slows down considerably. Importing images (copies) doesn't happen any faster than with the previous version Lightroom 2015 - Adobe should be ashamed! They had promised speed boosts! Where are they?

                                                                              • 76. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                                                                Photosoul Level 1

                                                                                What I found is that I nearly cannot do anything if I start creating 1:1 previews in the background - LR seems like it hanged, it takes about half a minute to wait for any reaction after clicking anything in LR.

                                                                                • 77. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                                                                  Gerry Pacher Level 1

                                                                                  I'm in the same boat. I work with 100mb raw files and this version is from a performance point of view terrible .... so far.

                                                                                  • 78. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                                                                    mrjackson Level 1

                                                                                    I reverted back to LR 2015 and synced folders to pick up changes I made while using LR Classic. Things are back to normal.

                                                                                     

                                                                                    Tonight, I uninstalled LR Classic, then reinstalled it clean over a LR 2015 catalog that had no images. (I clicked the option to NOT uninstall the earlier version as it installed the new one.)

                                                                                     

                                                                                    After LR Classic installed, I imported 46 Nikon D850, 50 meg+/- files. They imported quickly. I processed a few files, including using the adjustment brush, spot removal tool, and a couple of gradients. The system was spunky enough.

                                                                                     

                                                                                    My main catalog has just over 500,000 files in it. Even though LR 2015 could handle that many, it appears Classic is choking on the big catalog.

                                                                                     

                                                                                    Possibly, this information will help someone. Give Classic a try on a sparse catalog and see if this is an issue on your system.

                                                                                    • 79. Re: Lightroom Classic CC seems slower than previous Lightroom version it replaced
                                                                                      bob frost Level 3

                                                                                      LR Classic now has an option in Performance prefs that allows rendering speed to be doubled. It works! But the side effect is that there are less resources available to do other things at the same time. I avoid trying to do other things while rendering; have a coffee, have lunch, go shopping, render overnight. But if you must do other things, I suggest you turn the Performance improvement OFF. Then you will be back to slower rendering, but have more computer resources left to do other things at the same time.

                                                                                       

                                                                                      Bob frost

                                                                                      1 2 3 4 Previous Next