Do you have lots of images already placed on the map when this slowdown happens? If so, how many?
Or are there zero images on the map when you start and then see this slowdown.
The folder (and sub folders) I am trying to add GPS locations to contains ~ 11,100 images, mostly NEF's I have placed about half of the images (~5,000?). It makes no difference if it's the first image on a screen section of the map or a crowded screen section of the map. Almost all of the images are in the UK.
I have been placing these images over the last three weeks or so, since I updated to Lightroom CC-2015 instead of the cloud based Lr5. I only noticed the slowdown yesterday. Until then it has been fine, not supersonic but OK.
I will also mention I have optimised the database.
Well, there's your problem. With 5,000 images on the map, I am not surprised you are experiencing slowdowns.
What happens if you put say 100 photos you are going to add GPS locations to into an empty Quick Collection, then click on Quick Collection, then go to the map module, add the locations to these 100 photos, and see if the slowdown happens.
Never used Quick Collection? I use Lr for cataloguing, key-wording and preliminary processing, never considered making collections?
I am expecting to locate up to at least 20,000 images with GPS eventually once I have organised all my images. I have never experienced slowdowns with Lr, I have used it for years, since the very early versions. Is there no way of allocating more resources like more RAM, or a larger cach?
If I reduce the number of images I have in the 'film strip' therefore removing the already 'placed' images might that help? I am placing them from left to right, oldest first. I could deselect the earlier folders but they are helping me place the later images because I had to do a lot of research using google earth, street view to place some of the earlier images accurately, so I am reluctant to de-select any of the current batch of 11,100 images unless I have to.
I will experiment with a Quick Collection, may be tomorrow now... I have added another 100 or so images to the map and it's down to 45 seconds per placement., that's SLOW!
BTW, many thanks for your interest and help.
If I reduce the number of images I have in the 'film strip' therefore removing the already 'placed' images might that help?
That's exactly what I was suggesting.
I am reluctant to de-select any of the current batch of 11,100 images unless I have to.
I am not suggesting you do this regularly, right now. I am suggesting you try this quick collection of 100 images with no images on the map (as I explained above) ONCE, one time, a single time, as a diagnostic test to see if the problem goes away, and then report back.
I have never experienced slowdowns with Lr, I have used it for years, since the very early versions. Is there no way of allocating more resources like more RAM, or a larger cach?
Placing images on a map and then drawing the map requires CPU speed, not RAM or cache. So you would need a faster CPU.
OK, thanks for your clarification, I think we are both on the same page!
I have spent the morning with this. I have verified my on-boad disks (there is more than 50% vacant space on all my active drives), repaired my permissions and assured myself the OS isn't at fault. (Note that in my original post I mentioned a minor update of the OS actually fixed this, without de-selecting any of the active images.) I have 8 Gb RAM.
Having done that, I did as you asked, I selected a folder which had no GPS data images and from that folder I selected a group of 136 images I made a Quick Collection of them, I selected the Quick Collection from the collections panel, I then selected all 136 images and placed them on the map, they took 13 seconds to process. I then re selected the same folder which previously had no GPS data, deleted the quick collection GPS pointer and the Quick Collection, I test placed further single images, they took less than 3 seconds to process.
I have returned to the 11,100 images and initially it's still snappy enough at about 3 seconds per single image.
At this stage I am unsure what has caused the improvement in performance but I feel you may well have pointed me in the right direction.
What doesn't add up, you say the only factor is CPU performance... in that case, since CPU performance is constant, why does the speed decay gradually as I place more images, surely once an image is placed, the CPU should have no further dealings the the placed images, only placing and calculating the GPS data for the next newly placed images? It seems to me there is an un-closed process going on which needs interrupting. Perhaps using your Quick Collection method does that? If so then It seems to me there is a glitch in the software? At the moment according to Activity Monitor the four core CPU doesn't appear over stretched placing the images.
Surely many users will have much larger collections of images containing GPS data than mine? You seemed surprised I had 5,000 images with GPS data? Given all the other stuff going on in Lr, the GPS aspect must be relatively minor, after all, it's only a 10 digit or so number appended to the image EXIF. While I can see it may take some CPU processing to append that data, once appended it's only for reference.
Anyway, many thanks for your help, I will plod on and see where this leads, I will report back as I progress and if the issues continue.
Just to clarify, you don't need BOTH a folder with no GPS data images and then create a quick collection of those same images. One or the other will work. As long as there are no images on the map when you start the process.
What doesn't add up, you say the only factor is CPU performance... in that case, since CPU performance is constant, why does the speed decay gradually as I place more images, surely once an image is placed, the CPU should have no further dealings the the placed images, only placing and calculating the GPS data for the next newly placed images?
If the image is in the area of other images, there is an algorithm that decides whether or not to add the image to an existing point on the map, or create a new point, or whatever. So, yes, it should take longer with more and more images on the map.
Surely many users will have much larger collections of images containing GPS data than mine? You seemed surprised I had 5,000 images with GPS data?
I have about 20,000 images with GPS data. I am not surprised at all that you have 5,000. None of my comments relate to that, none of my comments indicate surprise at all. My comment is that yourworkflow of having 5000 images on the map (instead of zero on the map) and then try to enter more images might be slowing down the adding of new images.
What I do is I add the GPS co-ordinates outside of Lightroom, before I import the photos, using a program called GeoSetter. So I never see a lag in Lightroom when I add GPS to photos, because I don't use Lightroom for that task. When I try to display the entire map of 20,000 images, it will take about 20 seconds before Lightroom finishes drawing the map, but I rarely need a map of the entirety of my 20,000 images, usually when I want a map I select photos in a smaller geographic area, such as New York State, isolate those via Quick Collection or Filter or Smart Collection, and then draw the map, and it's pretty darn fast.
It seems Adobe have come to the rescue...
Yesterday I received notification of an update to Lr CC15 and Ps CC15. I installed both updates and the problem is almost solved.
Placing a single image on the map seems slightly slower, I am working with the 11,100 images. However placing a larger batch say 50 to 200 images at once is much quicker and if it does start to slow down a little then restarting the computer refreshes the speed, which it didn't before the update. That confirms my suspicions that this was a bug caused by a catch which was not clearing for some reason. In my opinion it isn't completely fixed but at least it's workable now.
I did try an external GPS setting software but I found it desperately clunky and I didn't want to risk incompatibilities with the Lr software which would have left me worse off. Some images taken with my iPhone are 2 miles out of position!!!
I have just completed adding GPS data to the second and final 5,000 of my general images, which I completed much more quickly, partly as a result of your helpful suggestions and partly due the Adobe's update. So, many thanks for your interest and help.