On my 4.2Ghz 8 core Sandy bridge, its fine - i.e. the sliders are responsive and I have not noticed any real difference betweeen 3 & 4. 4 does seem to make better use of the cores when importing & generating previews, or maybe that's wishful thinking on my part ...
Update to my original post. I have been using LR4 on CR2/Nefs in Lightroom, seems OK after having been 'slow' initially, but export a CR2 file to CS5 rendered by LR4 and editing the resulting TIF in LR4 is once agin slow in responding to the sliders, but then the screen blanks out while it redraws the image after every adjustment which is where it gets to be unusable.
There is no AV running, its an iMac 2.8 i5, 4g memory, Running 10.6, Cache is set to 1G, changes are written to XMP files, Catalogue size is 209.5meg.
Unlike other posts, this is single monitor. Detailf for which are: Chipset is ATI Radeon HD5750, 1g VRAM, Driver 01.00.417
I am not about to install SSDs for cache (or similar) but all help appreciated.
I think that it is pretty definite that having your changes being written to xmp automatically can cause a pretty fair performance hit. You may try turning that off and seeing how much of a difference it may make. You can always run a folder update when you are done working on that set. How big are the TIFs you are working with? I'm not quite sure how xmp writing works with TIFs. Might it be changing the internal metadata?
xmp metadata is written inside the tiff file. It's generally a bad idea to
have automatic xmp turned on, especially while working with non-raw files.
This has always been slow. Better to do a command-S when you really need it.
I'm also on a Mac Pro, dual 2.26 MHz, 8-core, 64-bit, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD drive, four fast 1TB HDDs, no AV. Even with my SSD drive, LR4 is slow on this machine. I have even turned off writing XMP metadata automatically, turned off GPS, and even turned off sharpening and lens correction, with minimal improvement. It's still unacceptably slow. I set my preview database to 35GB, and upped my cache to 5 GB. No help.
Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator and LR3 are all very fast on my machine. Only LR4 is slow. Sorry I can't offer any solution, but I am waiting for one myself. If it doesn't come before my trial period is up, I'll hold off on LR4.
LR 4 is UNUSEABLE (at least by me) in its current form because of the "slider lag" in the develop module. If it does not run properly on my computer it is not a matter of processing horsepower! LR 3 response time was essentially instantaneous with "write changes to XMP files" ON and 2048 previews. My RAW files sizes are 15Mb and larger. Using 2010 processing does not speed things up appreciably.
I have both LR 3 and LR 4 installed. LR 4 seemed OK at first until I started to use the Develop module. Could there be a conflict with LR 3?
Does anyone have just LR 4 installed that is not having theses performance problems?
Machine spec: 2x Xeon 3.33Mhz processors (16 cores), 24 Gb 1333Mhz RAM, 4x 256Gb SSD RAID running 64-bit Win7 OS and programs, ATI Radon 5900 running 2x 30"monitors @ 2560x1600.
Ok, thank you, I was thinking of overclocking to 4.0ghz or finding an SSD big enough for my catalog, but if you're still getting lag with those specs I won't bother.
I've gotten accustomed to the vastly superior camera raw options, so I hate to go back to LR3. Really irritating. Was this intended for computers of the future or what? It's caused a huge bump in the road for my work, thinking I could safely switch everything over to LR4, not to mention being unable to edit in Photoshop without a bunch of trouble. Premature release!
Computers of the future? No, this is the spec stated on the Adobe download site:-
- Intel® Pentium® 4 or AMD Athlon® 64 processor
- Microsoft® Windows Vista® with Service Pack 2 or Windows® 7 with Service Pack 1
- 2GB of RAM
- 1GB of available hard-disk space
- 1024x768 display
- DVD-ROM drive
- Internet connection required for Internet-based services*
this is the spec stated on the Adobe download site
like a "two-person" tent.
2gb ram barely gets the OS running smoothly, much less any software
If I spent money on this believing that, I'd be pissed. I think they left off an additional bullet point: "2 megapixel cell phone camera jpgs only, or performance may vary."
B r e t t wrote:
I guess I over-paraphrased it, but I take "especially important" to mean the impact of multiple monitors can be significant
Thanks, I had been thinking there was something wrong with my system.
I'm happy to hear from a live team member. LR4 is broken!
LR4 runs snappy for the first few actions in the first few minutes. It then rapidly slows until it is extremely slower than even sluggish 3.6. After a few more minutes, it is so slow you cannot use it in production - taking up to 1-3 seconds for a selection to be highlighted after clicking it.
Every subsequent mouse action then takes as long until it is like a computer out of memory. It acts the code instance is thrashing, there is a memory leak, the cache routines go brain dead, or some combination thereof.
It still works but v..e….r…...y s….....l……....o……......w!
Another manifestation is that after selecting some images (say 1-30) and waiting for the selection to complete (it take 0.5-3 seconds), the thumb slide highlighting seems to flash a bit, the info panel's vertical cursor jumps up and down a few times, and then all settles down 0.5-3 seconds later.
Everything else being equal, after 5 minutes of browsing and tagging, v3.6 was extremely faster.
We tried to open the v4 catalog with 3.6 but didn’t expect to work and it didn’t. We were just hoping for a miracle.
We tried only 1 monitor and disabled add-ins. No noticeable change.
We had LR2, 3, and now LR4.
LR2 and LR3 ran a bit slow but it was consistently less than 1/2 sec per mouse action.
LR4 runs so slow we cannot use it.
CPU: I7-930, 2.7-3.2 Ghz
RAM: 8GB (2GB cached, 4GB Used, 2 GB free)
GPU: Radeon HD4670 PCIx
Video: 2 digital HD screens. 24" Dell and 22" Samsung.
DASD: 6TB of SATA/eSATA drives with 20-200 GB free.
DASD usage before starting: 6 drives, 8 TB total. All drives with at least 20 GB free.
DASD Fragmentation: System C = 0-1% and Optimized, Catalog E = 0-4%.
OS: Windows Ultimate 7x64 (fully patched)
Apps (usual full pantry):
All major Adobe apps (Master Collection + others)
Office Pro 2010, Financials, Utilities, Socials, etc.
Far too many to list.
Current LR Version: 4.0
Comparison Version: 3.6
Add In's (only Cole's RC METADATA) DISABLED in Add-In manager.
30 yrs coding (ASM to C and all between), photography (analog+digital), AV imaging services (recording, capturing, scanning, retouching, printing, etc), software authoring, Q/A, etc.
Advanced user of PS (not guru). Moderate user of LR (cataloged/tagged 37,000 image. No advanced developing). Advanced user of Office suites, most, and countless utilities.
Proudest achievement. A 29 year old accounting system using MDBS database written in Basic, C, and Assembler with over 100,000 lines of code is still running and hasn't crashed in 20 years.
Ran installer on purchased 4.0 ESD. Did not install beta. Was using 3.6.
Converted 3.6 catalog to v4. Then deleted 3.6 cat for space not knowing LR4's problem.
37,000 images (mostly 90% JPG, 5% NEFs, 4% PNGs, 1% videos/other).
So far, only browse catalog, 4-6 thumbs wide. Use 2nd monitor for full screen image viewing. We browse images, mark 1 or more than add EXIF/IPTC tags to each image. We usage 100's of tags but assign only 0-20 to each image. Ex, we add tags to define style, location, subjects, etc.
We browse through ALL IMAGES (37k), selecting 1-many then adding the tags.
GUI set as follows:
Source/ Folder Tree on left
Thumbs catalog in center.
Info panel on right.
Operating in Library Mode.
Thumb selection ribbon at bottom (sometimes off).
Hope that helps.
We are really desperate here.
Our cataloging work flow is dead.
I think you beat the nail over the head! Is Adobe listening…
Two monitors might be a reason if it were not for the fact that I have a video card with 2x processors and 2Gb of RAM. I am just saying XOR42 is right about there being absolutely no excuse for releasing this product in such a form! There is a lot of disk thrashing, processor use and other UES going on here.
This is very similar to the problems I am experiencing....only my problem happens within seconds, not minutes and external plug ins crash. I am on a serious time crunch and want to just revert back to LR 3.6 -but I don't know how to proceed without risk. Do I just uninstall LR 4? I'm extremely gun shy at this point. I don't want to loose what I have imported in LR4 or cause other problems. It tooks hours to import, and nearly locks up on export on ONE image.
@Rosalynsam - Did you uninstall your 3.6? Hopefully you still have a copy of the 3.6 catalog intact in a separate folder from the converted version? I never uninstalled my original 3.6, just the beta version of 4. I just did a test for you and my original 3.6 runs just fine with 4 being installed alongside it. I did get a warning about needing to re-register my Smugmug plug-in but that had been upgraded this month anyway.
Probably a good idea to do a little backup first, especially the presets and Lightroom settings folders. I do see a mix of the newer and older presets in my panel but the new ones I have created in 4 don't seem to throw any errors. They just don't give the intended results. Old ones seem to work fine.
I'm not sure if there would be a problem if you need to do a fresh install of 3.6 with 4 on board but I haven't heard of any.
Something sure seems curious on your system it sounds like as most folks aren't having that level of problems. I would be tempted to do a maintenance scan on the hard drive in case there may have been some file corruption. Have you tried turning your anti-virus off to see if there is any impact from that?
Please be the guinea pig here and delete your previews and then recreate them. It may help if you also scroll throught your catalog and let it recreate the thumbnails. It will probable take a while.
Thanks so much for your help - I still have 3.6 installed....I guess I don't even understand for sure if I can determine if I have a separate folder - I didn't do anything to set up a different folder, other than the normal install of 4.0. I know I am ignorant of some of the basics here and I hate that-and I get lost easily in the how to do simple things - I can function well within LR and Photoshop if all systems are go. Yes, I thought the same thing about my level of problem. I did try disk defrag, cleanup, catalog optimize, catalog optimize, and turned off antivirus. I need my own personal assistant computer assistance to keep me from messing something up. My husband thought I might have a "memory leak" through LR after view the CPU usage, but if so, I have no idea about how to fix it...thanks again for your kind assistance.
I want to add to this thread. I find the time to import photos has slowed down, the time to export photos has slowed down. But, most importantly, as many have described the sliders in develop model are slow and, thus, not natural to use. When a program is updated, it should be more effective and efficient as well as more fully featured. I use a Mac Book Pro, core 2 duo, with 6 Gb of ram, an external monitor. To complicate matters, I have recently just updated to Lion. I do not believe that would add to the problems here. I will follow the advice above to "delete writing changes to xmp". Besides getting a new and faster computer, what other suggestions are there. Or, do we live with this until Adobe brings out Lightroom 4.1?
I have done a lot of playing with settings, caches, catalogs, folder locations, turning features on and off, turning off a second monitor, etc., on my Mac Pro. Some help a little (at least for awhile), some degrade performance, and others seem to have no effect. I've got more HP in my Mac than you do, but LR4 is still dog slow, no matter what I do. When it does speed up, it only seems to be faster for awhile. I'm still on Snow Leopard (10.6.8) since I didn't want to lose functionality of some programs that won't work under Lion. Lion is not the problem, Macs aren't the problem, PCs aren't the problem...it's clearly the program. In spite of the fact that the beta was out there for quite awhile, they released it anyway. There is absolutely no way they couldn't have known about these problems before the official release, given all the beta testers out there.
Customers shouldn't have to jump through hoops to make a program work acceptably. Yes, to maximize speed and performance will always involve some tweaks, but the program should perform properly out of the box, as long as customers meet or exceed the system requirements as specified by Adobe. My computer isn't a total screamer, but it isn't a dog either, especially using a 256 GB SSD and 16 GB RAM. All my other apps run fast, including Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, etc (even with they are all open at the same time).
I've gone back to LR3. The new features, while nice, aren't worth the performance hit, at least not to me. I suspect you'll have to wait for Adobe to release 4.1, 4.2 or 4.3 for decent performance. Buying a faster computer than I have is a non-starter. Very disappointing, to say the least.
Mac Pro Tower, dual 2.26 GHz processors, 8-cores, 16 GB RAM, 64-bit, 256 GB Solid State Drive, (3) 1TB, 7200 RPM HDDs, OSX 10.6.8
I run regular maintenance to keep it running fast and clean.
@Lou - Buying a faster computer than I have is a non-starter. Very disappointing, to say the least.
The problem isn't your computer hardware or the new features in the software causing bloat. Plenty of users with specs the same as or weaker than yours report LR4 running normally or faster than LR3. Something - a bug in the software that likes your environment (likely), or a problem with your system (unlikely) or your settings (possible), as they relate to LR specifically - is preventing the software as a whole from running properly for you.
Any suggestions as to what settings in my system may be related to this problem? I do repair preferences in disk utility as needed. Thanks.
I just removed LR4 from my machine (to keep using LR3 until LR4 is fixed.) The preview folder created by LR3 for my LR3 catalog had a size of ~500Mb. However, the size of the converted LR3 catalog preview folder (as preformed by LR4) was 17.5Gb! I am wondering if the catalog conversion process may be part of the problem.
I experienced the same. I renamed the catalog and let LR4 reconstruct the preview.cache. The size fell to normal levels and performance went from unusable to tolerable.
FAST ! As fast as LR 3 for me ??
Modellnavn: MacBook Pro
Prosessornavn: Intel Core i7
Prosessorhastighet: 2,66 GHz
Antall prosessorer: 1
Antall kjerner totalt: 2
Nivå 2-buffer (per kjerne): 256 kB
Nivå 3-buffer: 4 MB
Hukommelse: 8 GB
Koblingshastighet for prosessor: 4.8 GT/s
I didn't find out about that matter until right now. It's just the same for me. The LR4 previews consume 300 times the space of LR 3 folder.
Another fact that supports my opinion to cancel LR4 usage.
I think there's a certain amount of misunderstanding about what happens to the preview cache when you upgrade a catalog from LR3 to LR4. The basic process is that the existing LR3 catalog is left alone, and a new updated catalog is created (usually the same name but with the "-2" suffix"). Unless you specified differently, the LR4 catalog will be created in the same folder as the LR3 catalog. However, as part of the upgrade process, LR4 'steals' the preview cache that belonged to the LR3 catalog and renames it to reflect the new LR4 catalog name (there may be an update of some description, but this is minimal).
So the end result of a "normal" LR3 catalog upgrade to LR4 is two catalogs and ONE preview folder, which was the original LR3 cache re-assigned to LR4. So just to make this crystal clear, the 'huge' preview caches that many are associating with some LR4 problem are in fact the preview caches that were built up over time in LR3.
The 'small' LR3 preview cache that some are seeing is almost certainly the result of opening the old LR3 catalog in LR3....this will immediately cause a new LR3 preview cache to be created, and initially the only previews are likely to be those created automatically as and when images are brought into the grid or filmstrip. Thus the cache will seem 'very small' in relation to the LR4 preview cache.....but I suspect if you actually did a full rebuild of the LR3 cache you'd probably end up with a very similar size to the LR4 cache.
I agree with Brett. My install of LR4 works fine for the most part with a few exceptions. The slowdown occurs when I use a second monitor, fine otherwise.
I also noticed (another issue OT). That while burning to a DVD is fine, burning a couple of files to a CD is problematic.
Hoping 4.1 comes soon with support of ACR 6.7 as converting to DNG for my new 5DMkIII is an extra step and HD space.
Addendum to my previous LR4 bug report:
Title: Unsynchronized Mouse Actions; Import Failure; Suspected Tag Issue
Another devastating LR4 problem is that the code that processes user actions (mouse clicks, keyboard presses) is not queuing (buffering) the pointer location along with the user action requested at that location.
This is one of the most basic programming necessities in modern asynchronous GUI's. Instead, unbelievably, when a requested LR4 user action is finally executed (sometimes 2-3 seconds later), it is not performed on the location where the action was requested but wherever the pointer happened to be at the (later) time of execution. This concept is so basic and obvious, we are dumbstruck as to how Adobe did not catch it in Q/A, let alone have allowed it in its design.
I colored this fault as devastating because it can easily and inconspicuously cause any number of unwanted selections of catalog entries, tags, and so on. That problem then causes: unwanted modification of images; tagging of wrong images; applying wrong tags to images; tagging of wrong selections with wrong tags; deletion of the wrongly selected items; ad infinitum.
Of course, one obviously needs to verify one's actions, but having to verify something as basic and ubiquitous as each and every mouse click in a high-end GUI program designed to perform actions on 10's of 1000's of images is neither feasible nor acceptable. This behavior is akin to having to diligently monitor and verify each and every breath one takes. Yes, it can be done, but you couldn't count pocket change let alone do an inventory count of a warehouse at the same time.
Example Problem Exercise:
Start LR4 on a library of 10-30k+ images (ours is 37k) converted from LR 3.6.
Set GUI to the OOB default of Sources/Folders in left pane, Thumbs browser in center pain, Histogram/Tags/Metadata info in right pain, and Thumbs selector row in bottom pane. This is the exact same set up as we had in 2.x through 3.x with few problems and at least sluggish performance.
Ensure you have enough tags defined on right panel that they fill the screen (about 30-40). We have about 200-300 but haven’t really counted.
In thumbnail browser, go to end, then page back to beginning (several minutes).
Randomly and quickly try to select 20 or so noncontiguous images using the Control-Click method. Note how long a selection can take (0.5-1 sec). Also note how some selections get deselected while non-selections get selected because of wild unsynchronized mouse actions on the wrong GUI hit zones.
Note above action can be snappy upon first program invocation. Repeat several times over several minutes to stress memory and caches.
With above selection active, now try to select a contiguous range of 20+ images elsewhere. Now note how long selection takes to complete which, for us, is the worst case of 1-3+ seconds.
With above selections, next try to quickly select a number of tags in normally rapid succession as in a normal production workflow. Note how some selections don’t seem to take because of mouse action queuing issues. This is more insidious because one normally selects several and if the last few look ok, one assumes the rest are.
Now exercise combinations of all above actions over, say. 20 minutes. If your LR4 behaves as several others noted here, LR4 will slow to an unusable crawl as you are then required to click, freeze mouse, wait, then click again, wait for completion, ad nauseam.
Another Problem: Import Failure
We haven’t had time to replicate this but when we added 4k images to our image folder tree of 33,000 images, we those 4k images were correctly noted in the import summary and showed in the Last Import collection.
However, after discovering that the faulty mouse queuing and image selection erroneously deleted some images, we went to Explorer and restored then last 20 or so images to ensure we got them back. We then did another sync of the entire tree to re-enter them in the catalog.
Horrors! The import summary showed it was about to import 37,000 images – literally our entire catalog. We cancelled it. We subsequently tried to synchronize just the folders where we estimated the restored files were in. That worked but was not conclusive because we were not sure if all the images in the folders were restored or not.
Suspected (but unconfirmed) Tag Issue:
Our last task was to update our 4k new images with location tags showing where they were shot. After import, we sorted by Date Taken, went to the end, and then started moving back in time, adding location tags to the new imports.
We got suspicious of a possible tag loss issue when it appeared that the location tags were missing from not just the expected 4k new imports, but also from the next previous 7k. We were quite confident (but could be wrong) that we had updated most of our 34k images prior to the last import yet none of the latest 11k images (4k of last import plus next latest 7k) were location tagged.
We suspect we are drinking the wrong Kool-Aid, some tags got erased in the 3.6-4 catalog upgrade, or 4 LR is not seeing some tags that are there. Sorry we can’t confirm more at this point.
We will attempt to reload our v3.6 catalogs from backups and comapratively review these same issues in our still installed v3.6.
Hope that helps.
I asked a few days ago but I dont think anyone answered...how does one know if any individual photo has a preview associated with it or not? Aside from rebuilding my entire library, is there a way I can see if I have a preview already of a certain RAW file?
Aside from rebuilding my entire library, is there a way I can see if I have
a preview already of a certain RAW file?
If you select the file(s) in library grid, and then go to the menu bar -
Library/Previews/RenderStandardPreviews and select 'build one' in the popup
dialog, it will scan for a preview and make one if none is present. If there
is one already, it will just do nothing. If you select 'build all' in the
dialog, it will scan the whole folder and make any that are missing.
If you can see it in library view, it has a preview
Use this punblished article to Fix Lightroom 4 Slow Issues
Optimize your hardware and OS
Use this punblished article to Fix Lightroom 4 Slow Issues
That link is not working for me. Is this the same article maybe?
Further update, increased my cache size from 1GB to 10GB seems to have cured the 'reloading' issue on tif files.
Thanks for all the positive help received.
That link says this "The minimum system requirements to run Lightroom are just that: the minimum you need for Lightroom to operate. Additional RAM and a faster processor, in particular, can yield significant performance benefits."
The problem that this thread is addressing is that Lightroom does not operate in the minimum spec for quite a number of posters. They are not deprived of performance benefits as they have a piece of software where the sliders are too laggy to use for the reason people buy it.
Add to that there are a number of posters with hugely enhanced specs having a Lightroom 4 that is not operating well enough in a way that makes it useable for their photography.
I agree as I have a fully optimized Lightroom setup on a Mac Book Pro. I read through the article and checked off all the recommended actions for Lightroom and the performance remains low. There is a severe performance difference between version 4 and 3. I advise others on the use of Lightroom and I would recommend not upgrading now.
Unless eliminated... the following always seem to be the problem. XD
1. Uninstall ALL Virus / Spyware / Firewall software, reboot and compare retest. 'protection' programs auto update and are often overly agressive. Keep kids off of work machines. buying them their own computer always saves money in the long run.
2. Are heatsinks and fans in good shape? (Even if they are spinning... make sure they are moving air adequately and don't stop too easily) Computers on Hardwood floors, around pets, smoke and computers in workshops and near kitchens need to be watched more closely.)
3. Notebooks suck in more crud than desktops... the fans are small and fail more frequently... not to mention the vents get blocked VERY easily (CPU / GPU throttle themselves to prevent thermal failure which helps keep the magic smoke from being released.)
--- Initially, my slow LR4 issue was handled with a few cf card cases to lift notebook off the table a bit... LR4 was simply heating up my GPU more than LR3. A 5v fan powered from usb port keeps everything humming along now...
The preview render times are definately slower... Does anyone know if previews pre render or if they run in the background automatically ofter imports? I sense a post import lag...
Note: SSD should be mandatory for any production machine.
Again, the performance issues being described are not related to Virus protection, heatsinks and fans or notebook issues. I have an SSD, 16gb of memory, 1000watt power supply, i7-2600 running at 3.4ghz. Lightroom 3 screams on my computer as does processing/rendering of RAW files. I have a very good graphics card and a gaming rig set up for optimum airflow.
LR4 has issues. Moving sliders has a 1 second lag that gets worse the more you edit, I can only imagine how bad it must be for most folks that do not have a top of the line computer. I have cache set at 50gb on the SSD and I still have an additional 50gb on the SSD for spare. The catalog and previews are all on the SSD. I have plenty of hard disk space in reserve and I'm using WD Caviar blacks at 7500rpms.
Those that keep posting to this thread that the issues are computer and software related are not adding value to the thread and this is not a reasonable answer from Adobe nor is the link above for optimizing. It is a great link for general users and folks that have issues running LR of any version. For those of us that are used to high performance and responsiveness of LR3 to now suddenly be struggling with LR4, we're trying to say there is a problem that needs to be fixed.