Skip to main content
Adobe Photoshop Family

16 Messages

 • 

2.1K Points

Mon, Jun 18, 2012 4:43 PM

Lightroom: Performance and optimization: LR is slow

LR 4 is excruciatingly slow. Until Adobe is able to do something about this I am recommending my students and readers continue to use LR 3 or switch to Aperture.

Responses

Official Solution

Adobe Administrator

 • 

778 Messages

 • 

16.7K Points

8 years ago

Hello all,
We do acknowledge that there have been a performance hit for truely "some" users, though that doesn't comfort the users that are seeing the performance hit that they are seeing, and professionals that do potentially lose time (which = money) due to the decrease in performance.

Now that there is acknowledgement of the issue, we still don't have a resolution, nor know exactly what is causing it on the multitude of systems that are seeing it.

Thanks to those that are delving in deeper to try to discover what the cause is, and hopefully we can all look for a solution, since it is happening on not all systems, but some.

I wanted to call attention to a potential solution that was given by another user on another forum after a chat with adobe support. I've paraphrased some of the steps and cleaned them up a bit so they can be digestible, but would be curious to hear of other's results after having tried these steps.

A fair amount of users are running in windows, and these steps are windows-centric, if you're a mac guru, perhaps you can divine how to perform similar steps on the mac platform.

Here is the chat log and troubleshooting steps.
Please try them out, and let us know if you see any improvement with any of these steps.
William is the tech, and Jojo the end user with performance trouble.

Chat log:
William: I understand that you're experiencing performance issue. Am I correct?
Jojo: Oh yes

Rename Preference folder
Please close all windows
Click the Start button.
Type %appdata% in the search box and press Enter.
Double click on Adobe folder.
Rename the "Lightroom" folder to "OldLightroom".

Clear Temp files
Click on Start button.
Type %temp% and press Enter.
It will open Temp folder.
Empty the files and folders inside it.

Results chat:
Jojo: ok done. it still has files that could not be deleted for Win Explorer and Google Chrome (the browser I use)
William: Okay.
William: Launch Lightroom and check if you're getting the same issue.
Jojo: that seems to have sped it up significant;y
William: Perfect.
William: Please double check if that works fine now.
Jojo: Much faster, but all of my presets are gone
Jojo: Export presets, etc

Rename old preference folder back so LR sees it.
Quit Lightroom.
Click on Start button.
Type %appdata% in the search box and press Enter.
Double click on Adobe folder.
Rename the "Lightroom" preference folder to "2-OldLightroom".
Rename the "OldLightroom" and rename it to "Lightroom".
After that open Preferences folder inside it.
Rename the file "Lightroom 4 Preferences.agprefs" and to "OldLightroom 4 Preferences.agprefs".
Launch Lightroom and test the performance

Results 2 chat:
Jojo: Oh yes, that's working well!
William: Perfect.
Jojo: Much better!
William: You can start working with the product smoothly now.
William: Great.
Jojo: Hey, are they fixing this in a release? I know a lot of photographers who are VERY upset about this performance issue. I was ready to change back to LR3
William: Corrupt preference may cause Lightroom to work slow.
William: We renamed the preference file and it is working fine.
End Chat log

Another user had mentioned that they "renamed the Lightroom 3 Preferences.agprefs to Old_Lightroom 3 Preferences.agprefs and now it works a lot quicker."

Those are at least a couple things to try that shouldn't take but a few minutes.
Report back with any change in LR 4.1 behavior
Thanks!

10 Messages

 • 

166 Points

Peter

Thank you for acknowledging there is an issue!

Now, please can you tell us, very precisely, what information you need in order to work towards a solution.

I posted a bunch of technical data from my Mac system many weeks ago; is this what you need?

Although there are some on this forum who have in-depth technical knowledge, I suspect many of us are "merely" (sic!) pro LR users who aren't programmers etc.

Tell us what you need to know.

Thanks

JB

Champion

 • 

5.8K Messages

 • 

102.2K Points

The equivalent (at least of most of those steps) for Mac is:

Rename Preference folder
Go to Lightroom menu > Preferences > Presets tab and press Show Lightroom Presets Folder.
Close Lightroom.
Alternatively get to it by navigating to Macintosh HD / Users / [your username] / Library / Application Support / Adobe / Lightroom /
Rename the Lightroom folder (the Finder window that just opened) to OldLightroom.

I'm not sure about the equivalent of the temp files step. I'd run something like Onyx.

Launch Lightroom and check the speed. All of the presets will be gone (temporarily). To put them back, you'd just repeat the steps, rename or delete the new Lightroom folder and change the OldLightroom back to Lightroom.

For the preferences step, which is always a good port of call, you want to navigate to Macintosh HD / Users / [your username] / Library / Preferences / com.adobe.Lightroom4.plist. Library is hidden on Lion, so to find it, open Finder and hold down Opt key while clicking on the Go menu and Library will appear. Rename any other Lightroom preferences in that folder at the same time.

21 Messages

 • 

274 Points

Victoria,

Thank you so much for the mac translation! It seems to have made a difference and I have moved (or copied) just the presets that I wanted into the correlating new folder. I'll report back after my next shoot this afternoon, until then I'm cautiously optimistic.

Mike

21 Messages

 • 

274 Points

Victoria and All,

As a Mac user I tried Victoria's Mac translated solution. It does not work for my system. I just finished processing 400 + images and LR 4.1 Process 2012 is just plain painful to work in. Specifically the Develop Mod, redraws are delayed, attempts to move sliders are some times not recognized (they don't move) or at times make jumps back to where they started (?!). I Talked with a tech at Adobe and was told to build my previews at 1to1, what a waste of time and no improvement in overall functionality with that as well.

All of my cores show usage. I wonder if there is GPU issues at hand in this. If Adobe is trying to speed things up through the GPU and it just isn't working. Note that I have GPU support turned off in PS due to poor redraws that don't represent the image properly.

Still want to work towards a solution....

Mike

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

Different systems has different issues, but if it's not an Lr dependent file (e.g. prefs, previews, cache), it may be a driver problem (e.g. graphics, or wacom...).

Lightroom doesn't use GPU acceleration.

Official Solution

Adobe Administrator

 • 

778 Messages

 • 

16.7K Points

8 years ago

Hi all,

We have put together a technote containing several suggestions for optimizing Lightroom's performance that we hope will help.

http://adobe.ly/LRPerformanceHints

Let us know which of these suggestions are helpful to you. Thanks!

39 Messages

 • 

510 Points

Hi Peter,

I would like to report that the responsive of LR has been improved in the 4.3 RC.

HOWEVER

The stability issue is about the same. As long as I limit the 4.3 RC to my primary #1 monitor, I could use LR 4.3 RC within reasonable working conditions. I am working with small catalogs of LESS THAN 200 DNG files.

As soon as I elect to press F11 to have my #2 monitor show only thumbs (grid view), LR is no longer stable and experience random crashes.

704 Messages

 • 

8.5K Points

8 years ago

You don't define what "slow" means, so your report is not very useful.

There is a long thread (http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...) that may be relevant.

You don't say if you are running the latest release of Lr 4 or not.

There are also a lot of things you can try upon first upgrading from 3 that addresses many issues.

Finally, the great majority of users did not have a problem at all with the upgrade.

So, I know you probably just wanted to vent, but you are doing your students a disservice by suggesting that somehow Lr 4.1 is generally and permanently faulty. Because, quite simply, it is not.

7 Messages

 • 

120 Points

All I am reading are opinions not facts. the fact is LR4.1 has some serious programming flaw. I posted in another thread where using the developer tab and changing the exposure tab causes only one of my eight CPUs to light up. updates to the screen happen about every 1 to 1.5 seconds. way too long to try to adjust a slider by eye. others report they have 4+ cpus light up. So i wonder if the problem is only with 64 bit windows / LR? perhaps trying to narrow down the area where this exists would be helpful instead of "it's great!" comments. I have LR cat running on a solid state drive, the photos on a solid state drive, on a i7 chip with 16GB ram, a 7770 1 gb video card. all latest drivers. Please advise, I am a hard-core windows guy who can run stack traces if you need help. please advise!

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

I think most people with any clues have already shot their wads. Consider looking at some of the other threads about it too, on this and U2U forum.

10 Messages

 • 

156 Points

I can confirm that on my Win7 64-bit system also most lightroom actions only use a single thread of my CPU. I have a quad core CPU and its resources are not utilized by Lightroom. Usually Lightroom prefers to give me the "not responding" freeze rather than starting to use a second thread.

Champion

 • 

1.4K Messages

 • 

24.5K Points

I just checked my 12 Core HP and can say that I am seeing refresh rates of 15 fps and 6-8 cores hitting 50% when twiddling a lot of sliders. Not to minimize what you say but there is something more going on here.

Does anyone have a substandard performing machine that is using an i7-3930K like I am? I would love to compare some things.

Champion

 • 

1.4K Messages

 • 

24.5K Points

Christian, if you go to your Windows task manager, hit the processes tab and then right click on Lightroom and choose Set Affinity..., how many processors is Lightroom allowed to use?

Champion

 • 

1.4K Messages

 • 

24.5K Points

8 years ago

The thirty-day trial is available to all who might have a concern about
Lightroom's reported speed issues on a minority of machines. Download the trial of 4.1 and try it out on a practice catalog or a copy of your production catalog and decide for yourself.

4 Machines, 2 Platforms, 3 OS versions, 160K Images and no issues here.

13 Messages

 • 

184 Points

8 years ago

The thirty-day trial recommendation is a good one - I wish I had done that with my upgrade months ago as i have also found 4.x (now 4.1) to be unusable without reverting to PV2010 which really defeats the purpose of the upgrade. In short, i would not have paid for the upgrade knowing what I do now. i should mention that I have also tried every almost workaround identified on a number of different forums, all to no avail. This has been very disappointing as I have been a great fan of LR (since its inception) until this experience. Try before buying!

17 Messages

 • 

244 Points

8 years ago

I have this issue - Slow means when I try to use crop, spot removal, red eye, gradient, brush. there is a few seconds (as much as 15) lag before LR responds. This makes LR nearly unusable. I am on an Asus g73 and I have upgraded the to two 7200 - 750g (never more than half full) hard drives and 16g ram. The only way to get LR to behave is to run on only 3 cores avoiding Hyperthreading. so on my system that is core 0,2,4.....if I run any of 1,3,5,7 or run 4 main cores than LR comes to a crawl. Seems as if the only people who have this problem are on high end systems. if one is running a slower system or an older chip there doesn't seems to be an issue. If you want to blast this guy for reporting a problem do a google search. --- https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&su... ---- I have been a big fan of adobe for years but LR4 does have problems that really should be addressed. I feel like I paid for a beta product. thank you for your attention.

1 Message

 • 

70 Points

8 years ago

Lightroom 4.1 is still slow for me. I've tried all the suggestions, I have a relatively small catalog 39k images. The slowness for me is whenever I click on Develop or try to switch back and forth between images. Any time I attempt to make a change to metadata, anytime I attempt to crop. Anytime I attempt to make corrections. There is an immediate lag.

Machine is i7-2600 3.4ghz, 16gb memory, 256gb SSD, multiple 1tb hard drive WD Black Caviars. Nvidia GTX 560ti graphic card. Plenty or hard drive space available on the SSD and the hard drives. Cache is set appropriately.

All Lag experienced is after previews have been built

LR3 was smokin fast for me, never had this issue. I had nothing but issues with converting the catalog. Went through the patches and now current release. While things have improved, the lag is aggravatingly slow and still needs to be fixed. I've reported in the other forum referenced above as well.

16 Messages

 • 

2.1K Points

8 years ago

Dear John,

Perhaps the definition of slow is best expressed by both Paul and Lance above. I would point out to you that even the least expensive discount laptop from online stores such as Tiger Direct, is faster and bundled with more RAM than most computers of only a few years ago. LR 4 should run as fast, or faster, on these new generation computers than LR 3, regardless. Users should not be required to find work-around solutions of any kind.

I find it interesting that you have directed me to a forum, begun 3 months ago, in which users such as Paul and Lance have expressed their frustration with LR 4. I would suggest you have a look at another Adobe sponsored forum, http://forums.adobe.com/message/45023..., in which users have been complaining for 6 months.

Rather than accusing professional photographers such as myself, who have been using LR since version 1, and Photoshop since almost the beginning, of whining. Instead, why don't you reassure us that Adobe is aware of the problem and working to fix it? Something like, "We've sacked the last lot of programmers and the new lot is working around the clock to fix the problem."

I would also say to you, and to all those who say that only a disgruntled few are experiencing difficulties, that if only one user had this issue, Adobe should be looking into resolving it for them.

Steve Anchell
Contributing Writer:
Photo Technique
Rangefinder

Photo Instructor:
Oregon State University

946 Messages

 • 

13.8K Points

"Rather than accusing professional photographers such as myself, who have been using LR since version 1, and Photoshop since almost the beginning, of whining. Instead, why don't you reassure us that Adobe is aware of the problem and working to fix it? Something like, "We've sacked the last lot of programmers and the new lot is working around the clock to fix the problem." "

Yeah...that would be a real good approach.

Most of the people having trouble with LR 4 have said that LR 4.1 has fixed most of it. The remainder need to contribute something useful beyond complaining like, perhaps, reporting what is slow, how slow, on what type of system, using which OS, using what preferences and settings, and so on depending on what the problem might be. Most of us aren't having problems and if Adobe is also not having problems on any of their test systems, they're unlikely to be able to fix anything.

LR 4.1 is now faster than 3.6 was for me on everything but PV12 develop sliders and rendering and that's largely because PV12 is more complex and CPU intensive than PV10. There's still room for improvement but I've processed over 15,000 images on LR4 so far so it's quite far from any sort of unusable, and that's with four different Win 7 systems (1 32-bit and 3 64-bit).

7 Messages

 • 

120 Points

As a 25 year IT vet, I am left with what exactly does the team need to know? you seem to me pushing this back on the user base. the users dont know what question to answer. I think we can all agree that 2 seconds to update a change on the slider on-screen is too long on a i7 16GB with a 7770 graphics card with SSD storing the photos. i have screen shots showing only ONE cpu is being used of my 8 when moving a slider. Ok, now they have something to look at for my 64 bit windows, 64 bit LR 4.1 product. i wish i had never upgraded.

Champion

 • 

5.8K Messages

 • 

102.2K Points

Rob, just checking, are you the same guy I've been talking to, who is running Windows 8, or not? When you say you've upgraded, was LR3 running well on that same OS and hardware?

7 Messages

 • 

120 Points

Yes and yes. I figured out if you launch.light room, open task manager go to processes, right click on light room, set affinity, the app was limited to one cpu. I checked all the cpus available and my problem is significantly improved.

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

Begging the question of why the affinity was set to one in the first place, and/or how it got set that way. Did you do it Rob, if not then?...

16 Messages

 • 

2.1K Points

8 years ago

Well, Jay, I am glad to hear that you are not experiencing a problem. Perhaps you would be better served spending your time creating new images than dissing photographers who are experiencing one.

946 Messages

 • 

13.8K Points

What I'm trying to do is get people that are to report some useful information to Adobe so they have something to go on so that you'll eventually get a fix.

16 Messages

 • 

2.1K Points

Thank you, Lee. Sincerely.

10 Messages

 • 

156 Points

8 years ago

I have the same problems. LR 4.1 is very slow/laggy, while previous version was much faster. I tried even Aftershot Pro: Lightning fast with no lags.
I can bring LR4.1 to a complete hold by doing simple tasks like the healing brush, despite my computer having ample resources available.

Win7 64bit
i7-2720QM
8GB RAM
SSD
Nvidia NVS4200M

14 Messages

 • 

190 Points

8 years ago

As for the respondent who dared say there are few problems with LR 4.x and that most users see none, well, NOT SO FAST!

LR4.1 works well for a rare FEW, IF ANY, working pros!

Working Pro? I don't mean a pro who qualifies by selling a picture. My 89 year old mother could qualify that way. By "Working" Pro, I mean :

1. Uses digital management on a daily basis
2. Uses LR for DM many hours at a time
3. Accesses, reviews, tags, and tweaks 100's of images per session.
4. Works with large RAW, TIFF or minimally compressed JPEGs
5. Images are 10-100+ megapixels each
6. Has at least 100,000 Images catalogued.
7. Uses upper-range PC (not a Cray weather forecaster): Ex, quad core, 1+ TB of eSata DASD, modern GPU with 1+ GB of DDRAM.
8. Routinely updates OS and defrags disks.
9. Has no time or money for insane super-tweaks like gamer's who spend a year of net income on a single graphics card.

E.g., my lowly outfit is as follows:

Cameras: D300, D800, etc.
Images: RAW(NEF), TIFF, or Max-Q JPEG's
CPU: Higher end Intel Quad Core, 3.6 Ghz,, 8GB RAM
DASD: 3 internal Sata drives (2+ TB)
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate, 64 bit, up-to-date
GPU: 2 Upper-Mid graphic cards in a dual GPU "Cross Fire" config.

Heavy pros and art houses would have far larger stats. Ex: I only have 40,000 RAW/TIFF images of 12-50 MB and it's already a nightmare to use LR 4.1 for production work.

As a lone graphics program designer, I would test LR with at least 500k RAW images. I fully expect Adobe, with a staff of more than 1 and a HUGE dev budget, to test a far larger test bed with many more complexities..

So, let us put things in perspective. When someone says they find LR is "OK" or better, it begs the questions:

1. How long have they used it with their current catalog
2. Do they have at least 100k images in their catalog
3. How large are their images
4. Are the images RAW/TIFF? (standard for working pro shops)
5. How many images do they fondle, tag and tweak per session?
6. How many hours do the spend in one LR session?

So, I must totally concur with the user who reports terrible performance. I do not know of any pro users or shops who think the latest v4.1 is acceptable. They all say it is, at best, "just usable". To be "slower than 3.6" is simply terrible for the leading product of its genre. Especially when we are forced to use it to be compatible with the latest RAW files.

Example 1 Issue:
Use LR for 2+ hours browsing about my 40k image catalog.
Select an image then move to select another.
1st image not selected for several seconds as I try to select another.
I end up selecting, w-a-i-t-i-n-g ...... then selecting another.
LR is obviously grinding to a halt as it futilely tries to update everything.
All I did was simply select an image. No mods. No tagging yet.
Just trying to select several non-adjacent images.
That is simply unworkable.

Example 2 Issue:
Imported 100 new RAW NEF's into my 40k image catalogue.
Started reviewing them, clicking forward and back.
Tagging images with 1-20 of my very large master tag list.
In slide sort browse mode, select 4 images to tag.
LT took 2-8 secs to refresh tag panel with current tags of images.
Clicked a new tag, then waited 2-8 secs for check marks to show.
Repeat that 100 times. That's 10-15 minutes of waiting!

Example 3 Issue:
With all images rendered at 1:1, switching images in sorter mode, still took 2-8 seconds for everything to update. In Loupe mode (at standard or 1:1 view), the previously rendered images took 2-8 secs to rendered fully.

My Perspective:

I have been a professional programmer, program/system designer, real-time systems programmer, IT support director, and a digital artist in various forms for as long as programmable computers have existed.

Adobe bills LR as a professional image workflow manager and it's feature set lends credence to that perception. There is no argument about its intent.

As such, we have to critique it as a professional product that an active pro or imaging house can depend on with its business life. There is no way that can be said at this point, by any stretch of the imagination.

Some basic math:

What does a pro work flow and environment look like? A single pro or shop probably shoots at least 200 days a year which is only 54% of the time. An outfit with more than photog shoots many more project days. If a single photog shoots only 100 shots per project day (that's only 3 rolls in old expensive film terms), that's 20,000 images/year. Making the ridiculous assumption of no dupes or edited versions over a small 3-year work window, that's easily 60,000 images!

A real world scenario could easily be 2-5 times that so let's just say at least 100,000 images as a crude minimum test case. At 20MP/image, that roughly 2 TB for the files alone. That would easily double for edited versions, caches, 1:1 previews.

Perhaps the biggest impediment to enthusiasm over LR is the arrogance that Adobe repeatedly projects by either not responding, issuing platitudes, or, worst of all, denigrating those who really do use the product and find it unusable for a production work flow. I'd have long ago fired the manager responsible for green-lighting this 4.x series. Been there. Done that.

Bottom line:

LR 4.1 still has SEVERE issues with: speed, image navigation, has very bad programming of mouse and click interrupts, and the updating of the tag/info panels after tagging or navigating images. Things are even worse in the Develop module.

It is clear to coders like myself, that there are, indeed, severe coding issues, the catalog database interface/SDK has performance issues, and the design of the GUI info panel updates is clearly deficient.

E.g., for me, 4.1 ran so-so immediately after the upgrade. Compared to the 4.0 debacle, that seemed "OK". I noticed several others reported the same. However, after another 2-3 weeks, we started finding it was, again, slowing to a crawl, like 4.0 was famous for. It just takes a bit longer for us.

To a programmer, these are really OBVIOUS tells pointing to Memory, Cache, GUI, and DB Management issues. More specifically, the increasing slow down points to defects in the memory and DB cache management code. The overall slowness from the get-go points to a deficiency in intermediate memory and DB caching of data. I leave it to those who are paid with access to the code to expound further.

That's my take and opinion, having spent 1k+ hours with 3.x and 4.6. If 3.6 supported D800 NEF's I'd have wasted a month of work and gone back to 3.6. After a month of additional catalog work It's too late now so, like many others, I'm between the proverbial "rock and hard place".

Having to put up with a product because there is no immediate alternative is not a good place for a product to be. Thanks for listening.

Champion

 • 

1.4K Messages

 • 

24.5K Points

"1. How long have they used it for with their current catalog
2. Do they have at least 100k images in their catalog
3. How large are their images
4. Are the images RAW/TIFF? (standard for working pro shops)
5. How many images do they fondle, tag and tweak per session?
6. How many hours do the spend in one LR session? "

Answers to your questions:

1. Since day one LR 4.0 (ran public Beta before on a copy of same catalog)
2. 162K Images i production catalog
3. Most are 20-30MB with Max size 1/2 GB in a single image
4. 138K/162K are Raw
5. Typical Day 1200 images (fondled tagged or tweaked)
6. Current session of Lightroom has been open continuously for 42 hours Current Memory Usage 1,788 MB

Time to load uncached 130 MB Tiff in Develop s engineering staff the information they need to solve those systems still having issues.

946 Messages

 • 

13.8K Points

So, let us put things in perspective. When someone says they find LR is "OK" or better, it begs the questions:

1. How long have they used it with their current catalog
Since sometime in the middle of LR 2.x. Since Beta 3 prior to 1.0 before that.

2. Do they have at least 100k images in their catalog
128,197 as of right now.

3. How large are their images
6MP, 8.2MP, 12MP, 12.8MP and 18MP, mostly

4. Are the images RAW/TIFF? (standard for working pro shops)
A mixture of JPEGs and raws. A few TIFFs and PSDs, and a few videos.

5. How many images do they fondle, tag and tweak per session?
~1,000-2,000

6. How many hours do the spend in one LR session?
Somewhere between 30 seconds and 30 hours, with a few hours the most common.

My main two computers are a Dell XPS-17 (17" laptop) with an Intel Core i7-2720QM and 14GB of RAM and a Dell E4310 (13" laptop) with an Intel Core i5-540M with 8GB of RAM. Both run Windows 7 64 and both use an external 1920x1200 screen. No overclocking or any other sort of hypertuning except than the smaller machine has an SSD for the application disk.

16 Messages

 • 

2.1K Points

8 years ago

As a long time supporter of Adobe and its software, it is my fear that they may have begun to feel that they can write any sort of sloppy code and we'll buy it. This may work for the amateur market, but professionals may have to start looking for an alternative, and there are some out there. I experienced a frustrating 4 days processing images for an architectural client that would have taken an afternoon had I still been using LR 3.

As you say, TK, all that we hear from Adobe is that there are only a few of us out there and it's probably our OS or hardware that is inadequate. That just doesn't cut it with the pro. Are you listening, John Verne?

14 Messages

 • 

190 Points

Thanks, Steve. Maybe we'll get the message across one of these years ;-)

16 Messages

 • 

2.1K Points

8 years ago

BTW, TK, I would like to see your post on the Adobe Forums discussion, http://forums.adobe.com/message/45026....

There are quite a few on that forum who are dissing those having a problem by saying their equipment or OS must not be adequate to the task. This is, as I have said is nonsense. Anyone with a laptop purchased in the last two years from Wal-mart, Costco, or Tiger Direct should be able to run LR 4 without complaint, much less the equipment we are using, which is why I refuse to enter this debate by making an "issue" of my one year old Mac with 10 GB of RAM, or my Dell Laptop with 8 GB of RAM. At this point in the discussion with Adobe it shouldn't even be brought up...John? Listening?

Champion

 • 

1.4K Messages

 • 

24.5K Points

8 years ago

"1. How long have they used it for with their current catalog
2. Do they have at least 100k images in their catalog
3. How large are their images
4. Are the images RAW/TIFF? (standard for working pro shops)
5. How many images do they fondle, tag and tweak per session?
6. How many hours do the spend in one LR session? "

Answers to your questions:

1. Since day one LR 4.0 (ran public Beta before on a copy of same catalog)
2. 162K Images i production catalog
3. Most are 20-30MB with Max size 1/2 GB in a single image
4. 138K/162K are Raw
5. Typical Day 1200 images (fondled tagged or tweaked)
6. Current session of Lightroom has been open continuously for 42 hours Current Memory Usage 1,788 MB

Time to load uncached 130 MB Tiff in Develop <3 Seconds
Time to Export 25 JPEGS at long side 2000 px from DNG Files 1.5 minutes

16 Messages

 • 

2.1K Points

Rikk, it is good that you too have not had a problem with LR 4. That does not help those of us who have.

39 Messages

 • 

510 Points

8 years ago

I'll also voice my concern regarding the slow, unresponsive and lagging behavior or Lightroom 4.1.

I think that 4.1 was headed in the right direction. I am using a dual-monitor setup where my #2 monitor is displaying thumbnail grid view while my #1 screen is showing the main LR interface **without* the filmstrip at the bottom.

I am on a Intel Core i5 750 from 2009 and I have 16 GB of DDR3 SDRAM installed. My HDs are spinning at 7200 rpm. LR 4.1 is installed on my C-drive with cache folder on the C-drive. On my D-drive is where my images are stored. My RAWs are either DNGs or CR2 files (Canon 30D and 7D).

I find myself intrigued because most of you are experiencing problems with LR 4.1 on large catalogs. I often have several catalogs. Each session I shoot is a catalog. They contain around 200 RAW files from the 7D. I would experience the lags in the Development module using the PV2012. I have tried changing LR 4.1's affinity to "High" in the Windows 7 Home Premium Task Manager. It typically does not work. I have tried rendering 1:1 previews and never discarding them. I currently do NOT have the automatic wrote to XMP enabled. My standard previews are 1680 px.

Professionally ofcourse, I am not affected because I don't use LR 4.1 on my work shoots. For that, I use PhaseONE CaptureONE PRO (stable and speedy like there's no tomorrow). I am puzzled as to the nature of LR 4.1's performance debacle. I am not using any other processor or memory intensive software while I am using LR 4.1.

I would like to request any photographers experiencing lags and performance issues to re-direct their concerns to this thread so that Adobe will take another round of look and address in future update of LR. In LR 4.1's current state, I cannot recommend any one to upgrade or make the purchase.