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

16 Messages

 • 

2.1K Points

8 years ago

I almost never become involved in forums. I find them wonderful places to find answers from knowledgable people but don't feel the need to become involved. Today I find myself posting to no less than 3 separate forums on this issue.

I am "assuming" that John Verne works for Adobe. If he does, then I find his response to be condescending and insulting. If he doesn't then I find him to be the worst sort of forum user.

Instead of offering a solution Mr. Verne has turned the problem back on me, in essence saying "Oh! Mr. Anchell! You didn't tell me just how slow slow is. Excuse me, Mr. Anchell, but you failed to tell me the specs of your computer! Why don't you visit the LR forum and hear what REAL photographers who know their specs are giving REAL answers that I can't give."

Excuse me, Mr. Verne, but six months into the release of LR 4 Adobe knows darn good and well that users are experiencing a problem. Users who have more powerful machines than you can dream of, Mr. Verne. Instead of your flippant response, why don't you POST Adobe's MINIMUM requirements for LR 4 to work properly with the note: If you meet these minimum requirements and are still experiencing a problem then I am here to help.

Tell me, Mr. Verne, if I said my system was running Win XP with 512 KB of RAM, what would be your response? I would guess you would say I don't meet the minimum requirements. Fair enough.

Okay, Mr. Verne, now I'm telling you my system is an up-to-date Mac Pro with the latest Mac OS, 16 GB of RAM, and the best video card money can buy. I run four programs, Word, Outlook, Photoshop, and LR. All images are stored on external HDs. What then would be your answer? Go check out the forum where REAL photographers can be found?

There is a problem with this program, Mr. Verne, and if you represent Adobe stop being a jerk and address the issue.

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

8 years ago

|> "...and the best video card money can buy..."

Maybe that's the problem. Video drivers are notorious for being problematic in Lightroom. Try an ultra-cheap one (or mainboard graphics if you have it) and see if it works better.

I'm not saying the problem isn't Lightroom, I'm saying the short-term solution may not be.

It *seems*, to me, that Lightroom has more trouble with newer higher-end systems.

I don't have a good feel for how many users do/don't have abnormal performance problems with Lr4.1 - it works normally for me (win7/64 8GB 4-core AMD CPU, mainboard graphics...).

Cheers,
Rob

Champion

 • 

1.4K Messages

 • 

24.5K Points

8 years ago

Mr. Anchell,

Can you please provide an example of specific slowness on your system? An operation; a time elapsed?

16 Messages

 • 

2.1K Points

8 years ago

I am assuming that you are well-meaning in your query and do not work for Adobe. If you do, please identify yourself as such.

In any event, the short response, Rikk, is no. If you will visit the Adobe Forums: Lightroom 4 is slow, http://forums.adobe.com/thread/971581..., you can begin at the top and read 17 pages of examples of how LR 4 is slow, that is, if you have not done so already.

When you have finished there you can go to the Photoshop Family forum, Lightroom: LR 4 user interface, and Develop slider response very sluggish, http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh... and read a dozen more pages of how LR 4 is slow.

When you have completed that look at the posts on THIS forum from Lance Rogers, Paul Savage, TK, and others. You will find among the comments from these users all of the ways in which my LR 4 is slow, both on my up-to-date Mac and Win 7 system.

The point I am making to you, Rikk,is that LR 4 is slow and Adobe is not addressing the issue.

As I have stated on both Adobe Forums and Photoshop Family, please do not assume that because we have a problem with Adobe software that we are idiots who don't know how to plug in a computer.

Please do not assume that we are jr. high school students using a hand-me-down Texas Instrument computer with 512 MB of RAM. Most of us DO have a clue, Rikk, and when a program is not functioning properly, we know. When Adobe is blowing smoke up our (fill in the blank...Adobe doesn't think we are mature enough to use the word I'm thinking) we know that, too.

In any event, don't try to make it our responsibility to create work-arounds for a problem with Adobe coding.

And please do inform me if you work for Adobe.

946 Messages

 • 

13.8K Points

"In any event, the short response, Rikk, is no."

Then why are you posting? Just to get out some frustration?

Without that kind of detail, how can Adobe find the problem? It doesn't, as you know, occur on everyone's machines.

"And please do inform me if you work for Adobe. "

The employees have "Employee" by their names.

22 Messages

 • 

316 Points

Hi Steve, I have read a bit through your post and I fully agree with you! I understand your frustrations... Although I don't have LS 4 installed, but I'm having similar problems with PS CS6. See here: http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...

I'm sick of the attitude of some of Adobe employees saying: "We can't fix anything we haven't seen. Please check if external plugins, or external applications, etc are causing the problems." - Yeah give the blame to other applications! Or it could be my 'old' late 2010 iMac i5 2.8 quad core with 8 gb of ram is too inadequate to run the latest CS software. It should be able to handle a 'simple' website design file with a lot of folders, vector shapes, styles and type. I've used Maya before and if that software can render even more complex 3D objects with textures, animation etc in real time, than Adobe needs to do a better job writing good code.
I wonder if they do any real testing with real projects, with real people, the people who are using their products... designers, photographers, illustrators.

I know what I'm doing: Going back to PS CS5 for now. Only problem is I regret I had purchased Creative Cloud yesterday. Now I paid for software I'm not going to use (till they fix the problems).

Champion

 • 

1.4K Messages

 • 

24.5K Points

8 years ago

I am not an Adobe employee. Adobe employees are identified by an employee badge: See- http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...

You do not have a specific example to provide. It will be hard for you to be taken seriously.

Please be respectful of your other forum participants.

16 Messages

 • 

2.1K Points

8 years ago

Well, then Rikk, you just won't be able to take me seriously, will you? You can brush off the comments of all other forum correspondants while you are at it.

17 Messages

 • 

244 Points

8 years ago

some simple math tells me that if I loose only 5 sec an image on average - which is likely low since at a minimum I probably loose at least 1 second for every adjustment and photo change than I will loose about 1.4 hours for every 1000 photos I process. I am currently working on 3 sessions which total about 7000 photos. That is more than a whole days work GONE. I will loose at least one day a month and at least two weeks a year for a one second lag. So one second might not be slow to some but to a busy pro trying to make a living in the flooded field of photography it really is unacceptable. Today I have spent most of the day trying alternatives to lightroom.

322 Messages

 • 

7.5K Points

8 years ago

"So one second might not be slow to some but to a busy pro trying to make a living in the flooded field of photography it really is unacceptable. "

Yeah ... but don't forget that Adobe saved you $20.00 on the upgrade to Lr 4 ... *just kidding here* ...

I can understand why folks that are experiencing sub standard performance would be upset ... the only reason working professionals continue to acquire and use the latest and greatest software is to save time which in turn makes us more productive and by doing so it props up our bottom line just a bit more ...

What I find the most disconcerting here and on the U2U forum is so many of the "regulars" and "champs" seem to be inclined to spend so much of their valuable time and effort in attacking fellow users while propping up Adobe as not being a factor in the circumstance ... Any reasonable thinking person could not read the comments here and any other forum concerning Lightroom and not be aware that more than a few folks are experiencing some significant performance issues.

Tom Hogarty mentioned in this Lightroom Journal Blog that over 300,000 folks downloaded and kicked the tires on the Lr4 public beta ... even then there were copious amounts of threads discussing the painfully poor performance issues ... we were assured because of that feedback, both here and on the now deleted beta forum that massive extermination of bugs had been accomplished and Adobe was quite confident that victory over the performance woes was well in hand ...

Then came not one, but two tries at a v4.1 RC ... followed by an official release of v4.1 ... and yet, if you follow the discussions by those folks still willing to try and make Lr4 work for them in their efforts to earn a living ... and while some are under the impression that "most" users are happy now ... there are still some significant performance issues with Lr 4.1 ... on every platform, OS version and very up to date hardware configurations ...

This version of Lightroom is the first version I did not buy or upgrade the very minute it was made available ... I trailed the public beta ... I limped along with both RC's (or the second and third public betas, if you will) and even did a 30 day trial of 4.1 ... even considering I could have purchased Lr4 for less than previous upgrades may have cost. I instead deleted all apps, data and supporting files of v4 off my workstations ... and I'll not upgrade any time soon ... my disappointment is such that I can't in good conscience trip the trigger to pay for the privilege to download the latest version ...

How anyone could ignore what has transpired over the past several months and lay the blame on the individual users is beyond comprehension ... Adobe dropped the ball on this version and rushed it out the door before it was ready for prime time ... and don't get me started on the half-baked "new" features in the other modules ... it only gets worse ...

513 Messages

 • 

11.1K Points

8 years ago

Maybe those taking a critical view on Steve Anchell's post should try to see the value of his posts not in providing yet another concrete scenario in which LR 4 fails to deliver -- aren't there enough of such examples available already? -- but in the fact that a writer and influencer will not recommend LR 4 in its present form.

Isn't it worrying that people like him cannot recommend LR 4?

Shouldn't Adobe try to help him as much as possible, rather than have others question his motives?

Is there anyone that could help him, but Adobe? In a few cases, a video driver can be a problem, or deleting previews may help, etc. However, frankly the best cure for most has always been a later LR release. Suddenly, all those machines which surely must have caused LR to be slow in earlier releases, stopped being the problem (because they never were in the first place).

I appreciate that sometimes software must be tweaked to work around a problem that exists on some machines/configurations only, but I do not think that this is the case with LR's performance issues. The apparent success for some to restrict LR's use of available cores seems to be an indication of LR being the problem, not the hardware or other software.

No software company can be happy about having shipped DVDs with a version that contained serious bugs (tone curve import, plugin/edit-in issues, performance issues). No software company can be happy about users reverting back to old versions because the latest 4.1 version still does not perform for them. Yet, unfortunately, still many will jump to Adobe's side and state that a) everything is rosy on their system, and b) surely the user and/or their system should be turned upside down first, and c) one should stop the whining because the "vast majority" is happy with the product (I wonder on the basis of which data these posters produce their statistics).

It is not my intention to offend anyone who genuinely tries to help a complaining user improve their situation. Not at all.

However, I find it regrettable that if one has an issue with LR, one often also has to deal with apologists on top of one's worries.

Champion

 • 

1.4K Messages

 • 

24.5K Points

8 years ago

Distilled to its essence:

The post to which many of you refer and hold up as evidence: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/971581... is 863 posts long. It began on March 6th-just over three months ago. Lightroom 4.1 was released on May 29th ( three weeks ago roughly) The announcement was made on post 804. 93% of the posts in this thread refers to a previous version of Lightroom.

17 days later, it was revealed in this post: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4494584 that the team had fixed something in LR 4.1 that allowed for vastly improved catalog/preview optimization. If you never optimize or hadn't you could gain speed by doing so. Many users have reported leaps forward in speed as a result. This takes another 2.3% of posts out of the mix. Most of what's left is the result of Mr. Anchell's effort to bring the remnant problem to light.

As I see it, if you haven't installed LR 4.1 Final and you haven't since optimized your catalog (not everyone uses LR's automated backup) you really have little basis for knowing precisely which performance issues you might still be having.

If you have installed 4.1 and have since optimized your primary catalog and are having tangible, measurable speed issues, we want to know about them. We want system specs, exact operations, elapsed times, departure in speed from LR 3 and departure from your expectations. I would consider that pretty reasonable and would be happy to test and compare results with anyone to see if we can isolate problems in the code, the system configuration, other software or any combination there of.

Anyone want to move forward?

322 Messages

 • 

7.5K Points

Anyone want to address the problem and NOT apologize for Adobe first?

Perhaps if you offered the last three paragraphs of the preceding comment on your first offering in this thread, there would not have been the need for the first three paragraphs now.

Instead, you attempted to enlighten the OP that he should have availed himself to the 30 day trial instead of complaining here. Then adding a line about you personally not experiencing any performance issues ... possibly indicating that alone is sufficient evidence to discredit the OP's claim ...

And who is this "we" you speak of? ... I thought this forum was for users to offer feedback directly to Adobe and the Lightroom team ...

Perhaps "we"could offer advice more ... and spend less time factoring what percentage of posts have been made to a thread after the final release of v4.1 in order to legitimize that it took "we" from March 5 until May 29 to get it right ... or as close to right as Adobe deems possible ...

946 Messages

 • 

13.8K Points

"Anyone want to address the problem and NOT apologize for Adobe first? "

Anyone having the problem want to address the problem and not bash Adobe first?

Details are needed. Saying things are slow is just about useless. Saying what is slow, by how much, on what OS, on what system, using what files on what screen size and and other such relevant details is useful.

The reasons we often point out that not everyone is having trouble is so that the user having the trouble understands the reason these details are needed and does just assume that any test on any machine will show what they are seeing.

Champion

 • 

1.4K Messages

 • 

24.5K Points

"We" are those of us here voluntarily who would help those who ask
...you want advice? "We" need information

As for your comments regarding my initial post, it was never directed back at the OP, rather it was directed at those who might read and consider his words.

Now, I repeat: Anyone want to move forward? We can make this thread into something useful.

322 Messages

 • 

7.5K Points

"...you want advice? "We" need information "

That's all very well and good ... I know you are really trying to be helpful ... but I thought this venue was to offer FEEDBACK to the particular engineers and developers at Adobe .... I mean, isn't this where you and Lee send every one when they complain over at the U2U? ...

If someone directly from Adobe would request further data, the whole effort would be more appreciated ... the almost complete lack of recognition or participation by Adobe employees when a problem is shared here is very disconcerting and doesn't do much for instilling confidence in the minds of users facing a problem ...

I thought the U2U forum is where you went when you need assistance, advice and solutions from fellow users ... here, I actually expect to see more participation from actual Adobe employees than what has been evident of late ....

If I am mistaken as to the purpose of the two different venues ... I apologize ...

16 Messages

 • 

2.1K Points

8 years ago

Lee and Rikk,

You want specs? Okay, here are some specs:

This thread:

TK Anthony
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.

Adobe Forums:

Savagephoto
Asus system
i7 2630Q 2.0GHz
16GB ram
2 x 750GB 7200 drives
C = OS
D = only LR Cache + Catalog + only the current Raw files

feedback.photoshop.com (alternate thread)

Alexander White 4 days ago

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU X 980 @ 3.33GHz
2xNVIDIA GeForce 460 in SLI
12GB DDR3 RAM
SSD

Christian Riedel 3 days ago

Same problems here. LR 4.1 is super slow. Had no problems with LR3.

Intel i7-2720QM
Nvidia NVS4200M 512MB
8 GB RAM
SSD

Okay, now you have specs. At least the last two have been posted on the forum for several days. I know for certain that both of you are well-meaning enthusiasts. But tell me, or tell them, now that you have the specs, what are you able to do for any one of them? Perhaps you can come up with a temporary fix for any one or all of them. That's not the issue.

What you are not getting is at this point, for those who DO have a problem, the solution has to come from Adobe. I keep hearing that Adobe is monitoring this forum. I keep hearing that Adobe is working on the problem. Okay, Rikk. Okay, Lee. It's been six months since the first post on Adobe Forum. Where is anyone from Adobe weighing in on this? Where is anyone from Adobe tech support trying to solve the problem, not just well-meaning forum users? I don't see that Adobe really is concerned.

My conclusion is that Adobe hopes we will simply bikker with each other until they can come out with LR 5, after extensive Beta testing that makes us feel like we're part of the process, and expect us all to pony up the upgrade fee and like them for it.

So, yes, you do come across as apologists for Adobe.

Champion

 • 

1.4K Messages

 • 

24.5K Points

These do not appear to be your specs. Additionally, they are missing quantifiable, repeatable actions with elapsed times. You are merely regurgitating materials we've already read and evaluated and in the case of SavagePhoto acted upon. (He appears to be fixed now btw).

Where are your system specs? What specific areas of slowness are you speaking to? I

"Where is anyone from Adobe weighing in on this? Where is anyone from Adobe tech support trying to solve the problem, not just well-meaning forum users? I don't see that Adobe really is concerned."

Because you do not see-does not mean that it isn't there.

17 Messages

 • 

244 Points

8 years ago

HOLY CRAP Wacom released drivers on the 14th . I just installed those and the problem apears to be GONE!!!!

Champion

 • 

1.4K Messages

 • 

24.5K Points

So I no longer need to confirm your slow reports you so excellently reported earlier today?

Graduated filter normal?
Spot removal, zippy?
Brush keeps up?

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

8 years ago

If I were having a problem with Lightroom, which wasn't solved by the usual things that sometimes work:

* fresh drivers for user input devices and graphics card.
* deleting all dependent files and re-creating: catalog, caches, prefs, plugins, presets ...

I'd strip my system down to bare essentials:

If Lightroom won't work with only a keyboard connected, on a newly formatted hard drive with fresh OS install, and no non-essential software or services running, then it doesn't like the machine (hardware/drivers/OS-config...) for some reason.

If it works OK, one can rebuild from ground up, or use the "binary search" technique (put half the stuff back in and try it again...). System specs not too important if problem has nothing to do with hardware/drivers...

If it doesn't work OK when stripped to bare minimum, then either buy a new computer, or wait for Adobe... - it's then that the system spec's would be more pertinent.

PS - I understand if people don't want the job. I'm sure the ultimate fixes to Lr4 will come from Adobe, just like they did Lr3, which also had a multitude of performance-affecting bugs for many months after initial release. I don't stand next to hornet's nests, and I expect Adobe employees feel safer working on the software than trying to keep us all in the loop via the forums. - not apologizing for them, just sayin': nothing new going on here...

Cheers,
Rob

17 Messages

 • 

244 Points

8 years ago

I may have been a bit hasty - since installing the new wacom drivers the problem is inconsistent.

I have disabled Virus protection on my d drive and lightroom folder and lightroom user preference folders.

I can then run lightroom for a while before it slows down but if I close it and open it again it is back to usesable.

Usable means that it is only a tiny bit sluggish.

This eventual slowdown happens even on a clean boot using wired mouse

FYI the affinity fix now has no effect.

BUT I GIVE UP - I am moving to Capture one. my trial have shown this to work. I would rather lightroom work but that obviously isn't going to happen.

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

I'll be curious to hear how it goes for you with C1. Please do report back after a while, eh?

Champion

 • 

1.4K Messages

 • 

24.5K Points

8 years ago

Paul,

Thanks for the update. Too bad it didn't stick. We will keep cranking on a solution.