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

17 Messages

 • 

244 Points

8 years ago

Well working on this HUGE project while learning a new UI is too much change so I have been chugging along in LR until I start processing the next project in my list. I got POed the other day and went to adobe support. After the second contact and after telling them all that I did they said they would escalate my case to the next level. So I waited the 2-3 business days and on the 4th day I chatted with them again to ask where is my phone call. They tried to re troubleshoot but I was having none of that. After asking numerous times where is my phone call. I was told that they sent an email telling me to update my drivers (which they knew I did according to our transcripts) and closed my case. This is a BOLD FACED LIE!!! No email, No email is ever deleted and I even checked the server and the servers spam folder. NONE!!! Then this tech decided to try and have me rerun the same trouble shooting steps again. until I was finally told that it is NOT an adobe problem it certainly has to do with drivers and software on my computer... I asked her if I did a clean install of the OS and only put LR on would she listen to me. She blew off the answer and restated the driver software statement. How CRAPPY is that? This is my work computer and so there is nothing on here that I can really give up. If adobe 3.6 can play nice on this computer why cant 4.1? I have been using Adobe products since Photoshop 3x. and they think it is acceptable to treat me (us) this way. 4.1 is crappy code and they are pretending its perfect. Thank you for letting me Vent.

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

|> "4.1 is crappy code and they are pretending its perfect."

4.1 is code that is working nicely for some, and not for others.

*Nobody* (here) is pretending it is perfect!

Thank you for letting me retort...

2 Messages

 • 

92 Points

8 years ago

FWIW have perhaps stumbled on a fix, or at least something that has resolved the slowness for me.

In Library, with the Catalog in folder view had a few dead links to folders on the hard drive that had been moved or deleted. I removed all the dead links and optimised the catalog by clicking "Optimize Catalog" in the File menu. Once that finished - took about 5 minutes, I closed LR, ran a back up including optimizing, and restarted LR.

Problem solved. Import now same as LR3.6, sliders not sticky, speed to render an image in develop same as 3.6. I have my doubts this will fix everyone's problems, hope it works for some.

BTW I'm running LR4.1 on a Toshiba laptop with a quad core i5 M430 with 4 GB RAM (Win 7 32 Bit).

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

Welcome to the fold. Lr4.1/PV2012 rocks! - once you get it working right, and learn how to use it...

17 Messages

 • 

244 Points

Rob - I know there is no perfect code its just that the last person I talked to said that the problem is not with LR but with software or drivers on my system. Thats very near to saying that their code is perfect :)

17 Messages

 • 

244 Points

Ron did you just sync the folder with dead links having it remove the dead links or did you do it manually? I cant imagine that there is a difference but if someone gets results I would like to know specifically how to reproduce their steps.

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

|> "I know there is no perfect code its just that the last person I talked to said that the problem is not with LR but with software or drivers on my system."

Tech support dang near has to assume that the problem you are having is on your system, otherwise they surely can't help. They are mostly not qualified to make judgements one way or the other - just walk you through the things they've been trained to... That's not unique to Adobe - *all* front-line (low-wage) tech support is like that, pretty much - right?

If it's any consolation, I find it aggravating too...

17 Messages

 • 

244 Points

Yes but at some point they need to admit defeat and get you to a problem solving tech as opposed to an internal KB robot.

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

8 years ago

Regarding the "is my system, or is Lightroom the problem?" question.

Answer: The root of the problem could be either, and the solution to the problem could be either as well. Reminder: 4.1 fixed a lot of 4.0 user's performance problems, so will 4.2, and probably 4.3... Same was true of Lr3, for sure, and probably Lr2 & Lr1... But also, lots of people solved their own problems before Adobe released the version that might have done it.

So, fingers-crossed, maybe do some things that might help, and hope either you or Adobe brings relief soon...

17 Messages

 • 

244 Points

8 years ago

It is a programming challenge to write code that works on every possible pc configuration out there. I get that and appreciate the complexities of the situation. However I would be more tolerant of this issue if

1. I wasn't using a common brand name system
2. My system wasn't top of the line
3. I had second rate components added
4 I used or installed second rate software
5. if I had issue with other software including but not limited to other Adobe software
6. If I had had issues with earlier versions of this product
7. If Adobe didnt try to ignore / brush off my issue as if it didnt exist
8. If any or all of the above were true

I think I am justified in expecting all Adobe Products to function reasonably well on my system.

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

Fair enough.

Champion

 • 

5.8K Messages

 • 

102.5K Points

Your frustration is completely understandable Paul. They're not brushing it off - they're just struggling to be able to reproduce these issues, which are limited to a much smaller number of users now, in order to be able to fix them.

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

|> "They're not brushing it off - they're just struggling to be able to reproduce these issues, which are limited to a much smaller number of users now, in order to be able to fix them."

Victoria,

I'm sure you're right about that.

And I hope that the Adobe silence in the forums about it is doing more good than harm - not so sure about that part.

Rob

10 Messages

 • 

176 Points

8 years ago

It is unusably slow for me as well, and I have a week-old, extremely high-end computer. Specs as follows:

Lightroom version: 4.1 [829322]
Operating system: Windows 7 Business Edition
Version: 6.1 [7601]
Application architecture: x64
System architecture: x64
Physical processor count: 12
Processor speed: 3.2 GHz
Built-in memory: 16333.0 MB
Real memory available to Lightroom: 16333.0 MB
Real memory used by Lightroom: 897.9 MB (5.4%)
Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 931.9 MB
Memory cache size: 330.8 MB
System DPI setting: 96 DPI
Desktop composition enabled: Yes
Displays: 1) 1920x108
SDD hard drive

The Devolop module is pathetic. 5-7 seconds for any change and there seems to me a memory leak as it gets slower over time.

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

It seems to me that the higher-end systems have relatively *more* problems running Lightroom. No?

Champion

 • 

5.8K Messages

 • 

102.5K Points

Erik, can you watch how many CPU's are being hit when you move a Develop slider please? We're hearing a few reports of it only hitting 1 for some people.

10 Messages

 • 

176 Points

All of my CPUs are being hit, but bearly...somewhere between 1 and 3%. LR seems to get progressively slower over time as well - feels like a memory leak. What else is strange, is that, even with 16GB of RAM and a 64-bit system, LR insists on using a swap file and will only use a small (3-4GB) amount of available memory and seems to "thrash" instead of utilizing more RAM to work quickly as one would expect. Even though I have a SSD, only using a tiny part of available RAM and creating a swap file on the hard drive seems less than ideal from a programatical standpoint. I don't write code myself, but I have been in the IT industry for 20 years and this is odd to say the least.

17 Messages

 • 

244 Points

8 years ago

It does seem as if the better your system is the more problems you are likely to have.... My adobe update..... After getting them to reopen my case. They had me uninstall and re-install quicklime (though I don't do video???). They also had me remove all the Wacom drivers. Well now my case is off to level 3. FYI - I got the "sense" that they think "yes LR4 is slow. We know. Whats the big deal?" Well they may be matter of fact about this but of course they don't make their money off actually using the product.

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

I think it's important to always make the distinction:

* Normal performance hit, due to additional processing, vs
* Abnormal performance hit, due to bugs.

Lr4 will always take longer for PV2012 than PV2010 (that's normal), but the develop sliders should be very responsive, or it's abnormal (a *little* "unsmoothness" is normal...).

Note: Lr4 will always take slightly longer for PV2010 than Lr3 did, because of new CA handling. But it should be relatively minor...

R

Champion

 • 

5.8K Messages

 • 

102.5K Points

"Note: Lr4 will always take slightly longer for PV2010 than Lr3 did, because of new CA handling. But it should be relatively minor... "

And because the noise reduction is now always being applied to the fit view in Develop, whereas LR3 was adaptive.

19 Messages

 • 

244 Points

Victoria and Rob, you are quite sanguine about the situation. As a Pro User i don't give a s**t about how the NR is applied or whatnot. Its the programmer's job to make it work. Elegant, sophisticated programming finds ways to optimize and improve the User's experience. WTF is "normal" about pv2012 taking longer than pv2010? That's just a lame excuse.
Here's an example (from Adobe, no less): the first version of InDesign was a stinky dog, performance-wise. Each subsequent version got a little better even as new features were added and then it became quite good (in general). No whining about "hey we added new stuff so of course its a little slower".
The whole thing is a FAIL.

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

The purpose of defining "normal" performance is not to let Adobe off the hook, but so users know when Lr4 is performing as good as they can expect, or not.

Some people are upset due to additional processing that is "normal", and some people are upset because Lr4 is not performing normally on their machine. I think it's valuable to know which case you fall in.

I have no interest in either defending or bashing Adobe.

I think Lr4/PV2012 rocks! - I consider the fact that Adobe has achieved the best quality on the planet to be a feather in their cap.

Whether or not you think it's worth the wait for improved quality results is a personal thing, and I have no interest in attempting to change your mind about it. Me? I would be unhappy with abnormal performance, but a little extra CPU time to get higher quality results is a price I'm willing to pay.

47 Messages

 • 

836 Points

You have no interest in either defending or bashing Adobe....really? Enough please. This is a thread to try to figure out how to fix a BIG problem for a LOT of people ('some people' according to you). Well, your post smacks of Adobe partisanship. You're clearly trying to just wipe away a BIG problem for a LOT of people. Enough already. LR4 isn't nearly as fast as LR3 for a lot of folks. Who gives a sh** if thats normal or not. Its a damn problem for many of us!! Thats why we continue to try to help each other fix it across atleast 3 threads of over 700+ posts because Adobe has their head up their arse. "Best quality on the planet". Why dont you just go post your hyperbole somewhere else. This is a forum for people trying to get their work done. If you can help fix the problem please do, if not go away.

39 Messages

 • 

510 Points

8 years ago

I am also updating here as well:

[Knock on wood]

I read somewhere, perhaps in this thread about trying to turn on virtualization technology in their BIOS.

I am finding a noticeable improvement in performance and stability on my dual-monitor setup. I read somewhere that a LUT-based monitor calibration might be causing headaches for some. I re-calibrated my (2) DELL 2209WAs using Matrix ICC4 standards on EyeOne Color Match 3.6.2

My Intel chipset is from the 2009 Core i5 750 with 16 GB DDR3 SDRAM.

Anyone having trouble with stability and performance issues try:

1) Set virtualization to "ON" in your BIOS.
2) Recalibrate your monitors with Matrix and not LUT

Please update/report back if any perceivable difference.

13 Messages

 • 

184 Points

8 years ago

Peter -

Thanks for the inputs. I gave this a try and so far it appears to have made a significant difference in improving the very sluggish performance I was seeing. I'll continue testing. My system info is included below.

Dave

Lightroom version: 4.1 [829322]
Operating system: Windows 7 Home Premium Edition
Version: 6.1 [7601]
Application architecture: x86
System architecture: x86
Physical processor count: 2
Processor speed: 2.0 GHz
Built-in memory: 3581.9 MB
Real memory available to Lightroom: 716.8 MB
Real memory used by Lightroom: 1006.1 MB (140.3%)
Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 1053.0 MB
Memory cache size: 0.0 MB
System DPI setting: 96 DPI
Desktop composition enabled: Yes
Displays: 1) 1920x1200

47 Messages

 • 

836 Points

8 years ago

Peter- *please* tell how to consistently report our problem to Adobe...Dave's sys info above is great but each and everyone of us determines ourselves what we *think* you need to know but we have no template to follow thus everyone of us provides different info.

That fact that Adobe doesn't have the cause nailed down is certainly disappointing but you have 100s of users here willing and able to help, test, provide feedback, etc... Just tell us what you need to know pls! thx

Adobe Administrator

 • 

780 Messages

 • 

16.7K Points

8 years ago

Hello all,

Thanks for the initial responses so far around the steps I posted. Good to see that some of you are reporting a speed increase already. If others try it out and see an increase in LR4 / LR 4.1 performance, please let us know here on the forum.

For those that have rebuilt their preference files and noticed a speed increase. The team would really like to get the "faulty" preference files so that we can look into them and see what may be causing the slowdown, if it indeed is a preference related thing for you that have reported a speed increase.

Please compress (zip, rar, etc) the preference folders and email them to petgreen at adobe dot com (note the email is petgreen, not petegreen). Thanks!

As to the rest -- here are my questions that will help us dig deeper into what is going on...

These types of information would be helpful:

- specific information as to what is slow and what circumstances are involved.

Example 1: some customers have said moving from image to image in Loupe view is slow. For those customers it would be useful to know if this is slow in Develop or in Library. It would also be useful to know how the slowness manifests: does the app freeze up?, does the pinwheel or hourglass display? does the loading bezel persist? how long are the delays?

Example 2: some users say Develop is slow. Does this mean the sliders are jerky? Does the main Loupe view lag? What sort of adjustments are slow? Was the adjustment brush or spot healing used on the image? Are the images PV2010 or PV2012? Are these the same images that were fast in LR3? If not, what types of images are slow? Is the filmstrip or second monitor showing images?

Example 3: some users say module switching is slow. Is this always slow or just the first time the module loads? If it's always slow, what sequence is used to update the images?

For Develop module related trouble

1) Are you viewing a folder/collection/etc that contains one or more images that have more that 6 spot heals or more than 6 adjustment brush strokes? If you remove those images, does LR perform better?

2) Is the filmstrip or second monitor showing? If yes, does performance improve when hiding the filmstrip and second monitor views?

See if you can get data on any of these 3 examples and questions.

If it is a slowdown or something entirely different, feel free to post your experience with as much information as you can.

Thanks!
Pete

21 Messages

 • 

274 Points

"1) Are you viewing a folder/collection/etc that contains one or more images that have more that 6 spot heals or more than 6 adjustment brush strokes? If you remove those images, does LR perform better?"

Pete, I appreciate the fact that you are in this but really, I don't know of any of my sessions where I don't use the adjustment brush. That is the biggest advantage LR 4 has over Aperture and many other competitors. This would near impossible to help you with.

Mike

27 Messages

 • 

518 Points

8 years ago

Rebooted again, started LR in develop, and watched the clock. I was close... It was almost exactly 45 seconds from starting LR to when it finished loading an image in develop...

Again, subsequent starts are in the 15 second range, but the first time after a reboot is really slow...

SO, now that I've gotten rid of the temp files and it APPEARS to be running at least slightly faster, do I still use the bat file to start it and limit it to 3 cores?

17 Messages

 • 

244 Points

8 years ago

On a new install (take out OS drive and put in new empty drive and install)
(FYI - exactly same results with my working system)
(If I set LR affinity to only run on 3 of 4 main cores and no Hyper cores subtract about 1-2 seconds from most results)
windows 7 64
No other apps running - none installed
lightroom 4.1.
Dual monitor system but only using one monitor with lightroom
with or without filmstrip.
3 photo catalog for most tests working catalog for length of running time test
(FYI working Catalog 7000 photos times are same as with only 3 photos but with main catalog 500,000 photos all times are roughly + 1-2 seconds)
photo reset and history cleared between every test.
PV2012

I don't tend to move between modules often enough to for that slowdown to be a big impact but for clarity it can take anywhere from 5-15 sec to go from Library to Develop.

In develop
from one photo to the next is 4-7 sec with no tools selected.
If brush is selected it takes a min of 5 sec but often 7-9 sec.

Sliders - are always sluggish never zippy (by zippy I mean real time)
All sliders are 1-2 increments behind the mouse regardless of how slow the slider is dragged. I am getting used to this but still requires fineness to get it right.

Now for the tough stuff.
I don't use red eye tool so I will refer to the other 4.
All four tools respond with the same amount of lag as the sliders
UNTIL - add lens correction
if I drag a gradient I see the 3 lines but they do not follow the mouse. I have to imagine the path. If I never let go of the mouse button the gradient takes 10 sec sometimes longer. Once I let go of the mouse button there will be at least a 4 sec response before the gradient is placed. and then up to another4 sec for every adjustment trying to get it where I really want it.
Spot tool is about the same response as gradient
Crop and angle become sluggish -(like sliders are without lens correction)
Brush tools seems to be OK
add Noise reduction to the mix than all these times are 1.5x longer.

Without lens correction and only Noise reduction.
Sliders and tools become more sluggish but not as impossible to work with as with Lens Correction on

For the next test I did not reset but rather undo and reset history
Images with A lot of minor adjustments for this
Ex +1
Con +55
High +48
Shad +48
White +45
Blacks +40
Clar +33
Vib +36
Sat +33

Curv = Med

HSL = all sat +20

everything else defaults
Sliders, crop, angle, spot = all sluggish
Gradient and Brush = about 1-2 sec behind mouse input

Add Noise to the mix
Sliders, crop, angle = Sluggish
Spot = 1-2 sec behind
Gradient and brush = 1-3 sec behind

Add Lens correction
Sliders = sluggish
Crop & angle = sluggish
Spot tap let go = 1-2 sec
Spot tap and drag = up to 10 seconds for first 4 or so spots then 15+ sec with 5 or more spots
Gradient = 8-15 seconds
Brush = 1-2 sec behind

If I keep working in lightroom 30 min or so (obviously a real catalog) the program gets slower and slower without apparently using more memory. Slowness is similar to these results though I haven't tested with a timer yet.

Sliders = sluggish
Crop & angle = sluggish
Spot tap let go = 1-2 sec
Spot tap and drag = up to 10 seconds for first 4 or so spots then 15+ sec with 5 or more spots
Gradient = 8-15 seconds
Brush = 1-2 sec behind

Typical Adjustments
Temp
Slight adjustments to
contrast
shadows
clarity
vib
sharpen
and a touch of noise reduction

Is there any other information I can get you?

71 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

8 years ago

Thanks for the suggestion, however that doesnt work.
I have tried it.

First of all, my presets are normally stored within the Cat. (as they should be)
However, as I am low on options, I unchecked that, then renamed the folder located within the USER/Application Support/Adobe root - let it create a new one, and even cleared all temp cache via Onyx. as per the instructions. Restarted

No improvement.

The develop module still takes 5-10 seconds to even switch between photos (photos with full rendered previews I may add, unrendered, would be way longer) - furthermore I am running these checks of tiny Panasonic GF1 - files - Micro4/3s 13MP images - and it's still massively slow, forget working with a Pro DSLR file. - simple sliders go from semi jerky at best to massive 7second render updates, - I havent even bothered trying to do any adjustment brush work or spot removal.

----

There is a major problem with Lightroom. My machine is very powerful, and has no problem working with IQ180 files in Capture One (80MP Fullframe Mid Format)
(also, Phase supports new Canon and Nikon tethering, Not in LR.... ugh???!!!)

Working with even the tiniest of files in LR makes me want to rip my hair out.
It's like a writer being forced to only type one word every 15 seconds. Good luck writing that book.

LR is entirely unusable for any sort of professional work at this point. And it is really wreaking my workflow and my ability to do my job.

Champion

 • 

5.8K Messages

 • 

102.5K Points

You tried trashing the preferences file including previous versions too? That'll be in the User/Library/Preferences folder if you're on a Mac.

What settings are you applying to the photos? I'm noticing some issues around noise reduction which go away with those set to default luminance 0, color 25.

Have you tried purging the ACR cache too? In the preferences dialog, there's a button to do so.

17 Messages

 • 

244 Points

8 years ago

Can anyone suggest an alternate Cataloging software option?

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

17 Messages

 • 

244 Points

I haven't tried anything else yet but at $200 I might as well Keep LR even if it is only for cataloging. I was hoping for a less expensive option that was still awesome with both online and offline photos.

5 Messages

 • 

108 Points

iMatch - Not pretty, but fast and functional.

2 Messages

 • 

62 Points

8 years ago

I am facing this same problem with Lr4.1 on my mid 2010 MacBook Pro with 8GB RAM, i5 CPU and standard 5400rpm HDD. This problem manifests a lot with heavy and complex development e.g. while using number of adjustment brush instances. Specially, response to the changes done using brush and conversion to full size jpeg / tiff after completion becomes painstakingly slow. I have verified and found that this is not due to any I/O lag or similar hardware response issue. I use the latest version of Lion i.e. 10.7.4 (OS X).

I am talking about RAW (NEF) file based development with average file size
of 15MB form camera like Nikon D300S.

Hope this gets rectified with next patch / version update.