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

2 Messages

 • 

62 Points

8 years ago

Just to add that I use the latest version of Lion i.e. 10.7.4 (OS X).

6 Messages

 • 

132 Points

8 years ago

LR4.1 is excruciatingly slow and pretty much unusable in my daily workflow, If I move a slider the lag is decidedly noticeable and can take up to 3 seconds for the results to be rendered and switching between photos in develop can take almost 5 seconds

4 Messages

 • 

90 Points

8 years ago

Hey guys it is nice to see it is not just my lightroom not working great and very slow alot the same as everyone else on here, Has anyones been fixed ?

27 Messages

 • 

518 Points

8 years ago

There may have been a few that have gotten some relief from trying different things, but I believe that for the vast majority of us with performance issues, NOTHING has helped substantially. In many cases, LR is virtually unusable, and we're all waiting for Adobe to come out with some significant performance improvements.

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

8 years ago

Is it raw editing that causes most of the performance woes?

How is it editing lossy DNGs? What about tiff/jpegs?

17 Messages

 • 

244 Points

8 years ago

Sure fire way to speed up lightroom - uninstall it and use Bridge with ACR/Photoshop then use the free program Zoner Photo Studio for your catalog. Costs No more money than you have already spent and will save you money not having to buy lightroom in the future. Seriously my workflow is MUCH faster. There was a bit of a learning curve but... VERY workable.

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

Some people have the same performance problems with ACR as Lightroom, so for them it would not work, but for those like you for whom Lightroom is the problem, this sounds like an excellent solution. And not that hard to switch back to Lightroom in the future if it's performance woes get solved.

Is Lightroom slow in Library module too, or just develop?

11 Messages

 • 

164 Points

8 years ago

Does anyone know if LR4.1 running on a Win7 64bit box, i7 3770 CPU, 32gb ram,
2 Sata III SSD's one for OS/Programs, and the second for LR catalog, cache, etc.
actually can access more the 4gb of ram? When I bring up resmon.exe, during an import of 40 Nikon D800/E 14 bit NEFS with 1:1 previews, resource monitor only shows LR using 4gb of ram, and in terms of CPU utilization it seems that indeed LR4 does use all of my 8 cores, all running at almost 100%
Which brings me to I wonder if going with an older Sandy Bridge 6 core processor would improve the situation.

I wish Adobe would not only spec, minimum requirements, but also add a "power" user setup...

Steven

71 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

8 years ago

These same issues affect everyone: from ancient computers, to macbook airs, to crazy power rigs.

It is not a problem with our computers, it is a problem with adobe's code.
They massively changed the whole develop engine, and that's where most people are seeing major issues.

Until adobe rewrites, fixes, cleans up, whatever the code at the core of the program we are all screwed, we will continue to be screwed as we have been for going on 5 months now.

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

Normal performance issues affect everyone.
Abnormal performance issues are only affecting some.

The more sophisticated algorithms take more CPU to execute - that's normal (I'm not saying there's no room for optimization).

If you have to disable all the even cores, and enable all the odd cores to get better (but still not very good) performance - that's abnormal.

This is why I try to make the distinction when talking about this stuff - are we talking about the normal things that take more time, or abnormal.

People who are just irked and don't care what's normal or abnormal and just want a fix get irritated by such distinction - fair enough: understood.

But the distinction is important to:
* users who are trying to figure out whether Lr is running as good as can be expected on their machine, or not.
* Adobe who is trying to fix abnormal performance problems before optimizing normal performance.

11 Messages

 • 

164 Points

For me, I assume everything is running OK especially that I am working on 39MB NEF files, I am just trying to confirm that A: LR 4.1 only accesses 4GB of ram, so more ram will not speed things up, meaning for me, I have 32GB already and going to 64GB will not change anything for LR, and B: will upgrading to a 6 Core Sandy Bridge processor make my imports - 1:1 previews go any faster?

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

If you have enough ram, more won't help. 32GB is enough.
If Lr is performing normally, then a CPU upgrade will make it go faster.

71 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

A powerful i7 processor, 32GB of ram and two SSDs, the machine should fly.
open photoshop, or any other "heavy" program and you shouldnt have any real performance issues.

The problems with LR are within LR and have nothing to do with the system. A faster computer will make LR move faster than a slower computer, but the vast bulk of the problems youre no doubt facing are related to LR 4 and not your system.

5 Messages

 • 

108 Points

8 years ago

I'm finding that simply moving the mouse over the image causes both cores to jump tto 50%. this happens all the time.
As soon as I start using local edits, the develop module slows to a crawl, with all sliders then becoming sluggish.
I have tried all options described (trashing the preferences, and I've even rebuilt the whole machine, negative cache)
dualcore 2.6pentium,16gb memory,three discs (os, image/cat,software). exceptions in antivirus for images and software, nvidia 8800gt - all up to date.
I'm now finding capture NX2 a smoother exerience overall(!)
hans

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

This is abnormal. I have no idea what the trouble is. I assume you already tried a different mouse/driver. PS - Up to date does not necessarily mean more compatible. Sometimes one needs to down-date their graphics driver, or use a card from a different manufacturer if that's where the rub is. Last time I updated my display driver it goofed up BeyondTV. And updating iTunes always stops my TiVo server from working correctly, due to an incompatible version of Bonjour.

Note: I'm not trying to defend Adobe nor displace blame. Just saying, sometimes one piece of software can affect another.

5 Messages

 • 

108 Points

Hi Rob,
Thanks for the response.
I'm actually kind of over trying to debug adobe's software for them.
It looks like they are relying on the goodwill of numerous technology-literate individuals to do their work for them.
If other products can do non-destructive editing with better performance, so can they.
I find it hard to believe that PV2012 is *that* much more complex, so's it broke the processing pipeline.
Hans

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

Fair enough Hans - good luck to ya...

27 Messages

 • 

518 Points

8 years ago

Unfortunately, this too, is a predictable part of every "LR is slow" topic. We expend huge amounts of time and effort trying to desperately find SOMETHING other than the product that's having the performance issues on hundreds or thousands of machines. So we try to throw faster hardware at the problem - faster CPUs, more memory, SSDs. We then try to blame drivers, sometimes going from the likely to the unlikely to the utterly ridiculous in the effort to avoid the central problem - THE PRODUCT IS SLOW. IT'S PERCEPTIBLY SLOWER THAN THE PREVIOUS VERSION. The boxes haven't gotten slower, the mouse drivers haven't deteriorated, the Wacom tablet is exactly the same today as it was when using 3.6.
Yes, we can mess with all sorts of drivers and settings and hardware - I do it too, every time I see a note that says "I fixed by LR4 by doing xxx", but I'm at the point where I believe the reality is that THE PROBLEM LIES WITH ADOBE, AND ADOBE NEEDS TO PUT THE REQUIRED RESOURCES INTO FIXING IT.

If MS Office ran this lousy every time Microsoft released a new version, the screaming and howls of anguish would be cacophonous. There'd be demands for lawsuits and refunds and all manner of hades (it's a "family" site so...) to be rained down on Bellevue...

Other than Peter, have we heard from ANYONE at Adobe indicating what they're doing and when they expect to address the problems?

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

|> "THE PROBLEM..."

There's more than one problem. Some will be fixed when Lr4.2 is released, some won't.

10 Messages

 • 

176 Points

8 years ago

Well said!

6 Messages

 • 

132 Points

8 years ago

How do we go about getting a refund? I can't seem to find any way

10 Messages

 • 

156 Points

8 years ago

I just did a very worrysome comparison:

I used two PCs that should be very different in speed:

1)
Core 2 Duo T9900 CPU (2 threads)
4GB RAM
Windows 7 64bit
normal HDD

2)
2nd gen i7-2720QM (8 threads)
8GB RAM
Windows 7 64-bit
SSD

I imported 30 Sony Nex7 RAW images (already present on the local hard drive) and rendered 1:1 previews during the import.

The shocking thing is that this process took exactly the same time on both machines. While the old Dual-core was 70% of the time at full CPU load on both cores, the new i7-2720QM did only show a brief utilization of all its cores every 5-10 seconds, but most of the time the CPU load was stuck around 15%.
Also, while the old T9900 used most of its 4GB RAM, the new i7 still had 4 GB free. I have actually never seen LR use more than 1.5 GB on any machine.
Finally, working with LR 4.1, switching modules, etc. was equally fast/slow on both machines.

How is it possible that LR4.1 does not run any faster on a much higher spec'ed computer?

My conclusion: LR 4.1 does not make use of newer hardware, i.e. more cores or memory. Upgrading your computer is likely not going to fix anything.
LR was apparently written for old dual core CPUs. Anything else is overkill.

I am utterly disappointed. (and yes, I already tried all other fixes for LR4.1 that float around the internet. all of them.)
When I have a powerful computer, I expect that a demanding piece of software like LR4.1 at least makes use of it.

Question to People with high-end systems: When you rendere 1:1 previews, are all your cores for most of the time at full CPU load? or do you only get an occasional load spike every few seconds (like me)?

10 Messages

 • 

176 Points

I tried experimenting with turning off some of the CPU cores in Affinity. I first tried just half of them and then tried every other one. Subjectuvely it felt a little better with only half of the cores active and no diffeence with every other one, but I have not used a stopwatch to verify.

If it is indeed faster with less cores than more, and as also seems to be the case, LR is incapable of using more than 4GB of RAM, this is clearly a major coding failure. This would explain why it is not faster on high-end hardware than it is on old hardware - the coding seems unable to take advantage of multiple cores (Or, say more than 4 cores) and more than 4GB of RAM - now when it is and has been for awhile now, common for even mid-range computers to come with 6 core CPUs and 8 to 12 GB of RAM.

11 Messages

 • 

164 Points

8 years ago

I have noticed that CPU load goes from 15% to 100% every time LR builds a new preview and it does use all the cores, though foe me never more then 4-6 GB ram

10 Messages

 • 

156 Points

That's correct. Same experience here on my 2nd gen i7-2720QM (8 threads), 8GB RAM, Windows 7 64-bit, SSD.
The problem in preview building for me is the long time it takes between these 100% spikes. What is the computer doing so long before moving on to the next photo?

8 Messages

 • 

340 Points

8 years ago

I also noticed that turning off detail panel speeds up slider responsiveness. It looks it's not that easy for developers to fix the overall performance issues for now.

So what about making the instant noise reduction preview in develop panel optional in preferences?
It would be still better than to apply NR as a last step as someone suggested, because personally (and I think lot of others) I apply NR before actual editing and I'm checking and adjusting it quite a lot when I do edits like exposure,shadows..