Lightroom: Performance and optimization: LR is slow

  • 202
  • Problem
  • Updated 2 months ago
  • (Edited)
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.
Photo of STEVE ANCHELL

STEVE ANCHELL

  • 16 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like

Posted 8 years ago

  • 202
Photo of jdv

jdv, Champion

  • 728 Posts
  • 57 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of Christian Riedel

Christian Riedel

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1376 Posts
  • 355 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1376 Posts
  • 355 Reply Likes
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?
Photo of Christian Riedel

Christian Riedel

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
It's allowed to use 8 processors/threads.
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1376 Posts
  • 355 Reply Likes
Good information. If you change it to 6 Cores what happens?
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1376 Posts
  • 355 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of David Sparks

David Sparks

  • 13 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
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!
Photo of Paul savage

Paul savage

  • 17 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
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.
Photo of Lance Rogers

Lance Rogers

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of STEVE ANCHELL

STEVE ANCHELL

  • 16 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
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
Photo of Rob Presson

Rob Presson

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
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?...
Photo of Rob Presson

Rob Presson

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I did not change this, might be a win 8 or Lightroom bug. I am sharing this do that people might want to verify if only one cpu is being used, or check the affinity to be sure. Sure helped me
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
Got it. - thanks. -R.
Photo of Rob Presson

Rob Presson

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Np. I suspect there are several reasons for slowness.
Photo of STEVE ANCHELL

STEVE ANCHELL

  • 16 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
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.
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 994 Posts
  • 137 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of STEVE ANCHELL

STEVE ANCHELL

  • 16 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Thank you, Lee. Sincerely.
Photo of Christian Riedel

Christian Riedel

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
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
Photo of TK Anthony

TK Anthony

  • 13 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 994 Posts
  • 137 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of STEVE ANCHELL

STEVE ANCHELL

  • 16 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
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?
Photo of TK Anthony

TK Anthony

  • 13 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thanks, Steve. Maybe we'll get the message across one of these years ;-)
Photo of STEVE ANCHELL

STEVE ANCHELL

  • 16 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
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?
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1376 Posts
  • 355 Reply Likes
"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
Photo of STEVE ANCHELL

STEVE ANCHELL

  • 16 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Rikk, it is good that you too have not had a problem with LR 4. That does not help those of us who have.
Photo of Ronald N. Tan

Ronald N. Tan

  • 33 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of STEVE ANCHELL

STEVE ANCHELL

  • 16 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
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.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
|> "...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
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1376 Posts
  • 355 Reply Likes
Mr. Anchell,

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

STEVE ANCHELL

  • 16 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
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.
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 994 Posts
  • 137 Reply Likes
"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.
Photo of Benny Chew

Benny Chew

  • 19 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
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).
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1376 Posts
  • 355 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of STEVE ANCHELL

STEVE ANCHELL

  • 16 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
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.
Photo of Paul savage

Paul savage

  • 17 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
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.
Photo of Butch_M

Butch_M

  • 322 Posts
  • 140 Reply Likes
"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 ...
Photo of TK

TK

  • 531 Posts
  • 121 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1376 Posts
  • 355 Reply Likes
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?
Photo of Butch_M

Butch_M

  • 322 Posts
  • 140 Reply Likes
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 ...
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 994 Posts
  • 137 Reply Likes
"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.
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1376 Posts
  • 355 Reply Likes
"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.
Photo of Butch_M

Butch_M

  • 322 Posts
  • 140 Reply Likes
"...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 ...
Photo of STEVE ANCHELL

STEVE ANCHELL

  • 16 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
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.
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1376 Posts
  • 355 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of Paul savage

Paul savage

  • 17 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
HOLY CRAP Wacom released drivers on the 14th . I just installed those and the problem apears to be GONE!!!!
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1376 Posts
  • 355 Reply Likes
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?