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 J Chin

J Chin

  • 14 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Just an FYI for everyone.
I noticed that for me, LR 4.1 (and now 4.2) responds quicker if I have "Effects" turned OFF.
Although it is still slower than LR 3.6 (on the same computer), even with images that used PV2010.
Photo of ERIC BURLET

ERIC BURLET

  • 69 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
In my case, LR 4.2 is really faster than 4.1 (which was nearly unusable) :

to display thumbnails in grid view;
to zoom in;
to review pictures in library module;
to fliter pictures with more than one criteria;
to switch between library and development module;
to display the picture in the library module;
working with dual monitors is now OK
the brush is much more responsive;

It is still slow when I open LR to display all the thumbnails, it looks like it is "cold" and

scrolling is jerky with gray thumbnails. Some minutes later it is ok.

So this is a great improvement for my workflow. I hope Adobe will keep on optimizing the soft, I just can't wait for the 4.3...
Photo of Michał Czekański

Michał Czekański

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Lightroom 4.1 and 4.2 is unusable with external monitor (24") on my MacBook Pro 13" 8GB RAM and SSD. Without external monitor LR runs a bit quicker
Photo of Michał Czekański

Michał Czekański

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I did simple test. I have MacbookPro 13" 8GB RAM and SSD drive.
I exporter 5 RAW photos as JPG and the results time are:
LR 4.2 - 53s
LR 4.1 - 49s

LR 4.1 (process version 2010) - 35s

I know it's only 5 photos but you already can see speed changes.
Photo of William Tucker

William Tucker

  • 8 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I tried the first post with the folder renaming, etc... It worked well for me. It went from 6 seconds to go from image to image before "loading" went away to 2 seconds. So it is MUCH better. Does importing a larger preview make it faster?
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
Previews help "sequencing" speed in library module, as long as they're up2date. - it won't help develop module sequencing speed. Lib sequencing speed should be fraction of second... Larger previews make it faster if you are demanding larger views, and preview for that view wouldn't otherwise be available. I'd suggest doing 1:1 views, so all views are there available that you might need... If larger preview size makes it faster to sequence when not zoomed in, then you need to increase the standard preview size.
Photo of William Tucker

William Tucker

  • 8 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Not sure where to change this setting?
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
Preferences -> Catalog Settings -> File Handling

Note: you can also generate previews across the board using Library menu.

Also, preview generation upon import can be tweaked in import dialog box: upper right corner.
Photo of William Tucker

William Tucker

  • 8 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Just a thought that maybe you guys at adobe have thought of... until it is fixed in a release, have an exe that does all of the above so the "meek" user does not have to mess with the intricate details..
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
I agree default preview size should be selected based on screen dimensions. I just keep 1:1 previews rendered all the time so lib is fast even if I get tempted to zoom in... - best bet unless you need the storage for other things, or never revisit old photos... - you may have had or be having an unusual problem though, in which case all bets would be off...
Photo of William Tucker

William Tucker

  • 8 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
d
Photo of Keith Jones

Keith Jones

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I have just concluded that LR 4 is incredibly slow after running several tests on Export of images - see http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1081324 ... but here is the question: how do image previews and camera raw cache play into export performance scenarios? It seems to me that images are "reassembled" by LR every time an export is done and this seems unreasonably expensive. It takes approx 24 seconds per image to do this! I have built previews at 2048 px and have ACR cache at 64Gb! But that doesn't seem to improve export performance. Why? Thanks in advance. KJ
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
re: Exports - ACR cache helps a little, very little. Previews don't help at all, zero.
Photo of Keith Jones

Keith Jones

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thanks Rob, so, how easy / difficult would it be to cache "image assembly" during the export process so that most, if not all, of the heavy processor load can be bypassed ... 24 seconds per image x possibly hundreds of images at 100% processor consumption leads to unacceptably long delays in my opinion. KJ
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
Easy enough, if you know how to write plugins in lua. If you don't, here are a couple of other options:

* Use PreviewExporter to export from the Lr preview cache.
* Use publish services or ExportManager to do parallel exports.
* Using TreeSyncPublisher, keep tree of top-quality TIFFs up2date, then export from those instead of raws.

Or did you mean how easy for Adobe to do in Lr5? - easy enough, but I wouldn't get hopes up too high...

~R.
Photo of Kyle Beatty

Kyle Beatty

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
As soon as I hit 'Import', my LR freezes up. I'm am fairly technically un-savvy. There could be any sort of explanation for it that may be blatantly obvious to most, but I truly have no idea why.
Photo of Fred Findley

Fred Findley

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
is there a "mac" way to do this... i'm hoping to utilize this but not even sure what step 1 would be on a mac
Photo of Nikos Vlasiadis

Nikos Vlasiadis

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I, too am having a problem.
Photo of Robert Frost

Robert Frost

  • 439 Posts
  • 76 Reply Likes
Here is an interesting post on the other forum that might have relevance for those of you using Iastor drivers.

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/109241...

Bob FRost
Photo of Nikos Vlasiadis

Nikos Vlasiadis

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I am also having a problem and I am working with a MacBook Pro 2012 model not the retina one
2.8 i7 with 16 gb memory and a 512 gb ssd and a 500 gb 7200rpm secondary disk in the DVD area
The strange thing is whe I create a second library with 20 photos is really lightning fast but with my current one with 15000 images about is terribly slow.
I am working with a dell 27 inch external monitor maybe is the large screen I don't know.
The only thing I know is I am worrying all the time and I am loosing time and money.
I tried all the solutions that I am finding here on the threads but nothing I increase my cash to 20gb was 3 nothing
Photo of Alban LEROUX

Alban LEROUX

  • 48 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Last week I decided to cleanup my computer, this implies to remove my old LR installation (LR2 and LR3). After done I really think that LR4 runs quicker. I wait a week and after this week I still have this feeling. So is it possible that old LR installation have a play in LR4 slow down?
Perhaps this point was already verified in all threads related to LR4’s slowness, i don't know?
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 5707 Posts
  • 2286 Reply Likes
We wouldn't expect it to make a difference, but I've heard a few people say the same.
Photo of steven kornreich

steven kornreich

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I am still confused on where is the best place to store the lrcat stuff.
My Intel I7 box running windows 7 64, with 32 GB ram and a SATA 3 128GB SSD
which I currently only have OS and apps on, then I have another SATA 3 128GB SSD where I store my lrcat stuff, and then a 4TB SATA 3 HD for my images,

I have been reading that on the mac it is better to store os, apps, and lrcat all on the boot disk i.e a 256GB SSD drive.

Would it be best for me to get a 256GB SSD as my boot disk and use it for OS, Apps, and lrcat stuff?

Thanks
Steven
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
Is Lr4.3RC1 any better (performance-wise)?
Photo of Kellie Hatcher

Kellie Hatcher

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I am extemely frustrated with 4.2. I have SO much work to do and when I connect to my external monitor (apple cinema display 27"), LR does not run in real time. It can take up to 20 secs to load images and then when moving sliders, I have to sit and wait each time. It's excruciating. Any advice other than deleting preview files...I did that and it's still horrible. I think I have to go back to LR3 to get the work done.

Thanks,
Kellie
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
|> "Any advice...?"

Yes. - try Lr4.3RC1.

Better? Same?? Worse???...

R
Photo of Rick Verbanec

Rick Verbanec

  • 20 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Where was this announced? I missed it.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
this forum & user forum - consider enabling notifications...
Photo of Rick Verbanec

Rick Verbanec

  • 20 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I have - nothing on this thread from Adobe about it - I'll check the other one.
Photo of Kellie Hatcher

Kellie Hatcher

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I realize there was another update...I will try that and let you know.
Photo of Kellie Hatcher

Kellie Hatcher

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I meant to say I didn't realize there was another update, when I check for updates, LR is telling me I am up to date. So...
Photo of Kellie Hatcher

Kellie Hatcher

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
right on, Rob, I will download that now.
Thank you! I'm crossing my fingers it's a fix!
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
Hoping for you too - like all dot releases so far, it's helped some but not others.
Photo of Dennis Jones

Dennis Jones

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Kellie,

I haven't downloaded the RC yet but I'm very skeptical. The ONLY solution I've found is to revert back to LR 3.6. Don't hesitate, nothing else helped.
Photo of Kellie Hatcher

Kellie Hatcher

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
okay, so the catalogs I can open are running faster than ever now with the LR4.3RC, however, it is saying the catalog I need to finish 'is not writable and cannot be opened' ugh. This is where I always get confused. I know worst case scenario I can always re-import them...but I really don't want to cull and edit all the images I am missing again. It is actually a catalog named Lightroom 2 catalog 2-2 ...which it has just been opening upon starting the program. In LR 4...strange, I know.
Photo of Kellie Hatcher

Kellie Hatcher

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
and YAY for it running fast...now I am just worried about all my work.
Photo of Andrew Freeman

Andrew Freeman

  • 23 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
When LR opens a catalogue it "locks" it. There is a file called "your cataloguename".lrcat.lock when the catalogue is open (in the catalogue directory). If this is still there with LR closed, then delete it, and try again.
Photo of Kellie Hatcher

Kellie Hatcher

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thanks, Andrew. I did that many times....tried changing security on my ext hd, and finally just opened a backup from a couple weeks ago...it doesn't have everything I needed but it has enough.

Rob Cole, the difference in speed with the LR4.3RC1 is truly unreal.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
Good to hear - thanks Kellie.
Photo of Erik Odegard

Erik Odegard

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
If you want the FASTEST Raw editor, try this: http://www.corel.com/corel/product/in...

Don't take my work for it. Download the free trial and converrt a couple hundred RAW files.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
I don't know how many people really want the fastest raw editor. What most people want, I think, is the best raw editor to be as fast as possible.

My experience with Bibble was that half the photos looked almost as good as in Lightroom, but the other half: not so much...

Disclaimer: I don't know what improvements Corel has made, if any...
Photo of William Tucker

William Tucker

  • 8 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Does someone have the link to download candidate 4.x
Photo of gordie

gordie

  • 6 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Upgraded to an overclocked i5 with 32 gig of ram and it's actually usable now
Photo of Ronald N. Tan

Ronald N. Tan

  • 33 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
The performance is a greater improvement in the 4.3 RC. What's bugging me is that the stability of LR when used on a dual-monitor setup. I have the main "1" screen via DVI while my "2" sceen is connected via VGA. I am using nVidia GT 430.

In my updated experience, the subsequent LR 4 updates is an improvement on performance AS LONG AS I restrict myself to my "1" screen only. As soon as I elect to use my "2" screen to display thumbs only while "1" screen is for the initial RAW adjustments . . . LR 4.3 RC becomes unstable and eventually crash.

I work with very small catalogs at any given time. Each photography session I conduct is a small catalog "session," borrowed term from my PhaseONE CaptureONE PRO 7 (my default RAW software converter).

The thing about the 4.3 RC is that things seems to be "fixed" and "functional" as long as the workflow is only on the main "1" monitor.

Please keep up the great works to improve Lightroom 4.
Photo of frthrow

frthrow

  • 8 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I have been evaluating each new dot release since Lightroom 4.0 on my mid-2010 Mac Pro (6-core, 16GB RAM & dual 24" displays).

This was using Snow Leopard (10.6.8) and each time the results were so excruciating slow, that I was forced to go back to Lightroom 3.

After installing Mountain Lion (10.8.2) on a separate hard drive and then a fresh install of Lightroom 4.2, it appears to now finally be usable for me.

This was a small subset of my archive (200 photos) - I am now going to try this on the larger archive.

In case this helps someone.
Frez
Photo of Pete Green

Pete Green, Customer Advocate

  • 781 Posts
  • 167 Reply Likes
Official Response
Hi all,

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

http://adobe.ly/LRPerformanceHints

Let us know which of these suggestions are helpful to you. Thanks!
Photo of Ronald N. Tan

Ronald N. Tan

  • 33 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Hi Peter,

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

HOWEVER

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

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

Robert Peters

  • 39 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
I've tried all of those suggestions that I could and the result was no improvement.
Photo of TK

TK

  • 531 Posts
  • 121 Reply Likes
Pete Green, thank you for posting these tips.

I'd like to highlight the point "Order of Develop operations". Expecting customers to manage the order of operations defies the whole "image pipeline" idea behind parametric editing.

In a parametric editing paradigm, standard capture-sharpening settings, should be a "set and forget operation". Suggesting to the user that they cannot use standard capture sharpening parameters as a Develop default setting or an import profile, but have to manually manage when sharpening is applied, is a big ask, AFAIC.

If the image pipeline isn't efficient enough on a modern machine, maybe this suggests that too many performance hungry features have been added and/or that more optimisation work needs to be performed before the next performance eating feature should be added.

AFAIC, it would be better to give up the whole "fixed image pipeline" idea altogether -- at least for interactive editing -- and capitalise on the performance boost that comes with never having to re-calculate any operations in the history during editing.
Have the programmers ever tried a scheme in which you cache the complete image and apply any additional operation last (subsequently replacing the cache with the result of the latter)? There could be a "Refresh" button that recalculates all operations in a fixed order. In most cases this should result only in subtle changes in appearance, while dramatically increasing the interactive editing speed.

P.S.: "Clearing the history" should not be a tip. Performance should not suffer from longer histories. A behind the scenes compression scheme should take care of this. Same with "Refreshing memory"...

P.P.S: I was surprised to not see any tips regarding hyperthreading or core allocations.
Photo of ERIC BURLET

ERIC BURLET

  • 69 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Pete,

what makes a really difference for me was to move my catalog and the preview files to my ssd. Before, they were on a classical hard drive with my old pictures, and my new pictures were on the ssd. Now all the pictures on the classical hd, and now viewing and editing my pictures in the library module is so much faster!

Not sure it changes things in the develop module.