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 Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
If I were having a problem with Lightroom, which wasn't solved by the usual things that sometimes work:

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

I'd strip my system down to bare essentials:

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

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

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

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

Cheers,
Rob
Photo of Paul savage

Paul savage

  • 17 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I may have been a bit hasty - since installing the new wacom drivers the problem is inconsistent.

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

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

Usable means that it is only a tiny bit sluggish.

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

FYI the affinity fix now has no effect.

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

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
I'll be curious to hear how it goes for you with C1. Please do report back after a while, eh?
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1376 Posts
  • 355 Reply Likes
Paul,

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

Alexander White

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I have installed 4.1 and have since optimized my primary catalog.

I am having tangible, measurable speed issues.

System specs:
Processor Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU X 980 @ 3.33GHz
Memory (RAM) 12.00 GB
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460
Gaming graphics 4096 MB Total available graphics memory
SSD Primary hard disk 22GB Free (112GB Total)
+ 112GB PCIe SSD for 'working catalog' LR files (I use the term 'working' loosely in this scenario).

Images in RAW average size: 16MB
Average catalog size: 200 images

Exact operations and elapsed times:
Opening Lightroom (from clicking on Icon to LR4 flash screen leaving view): 13.3 secs.
Moving between sequential images in library mode: 1.7 secs
Moving between sequential images in Develop mode: 1.9 secs
However If i move between images quickly i.e tap right arrow 10 times in a row, LR becomes unresponsive and can take up to 30 secs. (I know it is unresponsive because I have the resource monitor open simultaneously).

Things get worse as I move sliders in develop mode, or heaven forbid, I invoke the wrath of a preset. Lightroom becomes unresponsive and it can take minutes, these are not detailed presets; I have detailed presets and I might as well go make a coffee if I dare to use these on a single image (I haven't dared batch processing as I'm not sure I'd like how I look with a beard.

Humor has been used in this post, but the pain (and unresponsive nature of LR4.1) is very very real.

My Lightroom 4.1 goes unresponsive (resource monitor states this) too many times to count whilst developing.

I have read (or felt like I have read) every post and tried every trick to get the performance that everyone else seems to have.

My hat goes off to Steve Anchell for taking up the cause and fighting for those of us that are unhappy with the performance of a 'stable' build.

I am very happy for all of you that don't have problems with LR, but I don't need to hear that, I need to hear that adobe has at least acknowledged that they are aware that some of us out there have this issue, that this is an issue and are working on a solution, that in itself may be enough for me for now.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
Adobe has acknowledged the problem, but I doubt they will do it repeatedly, in each new thread about it...:

http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...

Fingers crossed that Lr4.2 will remedy for even more people than 4.1 did.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
Hi Alexander. If it's any consolation, I too think Adobe should attend more to their users, on these forums. Often, a simple "we hear ya, and we're working on it" every now and then, can go a long way. I have no idea why they don't do it more often. I'm pretty sure it's not that they don't know, nor that they don't care, and I'm pretty sure they're working on it... I have no inside knowledge one way or the other, but I've been around long enough to know they are likely to come up with a version that fixes many but not all of these problems. Probably they already have as much info as they can handle, have stopped reading these forums for such, and are busy working away..., or so I imagine.
Photo of Alexander White

Alexander White

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Hi Rob, Thanks.

However the thread you referenced commenced 3 months ago prior to 4.1's release, I can only assume the 'acknowledged' related to the issues prior to 4.1. It's a pity the same thread has been used for post 4.1 issues so we, users, can not be certain if our issues have been acknowledged.

This thread was commenced post 4.1's release (1 day ago) and I feel justified (as I'm sure all those who have issues with 4.1 feel) in seeking an acknowledgement to this thread.

Alternatively (or additionally) if anyone wants to offer me constructive feedback or support on this support forum I'd be happy to receive it.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
Fair enough. I already gave my best advice above ^ .
Photo of Christian Riedel

Christian Riedel

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I would like to add measurable evidence:

Intel i7-2720QM
Nvidia NVS4200M 512MB
8 GB RAM
SSD
LR4.1
optimized catalog
all new drivers

I tell LR to create standard size previews for some 1500 24 MP photos. (Sony A900 or Nex7)
At the beginning (around image 50) it only takes 2-3 seconds for one preview to be generated. Once I reach image 500, I am up to 20 seconds - and things get worse from there.
Also scrolling in grid view is relatively smooth after a fresh start of LR, but after an hour of preview generation is super laggy and even freezes at times entirely.
During all this a maximum of 16 % of my CPU is being used and only 1 GB of my 8GB RAM.

a) this is unacceptable.
b) Why does LR not use more of my resources, especially more CPU? Seems like this could help.
Photo of Andy Stahly

Andy Stahly

  • 45 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
LR4.1 is Still slow...Help Adobe please!
Photo of Jonathan Brown

Jonathan Brown

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I to would like to contribute measurable evidence in the hope that Adobe will provide us with a solution.

Mac OSX 10.6.8, MacPro 2 x 2.8 Quad-core Xeon, 16Gb RAM, ATI Radeon HD 5770 card, dual monitors (NEC 2690 & Dell U2312HM.)

Files are a mixture of 5D mk1 and mk2 RAWs, single LR4.1 catalogue has ~15,000 images.

My specific issue is with the Develop module.

With LR 3.6, all sliders moved with no jerkiness or hesitation, the screens updated immediately in real time etc etc. In short, perfect, no issues. (BTW - my 3.6 catalogue has close to 100,000 images in it!)

Using the Develop module in 4.1, there is a 5 - 10 second delay when switching between images. 1:1 zoom takes 3 - 7 seconds. Moving sliders has a lag of 5 - 12 seconds before the slider moves, then a further 4 - 8 seconds before the screen updates with the adjustment. Crop tool takes 10 -15 seconds to become active after clicking the icon.

I have tried all suggested workarounds (cache/history clears, integrity checks, re-build previews etc etc.) to no avail.....and I really shouldn't have to, should I? When I buy a product, it should work out of the box!!

If anyone from Adobe requires any further information, please tell me exactly what data you need and I will happily supply it.

I want to use LR4.1; the new Raw engine alone gives markedly improved results over 3.6.

However, I am a busy full-time working pro photographer. In its current form LR4.1 is not fit for purpose. TK Anthony's earlier post illustrates perfectly why.

Adobe have done some good work in rectifying the initial glitches (which, whatever anyone says, really shouldn't have crept through internal testing!) in terms of import speed, web gallery build etc.

However, the issues with the Develop module have been there since day 1 and have not been addressed. The web is littered with complaints about this specific issue; it is not "just a few isolated cases"!

Adobe, please acknowledge this as a major issue and at least give us a timeline for when a solution will appear!

Until then, I will switch back to LR3.6.
Photo of Robert Frost

Robert Frost

  • 439 Posts
  • 76 Reply Likes
What happens if you use 2010 process mode in LR4.1. Do you still get the problems, or does it behave like 3.6?

Bob Frost
Photo of Jonathan Brown

Jonathan Brown

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Bob, yes, this does seem to help a little, but still does not bring the big catalogue up to 3.6 levels of speed. Also, I really want to use the 2012 option. :-)

Now, since my last post, I tried a small test on a single set of files. I took 1,005 CR2 RAWs, created a brand new catalogue, asked to delete and then re-render 1:1 previews (my 1:1s are high quality 2048 pixels.)

This route makes a huge difference - LR4.1 is now as slick as 3.6 on this small catalogue. Hmmm....and this was with 2012 option.

Nothing else has been changed. Now, I've done this before, and it made no difference. However, that was on a sub-set of files in my main catalogue, not the full monty.

I will try to test on my main catalogue with fully re-built previews over the w/e but am pushed for free time.

HTH and watch this space......

JB
Photo of Ronald Haywood

Ronald Haywood

  • 2 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I'm now using LR4.1 with PV2010 to get the speed that resembles LR3.6. LR4.1 using PV2012 is as described by many users in this thread - too slow for use when one needs to process a few thousand images. I thought I had my workflow down pat when using LR3.6 and was very excited about what 4.1 would offer. To say I'm disappointed might be understating it a bit. I'm interested to hear what progress Jonathan makes.

Flash
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 994 Posts
  • 137 Reply Likes
"LR4.1 using PV2012 is as described by many users in this thread - too slow for use when one needs to process a few thousand images."

I do it all the time, but....

http://forums.adobe.com/message/44503...
Photo of Jonathan Brown

Jonathan Brown

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Right - not good news.

I kicked off a full rebuild of the previews on my main work in progress catalogue at 7am yesterday morning. This catalogue contains 15,014 files, 99% of which are Canon 5D and 5D mk2 RAW files, with a smattering of PSDs and JPEGs.

As at ~7pm last night (12 hours after the process started!) LR4 had reached file 8,000...! 12 hours to build 8,000 previews? Holy cow, that's dreadful!

So, left machine running overnight and sometime in the wee small hours (sorry, can't say when; I have to sleep and have a life to live) the process finished.

Now this is not good ; ~24hrs to build 15,000 previews is appalling. However, the rebuild threw up a strange message I've never seen before.

A screen had popped up (presumably when the process had finished) telling me that LR could not build previews for a set of around 600 files, 'cos it couldn't find them. Fair enough. The problem is that the set of files LR was looking for are not in this catalogue, and never have been. Doh! :-(

This catalogue was created when I first installed LR4, and was created directly from my existing LR3 catalogue. This set of files HAD existed in the LR3 catalogue, but had been removed BEFORE I converted the LR3 catalogue to LR4. "Curiouser & curiouser" said Alice!

So I'm suspecting the LR4 catalogue is corrupted in some way, despite having cleared caches and run integrity checks before starting the preview build.

So, I'm going to create a brand new catalogue and import all the folders and files in the current catalogue, to see if this makes a difference to the preview build speed.

Sadly, the rebuild has failed to speed things up noticeably; sliders are still 'sticky' switching between files takes several seconds, etc etc. This is the same between PV 2010 and 2012; 2010 is a wee bit quicker, but still unusable for day to day work.

I ran Apple's Activity Monitor during the build. I'm not a techie, so can't interpret these stats, but if they tell anyone out there something, I'd love to hear it! :-)

%CPU was anywhere from 300 - 600%.
There were 24 - 36 threads in use.
LR was using between 1.3Gb and 1.8Gb of Real Memory.
System Memory showed 10Gb free, 0.75Gb Wired, 2.46Gb Active and 1.79 Gb Inactive.

So, kicking off the new catalogue now.....watch this space.....! :-)
Photo of Robert Frost

Robert Frost

  • 439 Posts
  • 76 Reply Likes
Instead of importing the files afresh (which will lose your history, and edits if you haven't got xmps), export the catalog to a new one without previews. I did the same when upgrading from LR3 and that left behind a lot of old stuff that was upsetting LR4. You don't lose history or edits in an export to new catalog.

Bob frost
Photo of Robert Frost

Robert Frost

  • 439 Posts
  • 76 Reply Likes
As for re-rendering previews, my 65K of nefs takes about 3 days and nights to render 1:1s on a fairly new fast desktop (6 core SandyBridgeE, with 16GB ram and SSDs).

I don't know much about Macs, but someone said your MacPro is getting a bit old! I do know that even on my quite new machine, rendering D800 36MP nefs takes about 4 seconds each, so that is about 1000 nefs per hour.

My old D100 nefs were only 10MB each, compared with the 40 MB of my D800 nefs (compressed).

I think we are just seeing the effect of wanting to do more complicated processing on bigger and bigger files.

Bob Frost
Photo of Robert Frost

Robert Frost

  • 439 Posts
  • 76 Reply Likes
Just found this post on the other LR forum:

"I rember back in the days of LR2 on my 2006 MP 1:1 previews took on the order of 3-5 seconds. With each version of LR since then, this got longer and longer, until LR 4.0 streatched it to 10+ seconds. LR 4.1 cut a couple seconds off, but working in LR was still more a chore than something I look forward to as I did 3 years ago. Last week I bought a new 5,1 Mac Pro (yes I know, the processor is 3 years old). It's the 6-core model (3.33 GHz) with 24 GB of RAM and a 512 GB Crucial SSD, to which I moved my LR master cataloge. I'm happy to report that. $3600 later. I'm zipping through 1:1 previoew in 2-3 seconds, even in Develop mode."

[http://forums.adobe.com/message/45163...]

Bob Frost
Photo of Peter Orford

Peter Orford

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Peter Orford
Have used LR since it's inception version 4.1 is too slow for me so I won't buy it till there is a marked improvement .

Have tried all sorts of work a rounds not worth the time and effort .

Its a shame as is was a good product .

Peter Orford
Photo of Jonathan Brown

Jonathan Brown

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Bob, many thanks for your input ideas. Hadn't considered exporting the catalogue w/o previews - good thought! :-)

Glad my machine is as responsive as others. ;-)

It is 3-4 years old, but still well above Adobe's min spec for LR....WELL above. Guess you're right - bigger files, more intensive tasks etc. I normally import a max of 1k - 1.5k files at a time, so haven't really explored preview build times in depth before.

That ain't my problem; my problem is still LR4 being unusable on large day to day tasks. :-(

Sadly, I have to return to the 'real world' for now, and process work for clients.

I'll continue to follow this thread and also the one you highlighted on the Adobe forums board. If I get a chance, I will run more tests and post back results as and when I can.
Photo of Gregory Wostrel

Gregory Wostrel

  • 19 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Hi Steve, thanks for starting this thread. I have also been on one of the other threads about LR4 (http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...) and am having all the same trouble. I am sorry that you are getting some not so helpful pushback from some posters.
Here are some details from my situation:
I am using three different machines. All Macs. All running OS X 10.7.4 and LR4.1
MacBook Pro 2.4ghz Core2Duo 8gb ram
iMac 27 2.8ghz Core i7 8gb ram
iMac 27 3.06ghz Core2Duo 8gb ram

Here is the basic problem: generally LR3.6 was responding in "real-time" regardless of the operation. By real-time I mean that a change was visible as a Develop slider was moved, or an effect was visible as a brush was applied to an area. In LR4, at default settings the delay is often 5 or 10 seconds. another issue is when switching from Develop back to the Grid view in Library the delay is commonly 20-45 seconds.

But there is a very important caveat here that appears to be true for many, many Users: if you select PV2010, Do Not use the Noise Reduction AT ALL, and hide the filmstrip, the performance is noticeably better. There are still lags, but they are only a few seconds so it is somewhat acceptable for small editing sessions. However, PV2012 and the NR functions are two of the big features of LR4 - so what is the point of using it like that? That is basically LR3.6 with Blurb Books and poor performance.

I am a Pro Photographer and a single project easily has 1500 images that my first task is to quickly sort through making select/reject decisions and LR4.1 is slower than LR3.6 for even that basic task. I've been using LR since its initial beta and it has always performed well (although it has been less impressive with each version). Unfortunately Aperture is as bad, or worse, in my experience and I used Aperture 1, 2, and 3 and, while I have always preferred it's UI and management concept, it has always been a poor performer for me. That situation is so odd, too, because, like this situation with LR, many people claim to have exemplary performance while others say it is a dog.

The whole situation is terribly frustrating.
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 994 Posts
  • 137 Reply Likes
Greg, there's a bug in PV2012 with Clarity and Noise Reduction. If you keep both of those off, does this fix the problems on 4.1 and PV2012 with slider response?
Photo of Gregory Wostrel

Gregory Wostrel

  • 19 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Hi Lee, its better, as I mention above. Better, yet again, if I do not use PV2012 at all. One workaround I have been using (because I foolishly started a now 8500+ image project in LR4) is to paste lens profile settings, Clarity, Noise Reduction to a group of images once all other adjustments have been made and just before export. Problem, in this case is I have no ability to fine tune the NR or Clarity. I just apply based on same lens used/ISO/scene.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
You can fine tune using quick-develop (relative adjustment), no?

For finer control or relative presets, cookmarks:

http://www.robcole.com/Rob/ProductsAn...
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 994 Posts
  • 137 Reply Likes
Okay, did you try the 1:4/1:8 etc. trick I posted above? That's a 4x increase in Develop slider performance.
Photo of Dave Brooks

Dave Brooks

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Is anyone here also having issues with extended delays (10-30 seconds) when deleting images from the catalog?
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
No. But empty your recycle bin if you haven't done it recently.

I doubt that will yield sufficient improvement though. Consider deleting ACR cache, and export your catalog without previews to new catalog, then rebuild previews. - may help shake out catalog anomalies...

do you have same problem deleting images from newly created catalog? If so forget what I said before, it's something else...
Photo of Dave Brooks

Dave Brooks

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thank you for the reply....

My issues with 4.1 are listed below (I did not have these issues with 3.6 or 4.0, although 4.0 was noticeably slower for me than 3.6):

Slow launch (sometimes hangs forever and I have to delete the pref file)
Delay moving between Library and Develop
Delay deleting files
Delay building 1:1's.

My system:
i7 2600k Sandy Bridge (not overclocked)
Win7 pro
32gb ram
Sata III SSD for apps
Catalog, previews, and images are on 7200rpm internal drive
I'll be picking up another SSD for the catalog and previews, but I don't think that is my main issue, as these issues were not present prior to the 4.1 update.

This morning I deleted my 1:1 previews, and selected a folder with 1600 images to generate 1:1 previews. After 7 hours, it had generated 1083, so roughly 23+ seconds each.

I have deleted my ACR cache. I have also done the preferences file "fix" that was suggested in another thread, and intermittently need to trash the pref file. I have tried setting LR priority to high and core affinity to 0,2,4.

My next steps will be to try a newly created catalog, and if that improves matters, I'll export to a new catalog without previews. If that does not work, I'll probably go back to a Bridge/CS5 workflow. I can't waste anymore time on this.
Photo of Dave Brooks

Dave Brooks

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Forget to mention, the 1600 images are 5dII or 7D RAW files.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
Yeah Dave, something not right. If I were having these problems, I'd be tempted to switch to Plan B (or C...) too, until Adobe gets their Lr ship together.

Lightroom is slow to launch for me too, but then I have 30 or 40 plugins all starting simultaneously and competing for catalog access... but it *never* hangs on startup. Something is wonky right from the get-go in your case.

In a nutshell, problems are usually:
* Lr files (e.g. cache, previews, prefs, catalog, plugins, presets, ... ), or
* System: e.g. drivers, permissions, file-system, background services, ...
or both.

Hoping for improvement,
Rob
Photo of Dave Brooks

Dave Brooks

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
**UPDATE** - My issues were not the fault of LR4.1. It seems my issues were hard drive related, which also explains the odd issue of hanging deletes. I have been getting drive errors for the last 2-3 weeks, and it seems the drive's file structure is corrupt, or the drive is slowly crashing. Checkdisk errors out. I exported the catalog to an external drive and everything is useable again.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
Makes sense Dave. Glad its better now, and thanks for the report.
Photo of Paul savage

Paul savage

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

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
|> "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...
Photo of Ronald Haywood

Ronald Haywood

  • 2 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
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).
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
Welcome to the fold. Lr4.1/PV2012 rocks! - once you get it working right, and learn how to use it...
Photo of Paul savage

Paul savage

  • 17 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
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 :)
Photo of Paul savage

Paul savage

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

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
|> "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...
Photo of Paul savage

Paul savage

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

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
I don't think it's asking too much for Lr4 to work, but it may be asking too much for personal assistance from skilled (read: expensive) people to get you there.
Photo of Paul savage

Paul savage

  • 17 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
True :)
Photo of jw stephenson

jw stephenson

  • 34 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Ronald - how do you quickly identify the "dead links"? Do you have to drill down to every folder manually?

Jeff
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
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...
Photo of Paul savage

Paul savage

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

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
Fair enough.
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 5702 Posts
  • 2284 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
|> "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
Photo of Erik Odegard

Erik Odegard

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

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
It seems to me that the higher-end systems have relatively *more* problems running Lightroom. No?
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 5702 Posts
  • 2284 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of Erik Odegard

Erik Odegard

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of Paul savage

Paul savage

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

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
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
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 5702 Posts
  • 2284 Reply Likes
"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.
Photo of Gregory Wostrel

Gregory Wostrel

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

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of Andy Stahly

Andy Stahly

  • 45 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
Andy - Your assessment of me, and my intention is wrong. I think I'll leave it at that.
Photo of Michael Steinbach

Michael Steinbach

  • 21 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Wrong?! Then what possible reason is there for your post? My Mac sang under LR3, LR4 the develop mod. is like walking in water. There are REAL issues that are going unaddressed but you would say what? Still can't figure out why you bothered to post......
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
Yes - wrong.
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 5702 Posts
  • 2284 Reply Likes
Gregory, Michael, Andy, I'm not denying that some people are having a huge problem. No one's trying to sweep that under the carpet. Nothing we can say is going to make you feel better. It's affecting a comparatively small percentage of users, but that doesn't help those who are affected, who mainly appear to be working professionals with high end machines. I get the problem completely. My business processes more than a hundred thousand photos a year in Lightroom, so I understand the impact.

When I mentioned the more accurate noise reduction preview above, it was simply to correct Rob's comment about the difference in PV2010 speed. The reality is that PV2012 WILL be slightly slower than PV2010, just as processing larger files is slower than small ones. It's doing much more complex calculations which take more CPU cycles. Improved image quality comes at a cost.

BUT there's a huge difference between 'slightly slower' and the 'walking through mud' that some users are seeing.

Do you guys see the same problem with photos set to PV2010 in LR4? We'll all carry on fighting to track down the problem, but if PV2010 is faster for you, that might be a usable workaround for those who need speed in the meantime. If you do see the same speed issue with PV2010, that may offer further clues.
Photo of Pete Green

Pete Green, Customer Advocate

  • 780 Posts
  • 167 Reply Likes
Official Response
Hello all,
We do acknowledge that there have been a performance hit for truely "some" users, though that doesn't comfort the users that are seeing the performance hit that they are seeing, and professionals that do potentially lose time (which = money) due to the decrease in performance.

Now that there is acknowledgement of the issue, we still don't have a resolution, nor know exactly what is causing it on the multitude of systems that are seeing it.

Thanks to those that are delving in deeper to try to discover what the cause is, and hopefully we can all look for a solution, since it is happening on not all systems, but some.

I wanted to call attention to a potential solution that was given by another user on another forum after a chat with adobe support. I've paraphrased some of the steps and cleaned them up a bit so they can be digestible, but would be curious to hear of other's results after having tried these steps.

A fair amount of users are running in windows, and these steps are windows-centric, if you're a mac guru, perhaps you can divine how to perform similar steps on the mac platform.

Here is the chat log and troubleshooting steps.
Please try them out, and let us know if you see any improvement with any of these steps.
William is the tech, and Jojo the end user with performance trouble.

Chat log:
William: I understand that you're experiencing performance issue. Am I correct?
Jojo: Oh yes

Rename Preference folder
Please close all windows
Click the Start button.
Type %appdata% in the search box and press Enter.
Double click on Adobe folder.
Rename the "Lightroom" folder to "OldLightroom".

Clear Temp files
Click on Start button.
Type %temp% and press Enter.
It will open Temp folder.
Empty the files and folders inside it.

Results chat:
Jojo: ok done. it still has files that could not be deleted for Win Explorer and Google Chrome (the browser I use)
William: Okay.
William: Launch Lightroom and check if you're getting the same issue.
Jojo: that seems to have sped it up significant;y
William: Perfect.
William: Please double check if that works fine now.
Jojo: Much faster, but all of my presets are gone
Jojo: Export presets, etc

Rename old preference folder back so LR sees it.
Quit Lightroom.
Click on Start button.
Type %appdata% in the search box and press Enter.
Double click on Adobe folder.
Rename the "Lightroom" preference folder to "2-OldLightroom".
Rename the "OldLightroom" and rename it to "Lightroom".
After that open Preferences folder inside it.
Rename the file "Lightroom 4 Preferences.agprefs" and to "OldLightroom 4 Preferences.agprefs".
Launch Lightroom and test the performance

Results 2 chat:
Jojo: Oh yes, that's working well!
William: Perfect.
Jojo: Much better!
William: You can start working with the product smoothly now.
William: Great.
Jojo: Hey, are they fixing this in a release? I know a lot of photographers who are VERY upset about this performance issue. I was ready to change back to LR3
William: Corrupt preference may cause Lightroom to work slow.
William: We renamed the preference file and it is working fine.
End Chat log

Another user had mentioned that they "renamed the Lightroom 3 Preferences.agprefs to Old_Lightroom 3 Preferences.agprefs and now it works a lot quicker."

Those are at least a couple things to try that shouldn't take but a few minutes.
Report back with any change in LR 4.1 behavior
Thanks!
Photo of Jonathan Brown

Jonathan Brown

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Peter

Thank you for acknowledging there is an issue!

Now, please can you tell us, very precisely, what information you need in order to work towards a solution.

I posted a bunch of technical data from my Mac system many weeks ago; is this what you need?

Although there are some on this forum who have in-depth technical knowledge, I suspect many of us are "merely" (sic!) pro LR users who aren't programmers etc.

Tell us what you need to know.

Thanks

JB
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 5699 Posts
  • 2284 Reply Likes
The equivalent (at least of most of those steps) for Mac is:

Rename Preference folder
Go to Lightroom menu > Preferences > Presets tab and press Show Lightroom Presets Folder.
Close Lightroom.
Alternatively get to it by navigating to Macintosh HD / Users / [your username] / Library / Application Support / Adobe / Lightroom /
Rename the Lightroom folder (the Finder window that just opened) to OldLightroom.

I'm not sure about the equivalent of the temp files step. I'd run something like Onyx.

Launch Lightroom and check the speed. All of the presets will be gone (temporarily). To put them back, you'd just repeat the steps, rename or delete the new Lightroom folder and change the OldLightroom back to Lightroom.

For the preferences step, which is always a good port of call, you want to navigate to Macintosh HD / Users / [your username] / Library / Preferences / com.adobe.Lightroom4.plist. Library is hidden on Lion, so to find it, open Finder and hold down Opt key while clicking on the Go menu and Library will appear. Rename any other Lightroom preferences in that folder at the same time.
Photo of Michael Steinbach

Michael Steinbach

  • 21 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Victoria,

Thank you so much for the mac translation! It seems to have made a difference and I have moved (or copied) just the presets that I wanted into the correlating new folder. I'll report back after my next shoot this afternoon, until then I'm cautiously optimistic.

Mike
Photo of Michael Steinbach

Michael Steinbach

  • 21 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Victoria and All,

As a Mac user I tried Victoria's Mac translated solution. It does not work for my system. I just finished processing 400 + images and LR 4.1 Process 2012 is just plain painful to work in. Specifically the Develop Mod, redraws are delayed, attempts to move sliders are some times not recognized (they don't move) or at times make jumps back to where they started (?!). I Talked with a tech at Adobe and was told to build my previews at 1to1, what a waste of time and no improvement in overall functionality with that as well.

All of my cores show usage. I wonder if there is GPU issues at hand in this. If Adobe is trying to speed things up through the GPU and it just isn't working. Note that I have GPU support turned off in PS due to poor redraws that don't represent the image properly.

Still want to work towards a solution....

Mike
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 394 Reply Likes
Different systems has different issues, but if it's not an Lr dependent file (e.g. prefs, previews, cache), it may be a driver problem (e.g. graphics, or wacom...).

Lightroom doesn't use GPU acceleration.
Photo of Denis de Gannes

Denis de Gannes

  • 31 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Maybe a specific questioner could be designed and posted as a poll, with relative system details included and request users to respond if they have delay problems and also if they experience no problems. This type of info should be useful in isolating the problems.
Photo of borisporosin

borisporosin

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Hello Pete,

if you know, that for some users the solution with preference file removal works, than you can identify plugins installed (if any) and find the issue. Anyway LR4.2 is really slow regardless the HW and SW used, it is really LR4.2 issue. Disabling HT in BIOS helped for some users, so you could investigate as well this option. For most of us the code of LR4 contains some bug/bugs which cause the pain related to the LR4 performance. Sorry Pete, Adobe had 6 months to identify the performance issue and for me it just seems that Adobe allocated 0 developers and 0 testers to fix/identify the performance issue in LR4. I doubt that there was proper testing done with LR4, because I tested the LR4 on more than 15 different HW/SW configurations just to buy a new HW for LR4 and on each single one HW/SW configuration I failed with the performance issue of LR4. I will not put more effort to find proper HW/SW configuration for LR4, I expect that Adobe will put more resources to fix this issue.

Boris