Lightroom CC 2015.10 - Poor Performance

  • 42
  • Problem
  • Updated 1 year ago
  • In Progress
  • (Edited)
This issue collects information passed between myself and the Adobe care team on twitter, who as of April 21st recommended that I make a post here so that the development team could track it.

Starting off with the most up to date system info post:
https://pastebin.com/ngEf5L9y


The summary of the problem is basically laggy / insufferably slow performance issues with LR CC running on a system as follows:
  • i7 4790k @ 4Ghz
  • 32Gb RAM
  • SSD Catalog
  • 2x HGST 5Tb RAID 1 image host drives
  • nVidia 970 GTX 
  • 2560 x 1440 display, LR in Single Display mode only
  • Windows 10 Pro 64bit
Issues such as laggy brushes, 6-10 second wait times when navigating between images, laggy UI interactions, colour shifting and screen blackout behaviours. Screen updates when moving sliders in the develop module can take several seconds to display, and don't even think about using the program in any capacity if an export or import is underway. Multitasking is so passé ;)

I have been engaged with Adobe on this issue for several months, during which time I have kept my display drivers and lightroom up to date.

Performance *HAS* improved slightly since 6.10
but is still not at a point where it is comfortable to smoothly work. Every operation has a lag / UI update that just makes the whole experience jarring. The memory leak that would send LR to its knees was indeed resolved with 6.10, so performance no longer degrades as rapidly over time as it used to, however baseline performance is still not what I'd expect and is certainly not comfortable to work with. Editing in Lightroom is a headache to be dreaded right now, so much so that I've been putting off jobs that I really shouldn't be.

Video 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymh7o9H9wD4

This initial video opened up the dialog with Adobe, and was recorded on 6.8. This is the best performance I ever see from LR as it was freshly loaded up and hadn't been subject to the memory leak in versions < 6.10 . I'm currently regenerating the 1:1 previews on the images in the video to see if the cache was corrupted or something. It's taken 2 hours so far, and it's at 58%. (700 images). In another 2 hours I will be able to say.

(Though I'm not sure 4 hours rendering time is in any way acceptable for 700 images. I'm fairly confident I can render video quicker... :D )


Video 2

https://youtu.be/_e1xTbA3L94

I've produced another video that shows the GPU accel colour shift and screen blackout. This time LR had been open for a few hours, so it's the absolute worst case performance. Running on 6.8 / 6.9 as 6.10 had not yet been released

Video 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22LgfhKskJA&feature=youtu.be

Another video, this time with some diagnostic information onscreen. It's a long video as I was discussing with a reddit group ideas on how to improve performance. Skip through and you'll find CPU readouts, HDD benchmarks and some other stuff. This was recorded during a 1:1 preview generation session, which took 3 hours for 1000 images.

I've had lightroom open long enough to import 286 images and generate 1:1 previews for them. Performance is still just as bad as in the recorded videos. I'll leave it open and idling overnight to see if it leaks any memory, but honestly the concept of editing even this tiny set of ~300 images is enough to give me a headache.

Face tagging, geotagging, and all other extraneous gubbins turned off from day 1. 1:1 and Smart previews. 90% CPU over 4 cores, but no account given, seemingly, to people trying to use LR while an import is in progress. Its borderline unusable as it is (As I demonstrated in my videos) but during import - no chance. I normally leave it on overnight importing images, but this was a rush job. Rush. Hah.



At this point I was tempted to revert back to 5.7 as , although not exactly a greased sow in terms of performance, it is certainly less cumbersome than CC.
Photo of Denyer Ec

Denyer Ec

  • 55 Posts
  • 43 Reply Likes
  • Frustrated, stressed

Posted 2 years ago

  • 42
Photo of Mihael Tominšek

Mihael Tominšek

  • 37 Posts
  • 31 Reply Likes
I am cutting my venes with Lr from version to version. Every (every!) version of Lr is slower / more laggy. Regarldless of hardware.  Years ago I started with Lr 1.5 and I had 3 MP JPEG's - Yes 3MP , but on Celeron (Pentium 4 era) with 512 MB ram!  I thought this is the best software on planet. 

I started to curse Lr after version 4... I upgraded hadrware to have latest and gratest. 3 SSD's: images on one, 99GB !!! cache on another, catalog on third... I have SAME camera now for 3 years, still performance degardes. I it laggy EVEN if I go to edit thoose 3 MP files from 10 years ago. I have 2 computers with 6-core CPU, (one have HDD's and 16 GB ram, and older GPU, other have 32GB and SSD's and newer GPU), but no difference on them regarding Lr. 

Sometimes (?!?) for some projects it works better, another day it is to pull hair slow. I started to use smart previews. The day I changed that setting it was FAST... ok, at least workable. But another day, same as before. Than GPU... when I enable it, Lr works better and CPU cooler is quiet, so GPU works. But Brushes are insane than. If unticked, brushes are more alive but Lr is a bit slower. I hear CPU cooler... with latest update, if I select / change 2-3 images fast one after another, the CPU works a lot, but it seems only few threads, since CPU get hot (cooler wakes) and Lr is almost unresponsive until image "loads" 100%, but only few cores out of 12 of my CPU is utilised. BTW making 1:1 previews upfront does nothing to performance. 

Lr on that beast machine is almost no faster than on my 5 year old laptop with 8 GB of ram. Making new catalog for project does nothing. While exporting there is the only time whine CPU goes 100% with all 12 cores and export is VERY fast on my fastest machine and not so on slow laptop.

Photoshop have no issues, CorelDRAW/PAINT no issues and Capture One works smooth as butter. Only LR is hessitating SNAIL. Another aspect of bloated Adobe software code is Primiere, which is similar on performance and I started to thinking of harakiri. But than latest version after patches gived me hope, as I work now OK. Even I say "OK" (25 years on NLE's all from Avid, etc). So Lr need to be revamped. This is insane. We do not need ever new functions that bloats basic functions such are brushes, crop, etc... not to mention perspective correction. 
Photo of Mihael Tominšek

Mihael Tominšek

  • 37 Posts
  • 31 Reply Likes
Sorry for all spells... I can not edit the comment anymoore.
Photo of Tom Peterson

Tom Peterson

  • 7 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
What's most surprising about all of this is that Adobe seem to want to make it look as though this is some sort of specific issue?
This is a universally known problem. Nobody can build a computer fast enough to run LR.
I was in the same boat. Always loved LR and most Adobe software, but over the last year I canceled my subscription and stopped editing. 
I won't start again until this is resolved for the vast majority of users.
Everywhere I look people with outrageously expensive computers can barely run LR (I am one of those people) and I will not post log files and pretend this is a support issue.
This is a general problem and must be addressed somehow. It has to be possible, because LR used to run better.
Though it hasn't run _well_ for years. It should feel like Photoshop. But it doesn't.
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Official Rep

  • 4721 Posts
  • 955 Reply Likes
Thank you.
Photo of Art M.

Art M.

  • 83 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
I agree with Tom.   I realize Rikk that you need specific information to identify the problem but at the same time, Lightroom is simply notorious for massive slowdowns.  On the other hand, it has fantastic functionality which is why so many of us keep using it despite the slowdowns.  Honestly I expected to have to switch to Photoshop by now but I find that I keep learning about additional functions in Lightroom that cover my needs.

And I do want to thank you Rikk for taking a serious interest in the problems.

There is a lot of speculation that Lightroom only uses one core on multi-core machines.   Perhaps you would investigate this?   Do the Apple and Microsoft API's make it easy or hard to program to use multiple cores?

Next time I have a massive slowdown in editing I will video it on my iPhone and send it to you along with all the system configuration information I can think of.  

In the meantime, please note carefully that I personally experience slowdowns in two specific situations:

A.  Scrolling through RAW photographs in G mode when I have not previously created 1-1 previews.   Some people in dpreview forums have speculated that Lightroom is not taking advantage of the JPEG's embedded in the RAW files.  This of course would only be helpful until one begins to edit the files in Lightroom, .....  but I usually only scroll through ALL the photographs in a shoot initially to do ranking, prior to any edits at all.  I bet that is a common workflow. 

Seems like this could be corrected.  Would you please check this out?

This particular problem is so well known (slow scrolling of RAW files) that some firms have developed products just to deal with it, such as FastRawViewer or Photo Mechanic. 

Creating 1-1 previews solves the scrolling problem (until I have do some edits) but that itself is a slow process that uses a lot of hard disk.  For this reason I usually do NOT create 1-1 previews until I have done the initial culling of my shoot.

B.  Here is the big one:   after I have done some edits, maybe 10 to 20 edits, to a photograph, further editing slows down a LOT.    I do use the brush for dodge and burn quite a bit as well as the clone/heal function.  That should be a clue. 

It feels as if Lightroom is recreating the entire image from scratch from history every time I do an additional clone/heal or brush.   Crazy.  There might be something extraordinarily inefficient about the way that process is programmed.  I can't help but think that there is an algorithmic fix possible here.   Would you please check this out?

Another clue is that to my best recollection, speed problems escalated dramatically with the transition from v5.7 to 6.x and CC.   Can you check out whether something fundamental changed there?

System: As I mentioned earlier, I keep 100gig open on my SSD, I have a 2015 MacBook Pro I7 with 16gig, I bumped the cache to around 30gig, and I seem to experience similar problems whether I have GPU turned on or off.   I do keep several had drives attached to my computer as backup drives.    I edit with an external monitor that is 4k 24" run in 2k mode.  My MacBook Pro is rated to drive this monitor just fine and it does.

Finally, I have noticed that closing all internet browsers speeds up Lightroom a bit. I find that open browser pages use a lot of CPU even when they are doing "nothing".   Something is afoot with the advertisers doing work in the background, I suspect.  Sigh.   So I do encourage Lightroom users to keep browsers closed where possible.

Thanks very much for your assistance Rikk.
Photo of Denyer Ec

Denyer Ec

  • 55 Posts
  • 43 Reply Likes
There are a LOT of people with performance issues (More than I know than without) but there are some people out there who don't have performance problems and can work quite happily with the software.

Either they are far, far more tolerant then we, or there is something system specific afoot. That said, I've built 2 computers for Lightroom so far, and both have sucked, so the problem is at least quite widespread, or my luck is just terrible :D

(Or there is some seemingly innocuous piece of software that I absentmindedly install every time (like the Wacom drivers or Crashplan) that ruins LR's performance somehow?)
Photo of Mihael Tominšek

Mihael Tominšek

  • 37 Posts
  • 31 Reply Likes
True! Saddly. 
I use Lr, Pr, Au and Dw for at least 10 years. For all mentioned hold true that they perform progressively slower from version to version (not much, but noticable) and MUCH (MUCH!!) slower than their first versions (which was bought from other developers). The only Premiere blessed me with major speed improvement in CC2017.1 compared to CC2015.x.

I use other packages like Ps only from 2013 after CC enabled me to have them all. And Ps is only package that perform good in every version. 

My system was installed 14.8.2015 - only hardware changes during that time was 16-32 GB ram and I regularly update SSD's here and there. On the same system I have currently installed 4 versions of Premiere:  CS6 (for Encore), CC"2013" (for third party plugin that I use a lot), CC2015 (used to be main editor), CC2017.1 (is main editor now since "0.1" update). 

- CS6 was perfect.
- CC was the same fast and stable, just few things changed that annoys me. 
- CC2014 introduced UGLY GUI... refused to use it...
- CC2015 a bit toned down blue color and added few interesting features. After a good year or so, I stzarted to use it. It was REALLY stable version, but obviously under the hood updates ruined performance since it was slower and slower when using LUT's especially. So bad I wanted to make suicide (not joke) when I had deadline with huge lawsuit behind if I do not deliver. And Premiere wanted 10 seconds to refresh screen for every cut, slide, change... and sometimes 5 minutes to draw initial screen of timeline. In a desperation I tried CC2017 again, which I refused to use due to the most crashing Adobe package ever (crashed almost every time a mouse was moved). I rather never update Adobe software anymoore so "updates" are blinking in my CC note area. I clicked update for CC2017 and tried it. I opened same project that did not open under 10 minutes in CC2015. After conversion I was shocked! Is that possible? Opened instantly, no LAG what so ever... And this is converted project from CC2015. Wow... let it crash every minute I said... I have dedicated SAVE key on my custom keyboard anyway (because Adobe). But hey... it only crashed 2-3 times during workday. Yes with CC2015 I do not remember it's last crash, so much I forgot to save... now I'm saving again, but CC2017 on same old Windows, works great, where CC2015 is a nightmare... nothing changed.

I hope some LR version will bless me with major speed increase as Premiere did... until than, slight improvement is not worth speaking. We need 400% improvement. 

I tested old JPEGS. My fisr digital camera have 1024*768 files. Thoose files work fast! 5MP RAF, 9MP RAF, 12MP JPEGS, 16MP DNG (out of Pentax), all work similarly slow. If system is "rested", it loads image in 2 seconds. "loads" is where detailed image is processed, not when low res thumbnail is shown. After system is "tired" (working on 100 files for a while jumping back and forth adjusting smlla changes here and there, tweaking...), it could load 3-5 seconds per image. 

I do use "smartpreviews" as proposed a while ago for speed increment. That was good only for the time I swithed... That day LR was pleasure. Not blazing fast, but no lag. Only thast day! I do not understand. 

PS: I will test SMARTPREVIEWS vs. NORMAL
Photo of Dennis

Dennis

  • 2 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Im afraid Im in the same boat. I can't afford the time this is costing me so I am exploring some of the other catalog/editors out there.
Photo of Mihael Tominšek

Mihael Tominšek

  • 37 Posts
  • 31 Reply Likes
So SMART vs REGULAR previews: 
I use 2 monitors. On second monitor I have 1:1 preview selected. So I can see when image is rendered to highest resolution. It takes some time. 

1) discarded smartpreviews and 1:1 previews. No image in folder selected. All images are 16MP DNG (Pentax), and already edited. All have with same preset applyd, but some with aditional brushes, radial filters and spot healing and perspective correction. 

First 6-7 images needed exactly 5 seconds to be fully rendered after clicked on it. Than it was close to 6 for every image after that. Thoose with selective effects needed 8-12 seconds. I found out that perspective does not take much, most peformance hit is with brush and radial. Spot healing is slow to operate, but renders fast. What I found is that sometimes image on second monitor renders seconds after it is rendered on main window and sliders come back. Sometimes image renders much faster and sliders needs 10 seconds to show (sliders are gray during image loading). 

This is not usable. If I need to load 250 images (average shootout) that is 30 minutes just to open them once. Multiply that with 10 per image during workflow that damn thing I'm paying regularly and not that little (e.g. Lr) takes me 5 hours of WAITING on average job. That means I loose 5*20 EUR (my low hourly rate) = 100 EUR / job. Thank you Adobe! I must charge more on already compating market or I just buy competition licence. Unfortunately, not using Lr does not save my bill, sicne I use Premiere which thankfully works (until next update). 

2) Build 1:1 previews (in the prefferences "use smart previews" is unticked):
Images loads mostly instantly, some of them needs 1-2 seconds to render. So this is what I need. But I only tested 20 images. That means nothing since I did not test to work several hours. While image loads instantly, sliders still needs to "load": That is probably to render effects. Still this is much faster than using no previews. It takes 2-4 seconds to load sliders in develop mode. 

3) Discard 1:1 previews and Build smart previews (in the prefferences "use smart previews" is ticked):
Some of images loads instantly. Most of them renders (loads) for about 2x the time as with 1:1 previews. Processor works much harders as my 1KG cooler starts to spin when working with smart previews, but is quiet with 1:1. Than another issue: Screen blackouts - some parts of tool panes blacks out. And approaching to next images demands several clicks until it goes. Even after image is rendered fully, it refuses to approach to next image and CPU cooler goes like mad. When cooler calms dow, the next image is loaded.

Interesting  that sliders loads at about 1/2 the time as with 1:1 previews. 

Cocnlusion: I will stop using Smartprevirews since it ruins performence, not improves it. Image loads quicker under 1:1 since it is prerendered. SmartPreview probably tryes to render 1:1 on the fly. It is even slower or similar than no previews at all. But sliders loads faster in Develop mode since effects are rendered at lower resolution file. (I guess). 

Let's try the performance when tweaking the images.
The most annoying is perspective tool. The nods jumps all over so it is pain to adjust it right. Furthermore they stick to mouse and even you placed them and released mouse button it is dragged by moving mouse to somewhere out of screen. Same happens sometimes in brush editor (if GPU is selected, for shure).

Another  annoyance is that on second monitor mouse click enlarges the image to 2:1, only than it is rendered to 1:1 as selected. And another click  does not revert image back to FIT, but "fit" icon must be clicked, or another image selected, than it releasess it and revert it to fit. 

Third annoyance (long ago noticed) is masking or brushing while having image at 100%. It is fine, until you want to move it (with hand tool, pressing spacebar), or zooming (in/out) while on brush or other selective tool. Once or twice it will do with much lag, but after few inteventions it will cease alltogether. You need to close the tool, wait until system rests, than open tool, select nod, and try again... 

All in all: We pay big money to Adobe, and get this kind of software. Uggh. Sometimes I wish I would digg trenches for living, because there every shovel of dirt you lift, it is one less in the trench and you can see the progress. With Adobe software (mostly) you can see only suffer and little progress / joy. Sorry folks, that is how I (we?) see it after 10+ years with ever the same problems. New version will supposedly be better right. 

Lets' try to edit some NEW previously unedited images: 
Same crappy sluggish performance. Yes 1:1 previews loads image faster, but editing is a bit slower. Even paning image at 100% is laggy (1-2 seconds to move, if it moves in first attemtp) and zooming on an image still takes long. Using smartpreviews editing is a bit faster but you loose insight of image quality (sometimes I even reject image, which is fine otherwise), and image loading is double the time. So I guess I will NOT use smartpreviews from this test on. In fact... 

FINAL CONSLUSION:
I will not use Lightroom until this is sorted out and Adobe release new version with some "mercury playback engine" which will clain REAL TIME EDITING again. 

I'm sick of wasting my life on this forums, where we chase our tails debugging something for which we pay ADOBE to do it for us. We bought tool, not opportunity to debug one ourselves. We need something that works. Something that competition already have. 

I reckon Adobe gives a *** if I leave. I will still pay for compete CC for other software (that I mostly curse as I do Lr). And even if I leave completely... huge stream of new customers comes in. Lightroom is amateurish software. It is great if you only open image, apply preset, press auto upright, auto lens corection and export (to social media from Lr directly). Thoose people are slow for masking by themselves or they do not mask competelly, so they do not know it is slow. They are attracted to make panoramas, HDR's, "books", and "slideshows", use (ugly) dehaze tool ...

We need speed.

Maybe I will make comparison video of editing 20 images using Lr and other tools.  
Photo of Denyer Ec

Denyer Ec

  • 55 Posts
  • 43 Reply Likes
You and I seem to have similar experiences with speed and frustration, though in a conversation I had on twitter with Melissa, it at least felt like they are starting to take things seriously - hey, if they don't, we leave right? (Oh, you have tried the metadata tools in Capture One, haven't you? Ye gods.)

I found that using OBS Studio to screen-capture lightroom was the easiest way to relate performance to the tech staff, once people see just how paintful it is to use on your system it becomes very hard to ignore, but times and numbers are somehow abstract to process.

Also in agreement, is that if it takes 6 seconds to change between images and I have 1500 images to work through, that's  2.5 HOURS of time wasted just waiting for slow software. That's billable time, and it's really hurting my margins :(
Photo of Tom Peterson

Tom Peterson

  • 7 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
You two said it perfectly. This is the crux of it. The second there is any viable Adobe competition, I will go with that. Until then, I will not use any Adobe software anyway. 
So the only way to get me back will be performance improvements.
I am not getting my hopes up. Thank god I don't need to use this stuff professionally.
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Official Rep

  • 5185 Posts
  • 1052 Reply Likes
Thank you to you all for contributing your experiences to this thread. Engineering is taking a look at the issues presented here and may be contacting some of you directly via email with more questions. 
Photo of Matthew George

Matthew George

  • 24 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Happy to do whatever I can to help. Would love to see it fixed.
Photo of Simon Ringsmuth

Simon Ringsmuth

  • 4 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Just chiming in to say that LR performance continues to get worse over time. It seems like product development has shifted to the mobile space rather than improving the desktop experience, which is frustrating for myself and so many other photographers who need fast loading, culling, editing, and exporting.

I use LR at home and at work, and specs on both systems are similar:

iMac 27-inch, Mac OS Sierra
3.4 GHz Core i7
16 GB RAM at work, 32 GB RAM at home
3TB Fusion Drive
Library is on the internal drive

Zooming to 100% results in 10-15 seconds of loading time per photo, which makes it extraordinarily time consuming to check for sharp images.

I like LR just fine, but it's slow, slow, slow. Please speed focus on speed improvements for desktop rather than adding new features for mobile.
Photo of Matt Quinn

Matt Quinn

  • 6 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
I recently built a new Windows 10 machine to replace a 4 year old MacBook Pro. The specs on the new machine are:

Intel i7 6800k
32GB DDR4 Ram
MSI Radeon RX480 4Gb GPU
Asus X99-A II Motherboard
LG 27" 4K monitor running at 3840x2160

Lightroom is 2015.10

My performance is about the same or worse running on my new machine vs. my old MacBook pro (i7 2.7ghz 16gb ram) and recently I upgraded to the latest AMD drivers and the develop module crashes lightroom. I have to disable the GPU to get into it. Before upgrading to the latest drivers the GPU would work, but the apps performance would slowly degrade over time.  Here are some of the issues I've faced:

- The screen would flash black frequently .
- Sometimes when I clicked on an image, it would flash to another image first the to the image I selected.
- Using the sliders had a serious delay associated with them, sometimes not seeing the results on screen for seconds. For example, moving the exposure slider would not update the image for a couple seconds. 
- Sometimes there is a 2-3 second delay moving between images in develop mode.
- Using brushes and spot removal is painfully slow.

These are just some of the more common problems. I've had other issues come up more randomly as well.

I'm going to completely remove my drivers and re-install and see if that helps the GPU crashing problem. Regardless though, even when the GPU setting is enabled, the app is painful to use.

Happy to provide any information to help fix this problem as I'm actively pursuing other apps to replace Lightroom much to my displeasure. It's an amazing app if performed well.
Photo of Mihael Tominšek

Mihael Tominšek

  • 37 Posts
  • 31 Reply Likes
How come developers of Lr does not "see" all the problems? Even computer geeks should see that real life usage of Lr sucks. 
Photo of Art M.

Art M.

  • 85 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
I think that some users and apparently ALL the developers never stress the system with heavily edited photographs or needing to cull a lot of images quickly.   So the performance problems of Lightroom are well known in general in the user community, but it's a great secret to the developers who still believe that it's a system by system issue. 
Photo of Matthew George

Matthew George

  • 24 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
I've got an i7, 32 gigs of ram, and two really fast SSDs with plenty of free space on them, and Lightroom is the most frustrating program I've ever used in terms of sluggish input and usability. Changes with the adjustment brush, or other mildly complex adjustments take multiple seconds to show up on my screen (which doesn't sound like much, but when you're trying to make 50 adjustments to 400 photos, it REALLY adds up) and just creating 1:1 previews for 1000 RAF files regularly takes me 3+ hours. 

I've got all my drivers up to date, I've got the most recent version of Lightroom CC, and I've spent 3 hours with an Adobe rep directly controlling my computer trying to optimize my settings with no benefit at all.

I HATE using Lightroom, and if I could afford to use both Lightroom/Photoshop and Capture One, I would absolutely do it. 
Photo of Geoff Decker

Geoff Decker

  • 72 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
Maybe instead of commenting on this thread we should just continue to make new ones. At least we get an acknowledgement someone read it since they end up having to merge the comments, lol.

Get it together Adobe, actually respond to your customers.
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Official Rep

  • 4916 Posts
  • 999 Reply Likes
Greetings Geoff, 

Additional threads will not be of assistance. Engineering is monitoring this thread and bugs assigned to performance issues raised here cross-reference it.  The cumulative count of persons affected with performance issues is based in-part on this thread. Creating a different thread dilutes the impact. Threads relating to poor performance in Lightroom will typically be merged back into the definitive thread. 

Adobe is aware of performance issues some users are experiencing and working (directly with users who've volunteered) to resolve these. 
Photo of Matt Quinn

Matt Quinn

  • 6 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Thanks for the update Rikk. If you need any assistance, I'd be happy to work with your engineers to try and track down the problem. 
Photo of Geoff Decker

Geoff Decker

  • 72 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
And yet its the only way to get you guys to reply. So yeah, if you go silent, I am going to make new threads. How about actually supporting the customers and keeping us up to date instead of ignoring us?
Photo of Jose Mondia

Jose Mondia

  • 7 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
Guys, I was just thinking that since Adobe does not seem to care about our issue, that maybe we need to bring this to the attention of popular photography or tech review sites. Maybe we could get Adobe's attention if they get negative publicity. Of course the other way to get their attention is if users leave for other platform. I am currently trialing capture one and the difference in performance is astounding. It is unbelievable how bad software can cripple otherwise beastly PCs. 
Photo of Geoff Decker

Geoff Decker

  • 72 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
Oh hey Adobe removed this comment. Lets post it again and see what happens...

Agreed. Currently writing up an article for one of them detailing this experience, the poor customer service, and how to replace Adobe with Capture One and Affinity.
Photo of Matthew George

Matthew George

  • 24 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
If Capture One wasn't $300, and I didn't have to keep paying monthly for PS & Lightroom, I'd have switched a long time ago. Adobe's priorities and customer treatment have been pretty backwards for years now.
Photo of Geoff Decker

Geoff Decker

  • 72 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
I think you can do a subscription to CapOne as well...
Photo of Art M.

Art M.

  • 87 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
Someone posted a question about Lightroom speed at dpreview.com
see: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4178073#forum-post-59796458
Photo of smolnar18

smolnar18

  • 1 Post
  • 3 Reply Likes
I described my performance issue on Laura Shoe's Facebook Group page and was sent here to see if others have the same issues.  Of course, it turns out that my issues are described accurately by many, many others here (black screen, not responding, 10-20 seconds of spinning for every brush action, flashing picture from several edits ago, having to restart frequently just to be able to use Lr, zoom delay, and more).  I'm on Win 10. I've tried checking and unchecking the GPU box, updating my graphics driver, making sure my version of Lr CC is up to date (it is and has been kept up to date).  NOTHING helps.  My laptop is a decent configuration, but from reading here, it looks like equipment upgrades don't help, anyway.

Bottom line? I'm new to CC (was previously using Lr stand-alone until last month), and now I feel it was probably a mistake to sign up for a subscription model for Lr when the developers don't seem to be interested in solving performance issues that are making the product unusable.

I'll be rethinking my subscription, and hoping that, in the meantime, Adobe decides its Lr customers are worth supporting properly.
Photo of Denyer Ec

Denyer Ec

  • 55 Posts
  • 43 Reply Likes
Seems that was a lucky one. Forty Seven seconds for the last image. All I am doing is moving to the next image , hitting R and waiting until the tool is responsive.
Photo of Denyer Ec

Denyer Ec

  • 55 Posts
  • 43 Reply Likes
I have to get 56 images out the door in the next half an hour, and I *cannot actually hit that deadline* because of the software. Professional software. In use by professionals.
Photo of Joel Weisbrod

Joel Weisbrod

  • 194 Posts
  • 113 Reply Likes
We can write and write and write and it makes no difference. We (certainly me) have been screaming about performance for more than one year and what did Adobe do? They created a totally new cloud based version and totally ignored the performance issues.

They simply DO NOT CARE!!!!! All I ever hear is from Simon Chen and every comment from him is "The team are working on it". Really, they are working on it for more than one year? When did they have time to create the entire new version if they were really working on the performance issue?

The sad truth is they must not really have been working on it as I started screaming and demoing the performance issue more than a full year ago and look where we are - nowhere!!!!

Frankly, I think Adobe is hoping we get so upset that we just leave!
Photo of Assaf Frank

Assaf Frank

  • 148 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
I feel exactly the same.
Photo of Alexandre Racine

Alexandre Racine

  • 10 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
So I have been using Lightroom Classic CC for a couple of days and the results are that it is faster. From 10% to 50% in some examples. They are using way more the video graphic card if you have check this option in performance, and that is pretty usefull in my workflow.

I did a small video here, under 3 minutes, on the brush tool. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO77rIgpLTQ Way faster and more responsive.

If they continue to go in that direction, that will be great!
(Edited)
Photo of Joel Weisbrod

Joel Weisbrod

  • 194 Posts
  • 113 Reply Likes
Glad you are seeing an improvement. I am seeing the opposite. Much slower than before. You would think that would be valuable info for developers but I am convinced they simply do not care - period!!!
Photo of Joel Weisbrod

Joel Weisbrod

  • 194 Posts
  • 113 Reply Likes
Open Begging to Simon Chen and Jeff Tranberry

Will Anyone at Adobe Ever break the Cone of Silence? Many of us have been begging for help and begging to help find and address the serious performance issues we are experiencing. 

Simon, you keep telling us "the team are working on it" and I believe you. I am just not sure what "it" is that they are working on. Clearly it has not been the performance issue. I am waiting more than one year and perhaps everyone on the "team" were too busy inventing the new cloud based product to spend any effort on the existing performance issues. Seems to me that has been quite unfair considering I pay every month for software with a major issue you have essentially ignored for more than 12 months.

Jeff, you have remained totally silent on the issue. Please tell us to go away, tell us how to fix it, tell us when we can expect some help, but please tell us something!

Both of you saw the issue while connected to my PC over one year ago and still no help and no discussion. At the PC Expo in NYC last week, I spoke to someone from Adobe that seemed quite happy when I said that I was being forced to go to Capture One and he said good if that solves my issue. Well, besides that not being a great answer, I may need to do just that. Perhaps, if those of us with this major issue went away, Adobe would be much closer to cancelling the desktop version in lieu of the new cloud based scenario that none of us could use anyway due to the lack of features and sheer volume of photos we process daily or weekly.

Many of us with strong IT backgrounds have offered to help run test products to determine the source of the issue with no response from Adobe. We have posted information trying to show how LR runs so poorly on our systems while other products seem to race along without any slowdown at all. Some of us have been forced to go back to the prior 2015.12 version so we can get our work done albeit with a restart of LR after every 30 or so images.

I am quite sure none of us want to leave Adobe and none of us want to use other products but we need your help. So, here I am begging openly for some kind of help in solving this issue. 

Most of us with the problem are using high-end PC's. I have Windows 10 on a PC with a 3.3Ghz 12-core processor, 64Mb 2400 speed RAM, NVidia GTX Titan Graphics with 12Gb Dedicated VRam, SSD drives and I can tell you that everything on my PC is lightning fast (Including Capture One and ON1 RAW 2018) except for Lightroom. 

Some of us (including me) teach comprehensive classes in both Lightroom and Photoshop and get from 30-100 students per year to enroll in the Lightroom CC (now Classic) system. Please help me continue supporting Adobe and referring students to the cloud based systems.

I am aware that my CC monthly payment means nothing to Adobe and if I went away the company would never miss it. I am aware that I am a thorn in your side for constantly complaining about performance. I am aware that the company line is that Lightroom Classic is much faster than previous versions. Well, I have yet to talk to any of my colleagues, friends, students, or anyone for that matter that thinks the new program is faster. In fact, even several of my students using MAC OS feel that Classic is slower than the prior version. Okay, I am sure some see an improvement in performance but I am not sure who they are. No matter, every day I read forum comments from many of you longest loyal customers begging for help to solve the performance issue.

So, Adobe, Jeff, Simon: I and others stand before you begging for some relief. Our businesses are suffering as we cannot process our work. Our lives are being adversely affected as we have no time left after spending three or four times as long as before working on our daily shoot images. 

Please do not force us to move away from Adobe. Many of us have been loyal supporters for dozens of years. Your company was built on our continued loyalty, software purchases, and upgrades. We really want to stay loyal. We really want to continue to recommend Adobe products to our colleagues, friends, and students. We want Adobe to continue to be the leading force in the imaging business. To do all of this, WE NEED YOUR HELP!!!

Please, please, please help us. Let us help you. We will do anything you ask of us (within reason and our busy schedules) to identify and correct this issue. I am sure you have read some of my comments on other forum threads and the times I report are real!

Many of us await your reply!!!!    PLEASE HELP US!    PLEASE TALK TO US
Photo of Art M.

Art M.

  • 85 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
I am confused by these last two comments because I've heard lots of reports that LR "Classic" is indeed faster than prior recent versions.   Perhaps it's not faster on certain Windows configurations?  (I run Mac and have not upgraded yet due to time constraints.)
Photo of Geoff Decker

Geoff Decker

  • 72 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
It's unusable for me. It freezes my computer whenever I try and use the crop tool.
Photo of Denyer Ec

Denyer Ec

  • 55 Posts
  • 43 Reply Likes
Art - it's a LOT faster in certain use cases - the Library view is indeed vastly superior and is in fact fast enough now to use for culling. It's not PhotoMechanic fast, but it's fast enough to consider using a single tool again (Praise be!).

There are however serious issues with the Develop module, including colour shifts on load, and insane lag outs when enabling certain tools (The crop tool is the most obvious culprit, which case take between 30 and 40 seconds to initialise for me).

I have no doubt they're finally on the right track, but the anger that myself and others have over being quite frankly swindled on LR6 Standalone (Or in fact 2 years of unusable subscription) is palpable and justified. I see it like a garage mechanic promising to fix the car you've bought and paid for, and after fobbing you off for 2 years they finally tell you they've fixed the car - you simply need to buy a new one and all the problem sill go away!
Photo of Anthony Stagge

Anthony Stagge

  • 42 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
I have made the decision to cancel my sub and revert to LR6 while/until I move to other tools.

I hope everyone realizes this is your LAST chance as it were to keep your catalog in tact and use LR perpetual. If you upgrade to Classic, your catalog will no longer be compatible with LR6 (the last ever perpetual lic).  So you'll be stuck as a subscriber, or start over with an old copy of your catalog(s).

I had previosly purchased LR3,4 and 5. I went online to look for a copy of 6 and was pleasantly surprised that I could still upgrade to 6 through Adobe. I doubt that option will remain for long, so if you are not happy with the CC and Classic moves, it's now or maybe never.

I'll follow the forums and leave the option open to move back to Adobe in the future.

Best,
AE
Photo of Joel Weisbrod

Joel Weisbrod

  • 194 Posts
  • 113 Reply Likes
Another one bites the dust.

Unfortunately, Adobe doesn't care! Actually, on their tote board the number of complainers just went down by one.

Anthony, I support your decision and I am just days away from following you. I have been using Capture One trial and it is fairly good. A little more expensive but it is lightning fast and simply works! I also pre-ordered the new Windows version of Luminar scheduled for delivery on 11-15 and it is reasonably priced (dirt cheap), NOT a subscription, and looks really powerful - have to wait and see.

I think many more of us will do the same. Good luck and keep us posted on your search and exploration of other software.