Lightroom Classic 9.2.1: Slow export

  • 2
  • Question
  • Updated 2 months ago
  • Answered
  • (Edited)
I'm exporting 1241 images as jpegs.  Lightroom will export 3 files every 2 minutes.  Much slower than last week.  I've tried rebooting, clearing the cache, increasing the cache size from 5GB to 50GB, using and not using Graphics Processor, writing to a SSD instead of the external hard drive.  Nothing changes the export speed- 3 images every 2 minutes.  

There are a number of corrections to each image- crop, lens profile, basic adjustments and some filters applied.

Any ideas?  This performance simply isn't acceptable- it'll take 14 hours to get these exported.
Photo of Chuck

Chuck

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
  • frustrated

Posted 3 months ago

  • 2
Photo of Bill

Bill

  • 265 Posts
  • 39 Reply Likes
If you are using a 3rd party anti-malware / anti-virus program, that could explain it. They to do a full scan of every file read or written and lock the application until the scan is finished. 
 
Export performance test on:
  • HP Z440 
  • Xeon 6-core, 3.6/4 GHz
  • 64GB RAM 
  • from SSD on a PCIe adapter on the PCIe Bus, Samsung EVO 2TB 
  • to SSD on a SATA port, Samsung EVO 1TB 
  • Quadro K1200 
  • 4K monitor
3 tests, exporting 100 raw images to jpeg at 100% quality, 4K resolution, sharpen for screen:
  1. 2 min 54.4 sec - edited images or under 2 sec per image, typically 6-10 edits per image
  2. 1 min 33.2 sec - unedited images 
  3. 2-3X slowdown for editing concurrent with exporting another 100 unedited images, depending on the task. Library affected more than Develop, occasional flash of the develop window. 
Export needs a lot of CPU horsepower, SSD vs HD is immaterial. For the above test, 12 threads at 3.6 GHz were 100% busy the whole time. 
 
How about describing your system?
 
In addition to the hardware, what else is running while you are exporting?  


Photo of Tim McMahon

Tim McMahon

  • 44 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
OK. I did a test.  1400 edited  images:  CR2 and dng.  Raws on external disk.  Exported as 100% JPG to internal disk.  
LR 2.1.1   Computer specs below.
1 hour 6 minutes.  
Suggests Bill may be right.  LR itself does not seem to be the issue.

Photo of Chuck

Chuck

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Dell Inspiron 7373 Laptop, Processor i7-8550U @1.8GHz, 16GB Ram, Intel UHD Graphics 620, Windows 10. 

File Explorer is running, Chrome has been running / not running- doesn't seem to affect things.  LR is on the laptop SSD, Images are on a Seagate External Drive- have tried writing jpegs to the External Drive and to Internal SSD without difference.  I've tried exporting all 1200 at one time and 100 of them at a time without a difference in speed.

Seems to be the same speed if I export out 141MB TIFF files or 1.5MB jpegs.  About 3 files for every 2 minutes.
Photo of Chuck

Chuck

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Turning anti virus off does not improve performance.  Cleaned system and rebooted- no change in performance.
Photo of Bill

Bill

  • 265 Posts
  • 39 Reply Likes
Do you know how to use Task Manager to check resource consumption? Instead of more guessing, we need to find out what is consuming resources. 
  1. right click on an empty area of the Task Bar
  2. from the menu, choose Task Manager
  3. click the Performance tab
  4. start a Lightroom export 
  5. when the CPU hits a high level
  6. click on the Processes column 
  7. click the arrow until it is sorted in descending sequence 
  8. what processes are consuming the highest CPU percentages, should be Lightroom 
Note: due to a bug in Task Manager, it is important to do steps 3-7 in that order. If you skip steps 3 and 5 then Lightroom will probably not show up as a process. 

On my machine with about a 50% more powerful processor than yours, it runs at 90% +/- 5% while exporting edited images and between 80-85% for images with no edits. Since your GPU is very slow, I ran tests both with and without my GPU (Quadro P2200) active with essentially the same CPU consumption results. The GPU had no effect on the export time. 

Timing for exporting 201 images, all RAW, the first 78 edited and the remaining unedited. 
  • GPU off - 2 min 37 sec - GPU at 0%
  • GPU on - 2 min 37 sec - GPU at 0-2%
 
Photo of Chuck

Chuck

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes


As far as I can tell, it's all LR consuming resources 90-99%.

Photo of Bill

Bill

  • 265 Posts
  • 39 Reply Likes
At this point, the only thing that comes to me is that you have hundreds to thousands of edits on each image. While I find that unlikely and I'm stretching, can't come up with another idea. Have you tried exporting a few unedited images? 
 
Ran a couple tests with unusual export settings which slowed it down a bit but nothing like you are seeing:
  • Resize to Fit 15360 x 8640 = 25% slower
  • Same resize with Sharpen for Glossy Paper and Amount High = 2X slower
Definitely a puzzler. 

Photo of Chuck

Chuck

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Ok, I ran some tests on performance with the various edits and I think I found the problem.  All exports are DNG (28MB) to JPG (1920 pixel on long side, ~1.5MB).  25 Files exported in each run.
  • All Edits= ~16minutes
  • Removed Gradient Filter with areas erased (that is the paint brush was used to erase areas of the gradient) < 3 minutes
  • Removed the other 'standard' Gradient Filter= <2 minutes
  • No Edits= <1 minute
Bad boy is the Gradient Filter with adjustments- this was the first time I had used this function.  I thought it was pretty cool on that You Tube video but who knew it was an export killer.
Photo of Robert Somrak

Robert Somrak, Champion

  • 726 Posts
  • 227 Reply Likes
I just did and export of 56 Canon 5D3 Raw files

Without edits.   1 min 17 sec.
With Grad adjusted exposure with 3 brushes.    1 min 19 sec.

Must be some local adjustment you are doing in the grad
Photo of Chuck

Chuck

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Graduated filter/ Luminance Range Mask 95-100/ Exp +0.96/ Contrast +15/ Clarity +17/ Dehaze +9 applied to a region that is 15% of the graduated filter.  I wonder if just using a brush would have been more effective.
Photo of Robert Somrak

Robert Somrak, Champion

  • 726 Posts
  • 227 Reply Likes
I used your settings and the same 56 files took 2 min 50 sec.  It should be expected the range mask takes more time but I wouldn't have thought this much. This is still a lot faster than your results.  
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1969 Posts
  • 667 Reply Likes
Chuck's CPU is a low-performance 1.8 GHz i7-8550U mobile processor, which is probably the limiting factor. Here's a comparison to mine, which takes about 4 sec. per image file using the same settings versus 38 sec. for Chuck's system.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i7-8550U-vs-Intel-i7-8700K/3064vs3098

There's a possibility the CPU is over-heating, which throttles the clock speed even slower. Suggest downloading and running the free CPUID HWMONITOR and check the CPU Core temperatures during export.

Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Official Rep

  • 7627 Posts
  • 1739 Reply Likes
While using a brush/range mask does increase the processing time on an image it should be <150% and certainly not 1600%.  The analysis provided by champions here seems right - you probably have a processor bottleneck that is contributing heavily to the times you are seeing. 
Photo of Chuck

Chuck

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Any ideas on how to determine the processor bottleneck?  The resource monitor would indicate to me that LR is consuming the resources.  It seems to be a pretty specific demand as the brush/range mask drives the issue.