Lightroom Classic CC: performance degradation

  • 3
  • Problem
  • Updated 5 months ago
  • (Edited)
Ever since Lightroom 5.0 this application has been suffering from severe performance degradation after a certain time of normal use, involving simple browsing, rating, tagging, etc. Editing isn't even part of the equation - but it'll sure surface the problem sooner.
After a while of this totally normal use, Lightroom gets slower and slower, and starts demnanding more and more memory. It also uses incredible CPU loads for no good reason, draining my battery much faster than it ought to.
The Lightroom 6.14 update has come out recently. The problem IS STILL THERE, after several YEARS of updates.
I'd like to know why this problem isn't being fixed, while LR is being updated with other nonsense. How is it decided to keep severe performance bugs in the software, while adding features? Priority of issues seems really skewed here.
And before you make the suggestion: this problem persists with a new catalog.
I've used Windows 7, Windows 10 with al the major updates. I've used every single Lightroom update from 5.0 onwards. Makes no difference.
Photo of martijn Saly

martijn Saly

  • 194 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
  • frustrated

Posted 6 months ago

  • 3
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1373 Posts
  • 334 Reply Likes
This is posted in the Lightroom CC Forum - moving it to Lightroom Classic CC forum. 
Photo of martijn Saly

martijn Saly

  • 194 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
This problem is with Lightroom 6.14. There is no "classic" in the title anywhere. I don't know what Lightroom Classic is.
(Edited)
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1373 Posts
  • 334 Reply Likes
This is the forum for the Lightroom CC Product versions 1.0 and later first released in October 2017. 

All previous iterations of Lightroom (Versions 1-6) and Lightroom CC2015 are now found in the Lightroom Classic Forum. 
Photo of martijn Saly

martijn Saly

  • 194 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
Sjeez, talk about confusion. Adobe is pretty good at that :(
Why can't we just have version 1.x-7.x? Why must old versions suddenly and arbitrarily be renamed? That's never happened in the past, for example when 6.0 came out, 5.x wasn't deemed "classic" either.
Either way, my product is called "Lightroom 6.14". So I will be posting in the Lightroom forum, not in the Lightroom Classic forum. I would consider that reserved for Lightroom 3 or something.
(Edited)
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 4104 Posts
  • 1468 Reply Likes
> Why can't we just have version 1.x-7.x?

Lightroom 1-6 are no longer being updated so any fixes will have to go into LR Classic. Therefore there's not a lot of point having a separate bug forum for older versions.
Photo of martijn Saly

martijn Saly

  • 194 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
Older versions SHOULD get updated. Adobe is obligated to deliver a working product. A major upgrade requires purchasing a new product (or a goddamn subscription), while it is THEIR fault and THEIR bug to solve.

Just look at Microsoft, fixing bugs and whatnot TEN YEARS after release. They don't go "just upgrade to Windows whatever" because that's a paid upgrade. Requiring payment to have a bug fixed is just simply, not done.
Photo of Ralf Bruechmann

Ralf Bruechmann

  • 27 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
I don't know if LR6 ever will profit from it, but LR Classic CC will get performance improvements witrh version 7.2 - so with next minor release:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/6947305878/adobe-is-preparing-a-major-lightroom-classic-performance-up...
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 998 Posts
  • 219 Reply Likes
Your cost comparison is still misleading.

I did some tests yesterday generating 1:1 previews for 100 24mp Fuji raw files and found LR is now 68% faster than 6.14. Anyone can run such simple tests for themselves - without even subscribing.
Photo of Anthony Stagge

Anthony Stagge

  • 42 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
Which version is 68% faster than 6.14?? 
Photo of martijn Saly

martijn Saly

  • 194 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
The point is not that one thing is faster in the newer version!The point is whether the new version still degrades in performance after have working on many pictures.
(Edited)
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 998 Posts
  • 219 Reply Likes
The point is that performance degradation only affects some users. While this needs to be addressed, Adobe can't be expected to hold back new features or performance improvements that we all benefit from.
Photo of martijn Saly

martijn Saly

  • 194 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
And the point is that it WON'T be addressed. If 6.14 will be the last version, Lightroom 6 will have this issue for the rest of eternity. 7.x is a paid upgrade (a bloody subscription program as well, which is roughly twice as expensive over a span of 2 years!!) and paying for them to fix an issue that has been around for YEARS (and has been reported back when) is "not done" as we call it.

So no matter how you put it, Adobe has bollocksed up.
Photo of martijn Saly

martijn Saly

  • 194 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
If Adobe fixes this problem in Lightroom 7 (and not in 6.15), I say let's all install that one illegally. It's the only way to illustrate to Adobe what a mess they've made. They've had YEARS to fix this problem and they've done NOTHING about it.

If we have to pay for them fixing this bug by upgrading to 7, essentially, then there's something fundamentally wrong with how they treat their customers, and by extension, their products.
(Edited)
Photo of Robert Frost

Robert Frost

  • 392 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes

Hi Martijn, You are 'flogging a dead horse' in your anti-subscription rant. Adobe is making much more money by selling subscriptions than from one-off payments, and it won't be long before your OS and other programs are sold in the same way. You may be unhappy, but millions are happy with the subscription to LR and Photoshop for far less than both one-off payments, assuming you update regularly.

Bob Frost

Photo of martijn Saly

martijn Saly

  • 194 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
I don't get it. It is more expensive. How does that make people happy?!