Lightroom: LR 4 user interface, and Develop slider response very sluggish

  • 296
  • Problem
  • Updated 5 years ago
  • (Edited)
Hi,

I updated from LR3 to LR4.0 yesterday and I observe a significant delay when I move sliders in the develop module. the delay exceeds often one second. It is not possible to use LR4 with this behavior. In LR3 no such delay happened.
I use WIN64 ultra a quad core @ 2.83GHz. 4MB RAM.
Photo of ANdreas KOch

ANdreas KOch

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
  • extremely frustrated

Posted 8 years ago

  • 296
Photo of Brett Rojo

Brett Rojo

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I had to upgrade to LR 4.1 from LR 3.6 because my camera (Nikon D800) was not supported. Now, what normally takes me a few hours to process several hundred images has taken me 2 DAYS!!!! C'mon. Yeah, I'm whining. I'm losing productivity. This product is supposed to help me BE productive. Not keep me from being productive. Surely Adobe is aware of this issue based on the hundreds of postings about the poor performance I have read on forums including Adobe's own forums.

One other poorly implemented "feature" is the auto treatment/process. It worked pretty good in 3.6. In 4.1 it not very functional.
Photo of Brett Rojo

Brett Rojo

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I created a preset to change to PV2010 instead of PV2012 when bringing in my photos. Previews, sliders, etc, etc more at 3.6 speed. Yeah, I'm not getting the paid upgraded features of 4.1, but at least I can process a D800 raw file within 10 seconds instead of the 3 min each image takes using 4.1 PV2012.
Photo of 45SURF

45SURF

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Good to find this thread!

I am sending a bill to the CEO of the billion-dollar Adobe corporation.

Over the past few months, they have cost me hundreds of hours as it takes minutes for each photo to export--an operation that takes seconds in other applications.

All the CEO has to do is ask a programmer to remove the loop that someone probably put in the Lightroom 4 software as a prank:

if ($operation = "export"){for $count=1; $count=1,000,000,000,000; $count++;}

which makes the software count to 1 trillion before proceeding with the export.

As a photographer's time is worth at least $50/hour, I expect a check for $5,000 from the CEO asap.

Who else wants to band together to send the CEO of Adobe a bill?

I mean sure we can use other software, but we were all lured in to buying Lightroom 4 for our super-fast 64-bit machines with 16+ gigs of ram and i7 processors. Adobe should add the following on the LR4 box:

"NEW! SUPER-SLOW FOR YOUR EXPENSIVE 64 BIT MACHINES! WITH THE MAVERICK if ($operation = "export"){for $count=1; $count=1,000,000,000,000; $count++;} CODE!"

lol
Photo of Enrico Maria Crisostomo

Enrico Maria Crisostomo

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Just to add my experience to this thread. I, too, ruled out specs problems long ago. It's a pity performance decreased badly from 3.x to 4.x (even if 4.1 got slightly better). I don't want to switch, but it's often a pain having to wait for Lightroom during your workflow.

Adobe, please, listen to your customers. I'd better pay more for a better product than paying less for this. Unfortunately, some competitors are doing well: I don't like Aperture, but it's performing better when applying similar develop settings to a picture.
Photo of Ronald N. Tan

Ronald N. Tan

  • 33 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
LR 4.2 *RELEASE CANDIDATE* is out. I am not going to install it. I am however interested in (if any) brave souls to report back, to see if any of of the performance hits were either present or addressed in the RC 4.2.

Thanks,

Ron
Photo of jordan paw

jordan paw

  • 22 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
4.2 candidate looks good.
seems more responsive on the development sliders

some new functionality when the ALT key is held down- resets sharpening, nr, color nr, defringe.

will have to do more tests...
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 392 Reply Likes
So, does Lr4.2RC1 perform better for you, or not?
Photo of richard swearinger

richard swearinger

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I'm trying to get a solution via Adobe Tech Support, but the whole thing feels very odd... Here's the email they sent me, in it they specifically ask me to tell them about my system....

"Thank you for contacting Adobe Technical Support. I understand that Lightroom 4 is running slow in your computer. We need more information regarding the operating system and the processor. So, I request you to contact us back via Live Chat. You can initiate the chat from the following link..."

When I contacted them back via LiveChat, I got transferred twice and the last person I talked to didn't want to take the information about my operating system or processor. Then he told me that the slowness was a known issue and I should wait for an update. (Plus the Live Chat link they sent did not take me anywhere close to Live Chat.) I'm starting to feel scared for Adobe.
Photo of jordan paw

jordan paw

  • 22 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
okay. 4.2 RC1 is looking GOOD!
much faster, none of the usual hickups.

more testing to be done this weekend
to be continued....
Photo of jafpix

jafpix

  • 9 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
FWIW - I have a core i7 950 CPU and was experiencing extremely poor performance to the point of unuseability. 4.2 RC did not improve this. I have discovered a partial solution that works on my system and makes LR useable for me.

** I disabled hyper-threading and it has apparently fixed the problem. **

Configuring Windows to boot up and only use a single core also fixes the slowness although it does tend to make everything a bit slower so it's not a practical solution.
Code that works on a single core and fails on a multi core is a good indicator of code with a multi-threaded synchronisation issue.
Photo of jafpix

jafpix

  • 9 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I have installed Lightroom 4.2 RC and it still exhibits pathologically slow performance on my high end system. After some experimentation I have discovered that this can be ameliorated, at least on my system, by disabling hyper-threading on my processor (a core i7 950).(Configuring Windows to only use a single core also works to fix the issue although it does tend to slow everything else down, so not really practical).

After making this change LR4 actually becomes useable - I can touch a noise reduction slider without fear now.
Photo of Henrik Zawischa

Henrik Zawischa

  • 98 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
First impression of 4.2 RC1 is good. Previews seem to be faster. I even dare to use a second monitor now. Development sliders okay, NR still being a bit jerky.
Will have to do some more testing, but I am pretty optmistic now.
Photo of Tom Piccirilli

Tom Piccirilli

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
LR 4.2 RC: I would like to make a suggestion on playback of video files. Playback starts out fine then goes downhill with stuttering and jerky playback. I am convinced the main problem here is sync between video and audio. Yet they playback perfectly on my Win 7 PC using WMP, and other external players. Rather than reinventing the wheel for video timing (think reclock), wouldn't it be easier to provide an option to choose an external player to embed in LR? Relying on the users default system codecs is just asking for trouble. As it stands now, I have not found a solution to get smooth playback of my AVCHD videos within LR, trying multiple default codecs. Additionally with improper codecs, LR has the tendency to really bog down, or freeze up. I am also suspicious importing my AVCHD files are creating slow performance in develop module, even when I am working on jpegs. Folders without these AVCHD files seem to be more responsive to changes in develop.
Photo of Dale Fazendin

Dale Fazendin

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I am hoping the tether 5d mark III addition will be in the "new" LR release, or I will discontinue use of LR.
Photo of James Kachan

James Kachan

  • 70 Posts
  • 13 Reply Likes
5D 3 tethering claims to be supported in 4.2 — in reality it doesnt work. Adobe not only failed to provide a tethering solution for the new 5D3, they also broke previous canon tethering as well. (not sure if other camera manufactures are affected or not)

There is a bunch of posts with 5D3, 1DSMK3, 5D2 (personal account from a fellow professional) not working here.

http://forums.adobe.com/message/47580...

Adobe, you have some really bad software. LR4 produces great images, but it's useless to work with. It's bogged down with massive lag and performance issues, and missing critical support for tethering.

Professional photographers need these things.
This is unacceptable. Apple Aperture works perfectly, C1P while, it has some tethering issues as well right now with Canon, processes RAW files with cleaner white balance, and dramatically faster performance.

LR 4 has been out for a long time now, I get the impression that this issue isnt being taken seriously, or the software is so failed, that it is in need a major rewrite. I and other professionals I'm sure, would appreciate more transparency.

When we show up to jobs, and waste a lot of time trying to make your software work, while Art Directors ask us why they cant see the images on the screen, that makes us look very bad. This is our jobs, this is our responsibility, and we critically need to be able to rely on the tools we use. At this point, I don't trust this software, hate using it and am very disappointed in the company.
Photo of Dennis Jones

Dennis Jones

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Call me crazy, but processing images used to be a joy. With LR 4 it is tedious beyond tears.

I am finishing a big job I just shot for one of my favorite clients, the Consumer Electronics Association. They pay me very well to produce exceptional images of their events. And yes I'm bragging. CEA is an amazing group of highly innovative, business people. I'm very fortunate to be privy to this world.

And yes again, I will be attending CES come January. If you get a chance to go, grab it! You will be blown away by the vast amounts of new technology in so many areas of CE.

So, I have these 1500 or so images I've got to deal with in a short period of time. I shoot with a D800. Yes, very big files. I shoot on 12 bit compressed raw and import as dngs to keep the file size as small as possible. They come in at around 30 mb. I render standard previews.

What frustrates me to no end, is having to wait and wait and wait and wait. In the develop module, which is the one I use by far the most, opening a preview in LR 4 is slow. But make even the slightly adjustment, and I have to wait for it to rewrite the preview until I can make another adjustment. It's worse if I use the tools: crop, gradient, brush, etc..

I have tried every idea from this forum feasible to help LR run faster. Among other ideas, I opened a new catalog and imported about 250 images into it. This helped marginally. I moved LR from my external monitor and tried to work only on my computer. Minimal improvement.

The only thing that solved the problem was reverting back to Lightroom 3.6. Suddenly, everything worked smoothly, no waiting. All my changes wrote in real time. Had I not been so frustrated and pissed off after wasting way to much time in LR 4, it would've been a joy again.

Face it, the shooting part of the job, at least shooting events, is hard work and long hours on your feet, striving to come up with the best possible raw file under usually, difficult, changing conditions. Almost every image I shoot requires some amount of tweaking. At home, I used to be able to leisurely take pride in processing my images to the max. Not with LR 4!

People on the forums said 3.6 was an answer, but I was stubborn. I love the new process version and appreciate how the new controls work. Plus, LR 4 gives me more control and does help me create superior images. It's sad that it is so hopeless for big jobs.

On my computer, the program uses all the resources at it's disposal to write the previews. Make a change and all four cores of my processor work at full bore until the preview renders the change. Curiously though, it's only using about a third of my ram.

LR 3.6 has no delay writing previews. All the develop tools work smoothly with real time adjustment on my external monitor. Even on my 13" Macbook Pro, LR 3.6 works almost equally a fast. I travel a lot and my Macbook Pro is important road tool.

What I recommend to Adobe is that, because Macbook Pros are so pervasive for imaging, they should make that their standard; if a version doesn't work properly on these, then it shouldn't be released. It's unconscionable to foist an imperfect product on the professional community. Yes, there are those without problems. I envy them. But there are far to many loyal, Adobe customers as unhappy as I.

I don't expect that 4.3 will solve the problem. Perhaps 4.5 or .6. One thing for certain, I will be waiting well after 5.0 comes out before I risk squandering my time by purchasing it.

Dennis Jones
Photo of Dennis Jones

Dennis Jones

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I realize that someone not reading my entire post could believe I am still working in the original LR 4 iteration, I emphasize that everything I wrote refers to LR 4.2. I have been through the updates including 4.2RC and find only marginal improvement in performance.

The question remains; if LR why does the program require so much processing power to render what should only be a very small preview file?
Photo of Chris Bennett

Chris Bennett

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I am also using 4.2 on an 8 core intel Mac, running Snow Leopard 10.8.6. Everything posted here about the speed issues, particularly on any kind of preview re-draw is true in my case too. It is exactly the same behaviour that corrupt files would cause on other software. Lightroom performance has not improved from the beginning of version 4. This is simply flawed software. I find that amazing, considering it is from a company with the resources and experience of Abobe.

It is worth noting that I have absolutely no performance issues with Photoshop CS6 and that uses the same RAW processing software. Presumably the graphics engines are related too. Maybe the Lightroom development team should go cap-in-hand to the Photoshop guys for some desperately needed programming advice.
Photo of Helmut Hudler

Helmut Hudler

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Strange thing. I use LR 4.1 on a 8 core machine Win7 64 bit 8 GB RAM, and there are no significant performance problems, except a loading time of about 2-3 seconds for nef files of 45 MB from my Nikon D800 (36 Mpix). I had to switch from LR 3.6 because LR 3.6 had no raw converter for the large files, however it worked after transforming the nef ́s to tiff ́s (200 MB each), and loading time was identical with the tiff ́s in LR 3.6 as compared to the nef ́s/dng ́s in LR 4.1. After hesitating a few months because of the performance problems reported here, I decided that 45 MB are enough for storing my pictures.
LR 4 is much better in management of light and shade in difficult situations. I nearly completely stopped doing HDR ́s with a few exceptions of extreme light conditions (dusk or dawn with sun in the picture).
Photo of Chris Bennett

Chris Bennett

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Helmut, I completely agree about LR4 being much better at handling contrast range. I always try to meter and shoot for the final result I want (as Ansel Adams has taught us), without leaning on HDR. It is the sole reason I am not reverting to 3.6 to regain the speed loss. The sad fact is that some of us make our living out of producing a number of cleanly edited photographs for a given budget. Time is money, as they say, and twice the time is half the money is what I (sadly have to) say.

Lightroom 4 has been slow for a long time now. LR3 was much faster. Maybe Adobe need to eat humble pie and evolve what was Lightroom 3.6. They may have taken a wrong turn.
Photo of jordan paw

jordan paw

  • 22 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
LR 4.3 rc 1 sure came out in a hurry. i've installed it and upon initial test, looks promising.

i'll keep testing :)
Photo of didi

didi

  • 54 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
LR 4.3 RC is a bit faster. Well done! You could have mentioned this in the release notes.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 392 Reply Likes
|> "You could have mentioned this in the release notes."

And/or this forum. Many users just want to be kept in the loop - this isn't happening (they invest great energy in feedback and get scant little info in return...). Granted, some users will see any response from Adobe as an opportunity to bash some more, so I can kinda sympathize...

Cheers,
Rob
Photo of frthrow

frthrow

  • 8 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I added this to the other thread on this, but just thought I'd share here too:

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

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

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

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

In case this helps someone.
Frez
Photo of Jeremy Dueck

Jeremy Dueck

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
@Glenn Springer and Adobe:

I love using LR and I liked LR3 better because it was quick. Maybe not as technologically advanced as LR4 but it wasn't a dreaded task to edit photos.

People are "whining" about the SLOW LR4 issue because its infuriating. I have upgraded my hard drive, upgraded to a dedicated video card and everything else that has been suggested by Adobe support staff. There has been NO noticable speed increase when doing this..

If there are this many people having issues you guys have an issue in developing the software. Im not a software writer so don't complain if I tell you you have a problem. Maybe you should actually admit there is a problem. If you admited there was a problem you might have less poeple talking about it. Even when LR 4.2 was released I didn't see anything that stated you guys were working to speed up a slow program.
Photo of Pete Green

Pete Green, Customer Advocate

  • 765 Posts
  • 153 Reply Likes
Official Response
Hi all,

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

http://adobe.ly/LRPerformanceHints

Let us know which of these suggestions are helpful to you. Thanks!
Photo of didi

didi

  • 54 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
It basically says: Don't use Lightroom to much for image corrections. Hilarious. True pros at work...
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 994 Posts
  • 137 Reply Likes
It does not say that. It says using thousands of local or spot corrections can be slow. If you have an image in need of that many local or spot corrections, the destructive tools in PS are a much better choice anyway.

I routinely use LR with dozens of local or spot corrections without issue. That's actually quite a lot of "fixing". I can't imagine needing "thousands".

Also, the advice in that article is wrong in one area - 1:3. 1:3 will be just as slow as 1:2 or fit if fit is between 1:2 and 1:4. Try 1:4 for a 4x speedup compared with 1:2.
Photo of Donn M

Donn M

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
After reviewing my problems with LR4, I discovered a few things to share to help some others. The first thing that helped improve performance was to re-initialize the preferences folder (Lightroom 4 Preferences.agprefs). Searching for this online, I found that this seems to be a common problem, and easily solved. You may need to reset some of your preferences if you aren't using all the default preferences, but it isn't very difficult to deal with.

The bigger issue though was found to be the catalog file--it was growing astronomically every time I edited a photo (especially if I did local adjustments). When LR4 began grinding to a halt, my catalog of 5000 photos had grown to 1.25 GB! (And I had edited only about 200 photos in the catalog, and had optimized regularly.)

I discovered a solution to this though--I went to each of the 200 edited photos in the develop module, took a snapshot of the edited file, and cleared the history. Doing this for 200 photos reduced the catalog size from 1.25 GB to 175 MB--the size was reduced by a factor of 7.

The result was a dramatic increase in speed for LR4. Perhaps Adobe can consider a smart filter to identify those files with a history of many lines so that others can do the same thing. Even better, Adobe can automatically recommend a "snapshot & clear history" if the history size for an edited photo goes above a predetermined size. In the meantime I will always take a snapshot and clear the history whenever I feel that I've completely edited a photo.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 392 Reply Likes
Some of this sounds abnormal to me, e.g. growing astronomically every time you edit a photo.

But, I very much like the idea of an option to clear edit-history when snapshotting.
Photo of Ron Hu

Ron Hu

  • 45 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I have thought of this kind of optimization of the history bar, or toss all the previous to current.