Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: LR4 speed  (Read 7344 times)
Gandalf
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


« on: March 11, 2012, 05:17:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Does anyone else notice that LR4 is really slow? I noticed it on the beta, and ignored it because it was a beta. The production version doesn't seem to be much of an improvement in speed. Perhaps I need to do a complete uninstall and reinstall since I upgraded from the beta rather than install the production version clean.
Logged
Walter Schulz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2012, 05:31:40 PM »
ReplyReply

You may do so but I doubt it will do you any good.
Check system performance instead as done in http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=62696.0

Ciao, Walter
Logged
Ellis Vener
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1795



WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2012, 07:43:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I see the reverse -things generally seem faster- but some adjustments do seem to have a little lag to them.
Logged

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com
Creating photographs for advertising, corporate and industrial clients since 1984.
Gandalf
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2012, 11:51:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Ellis, are you on 10.6 or 10.7? I'm running Snow Leopard and wonder if that is the problem. I have 16 GB RAM and a SSD on a Macbook Pro.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5472


WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 12, 2012, 12:11:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Does anyone else notice that LR4 is really slow?

When and where? Just to warn you, PV 2012 is much more processor intensive than PV 2010 because all of the Basic panel adjustments are image adaptive...so it LR has to run a lot of computing to make the image adaptive decisions. Also note that lens corrections can really slow down screen display. I tend to do lens corrections last after global and local corrections. Also the local corrections if you make a lot if pins (separate masks) can slow down.

AS for overall performance between the beta and final release...not much change. It would help to specify where you are seeing the slowdowns and what you are doing.
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1678


« Reply #5 on: March 12, 2012, 03:32:34 AM »
ReplyReply

When and where? Just to warn you, PV 2012 is much more processor intensive than PV 2010 because all of the Basic panel adjustments are image adaptive...so it LR has to run a lot of computing to make the image adaptive decisions. Also note that lens corrections can really slow down screen display. I tend to do lens corrections last after global and local corrections. Also the local corrections if you make a lot if pins (separate masks) can slow down.

AS for overall performance between the beta and final release...not much change. It would help to specify where you are seeing the slowdowns and what you are doing.
Using:
*Windows 7-64
*Intel i7 2600
*12 GB of ram
*Intel SSD drive (OS, applications and 20GB of Lightroom cache)
*ATI 5570 with recent drivers

I experience Lightroom 4 as significantly slower than LR3 in the edit module. Simple things like white-balance that was perceived as instant before, now slows down to the point where I am doing editing mistakes (if nothing happens, I tend to push the slider some more, but then those edits adds up at some point).

I am also seeing some "unpretty" drawing of gui elements, where stuff is painted out of place before catching up. Nothing of practical consequence, but detracts from the experience.

Improvements in IQ may or may not be worth this slowdown, I have to spend some more time with it before judging that.

-h
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1925


WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 12, 2012, 06:04:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, I'm finding there's been little performance improvement since the beta.

Primarily this is in the develop module with slow response to moving the sliders with process 2012. Even still in process 2010 LR4 is slightly less responsive than LR3.6.
As -h says in the last post, colour temperature seems a particular example where a wait of  a couple of seconds for the screen to update is just unacceptably slow.

I think I'm going to create a preset that imports into process 2010, then only move to 2012 if absolutely necessary until this is sorted.

Win 7 64bt, Q6600 @ 3ghz, 8gb ram, 10k system drive with 127gb free, LR catalogue and previews on SSD, Nvidia GTX470, 3840x1440 spanned desktop. Files from 1DsII, 5DII and others.

Lightroom version: 4.0 [814577]
Operating system: Windows 7 Business Edition
Version: 6.1 [7601]
Application architecture: x64
System architecture: x64
Physical processor count: 4
Processor speed: 3.0 GHz
Built-in memory: 8191.1 MB
Real memory available to Lightroom: 8191.1 MB
Real memory used by Lightroom: 705.0 MB (8.6%)
Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 899.1 MB
Memory cache size: 0.0 MB
System DPI setting: 120 DPI
Desktop composition enabled: Yes
Displays: 1) 2560x1440, 2) 1280x1024

Application folder: C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4
Library Path: F:\Lightroom Paul\Lightroom 2 Catalog-2-2.lrcat
Settings Folder: C:\Users\Paul\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\Lightroom

Adapter #1: Vendor : 10de
   Device : 6cd
   Subsystem : 83471043
   Revision : a3
   Video Memory : 1248
Logged
Gandalf
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


« Reply #7 on: March 12, 2012, 09:57:52 PM »
ReplyReply

When and where? Just to warn you, PV 2012 is much more processor intensive than PV 2010 because all of the Basic panel adjustments are image adaptive...so it LR has to run a lot of computing to make the image adaptive decisions. Also note that lens corrections can really slow down screen display. I tend to do lens corrections last after global and local corrections. Also the local corrections if you make a lot if pins (separate masks) can slow down.

AS for overall performance between the beta and final release...not much change. It would help to specify where you are seeing the slowdowns and what you are doing.

Thanks Jeff,

My speed issues are in the develop module, mostly white point and exposure/whites/blacks/shadows/highlights adjustments. I am doing a catalog for each shoot, so there are only a few hundred images in the catalog while I'm editing. It is definitely working the cores, but none are saturated.
Logged
John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 12, 2012, 11:02:10 PM »
ReplyReply

If anything I've noticed it being faster than lr3.6, significantly faster in fact.  I'm not sure what the difference could be because it seems some of you are running more capable systems than I am.  I'm running a i7-930 at 4ghz, with 12gb DDR3 memory.  I do have the images on an internal Raid 10 array, while the operating system/software is on a separate disk.

The only "slow" thing I've noted thusfar is with the spot healing tool.  It seemed to be a little sluggish at times in v3.6 as well however so I can't really lay that at Lr4's feet.
Logged

Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1547


WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2012, 12:20:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Runs fine on my machine-no noticeable increase or decrease of speed between LR3 or 4. No hangs. W7 Xenon 6 core processor 24 GB ram.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Rendezvous
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 13, 2012, 12:48:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm running LR4 on a 15"MBP with 8GB of RAM. For me the performance is pretty similar to LR3.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5875


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2012, 12:15:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Ah, sweet memories:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=44395.0
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
JGColeman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8



WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2012, 12:30:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote

Ha ha!  I've been thinking about the exact same thing ever since everyone started to complain about LR4's speed.



After release of LR3

Person X:  "OMG, why is LR3 so slow!  I can't even use this sloth for my work."

After the release of LR4

Same Person X:  "OMG, LR3 was so fast... why is LR4 so slow!  I can't even use this sloth for my work."

After the release of LR5 in the future

Same Person X:  "OMG, LR4 was so fast... why is LR5 so slow!  I can't even use this sloth for my work."



And so on and so on, ad infinitum...
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5875


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 13, 2012, 12:38:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Not so fast, JG.

If you read the thread I linked to through the end, you will notice that, on page 3, Adobe admitted a bug and released a fix. Besides, there were several releases between launching Lr 3 and its final version, thus comparing Lr 3.7 vs. Lr 4 in terms of speed makes sense, whereas comparing Lr 3.0 vs. Lr 4.0 the way you did does not.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 12:42:02 PM by Slobodan Blagojevic » Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
JGColeman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8



WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 13, 2012, 01:15:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Not so fast, JG.

If you read the thread I linked to through the end, you will notice that, on page 3, Adobe admitted a bug and released a fix. Besides, there were several releases between launching Lr 3 and its final version, thus comparing Lr 3.7 vs. Lr 4 in terms of speed makes sense, whereas comparing Lr 3.0 vs. Lr 4.0 the way you did does not.

Regardless, the cycle of complaining continues -and will continue well into the future, just as I have outlined- for every successive version of LR.  Really... I'm not even clairvoyant, either... I'm just good at observing the obvious.

For example, take the folks that lament how LR4 won't run on decade-old Windows XP.  I truly would not be surprised if many of them ranted endlessly when XP came out, complaining about how "good old Win 3.1" was so much faster than the new, bloated, bulky, buggy Windows XP.  Funny how people's viewpoints change over time, isn't it?

Every new version release of any software is routinely met with vehement complaints that "oh me oh my, its sooo sloooow".  Yet, a few years later when another new version comes out, the same people are going on and on about how the old version "sooo much faster" and the new version is "soooo slooow".  The predictability of the whole thing is enough to make me yawn wide enough to swallow my own head.

Bugs really have nothing to do with it... though it can be rationalized that that's the case.  All but the most rudimentary and simple applications have bugs: it's an inevitability.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5875


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 13, 2012, 01:41:55 PM »
ReplyReply

... Every new version release of any software is routinely met with vehement complaints that "oh me oh my, its sooo sloooow".  Yet, a few years later when another new version comes out, the same people are going on and on about how the old version "sooo much faster" and the new version is "soooo slooow"...

And I offered a perfectly logical explanation why it is so and why it makes sense, but you would rather stick to your theory how people are just whining.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1925


WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 13, 2012, 01:44:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Regardless, the cycle of complaining continues
It will until Adobe understand that optimisation of code and responsiveness of the user experience is important to people and get it right in version .0

Just think how blown away we'd all be if future versions of LR were just as responsive and fast to use as previous version. Then you wouldn't need to spend lots of money getting it to work acceptably well and could spend the money on better things. I'd prefer less frequent upgrades and be prepared to pay a lot more for them if they didn't have to involve big extra expenditure.

Quote
I truly would not be surprised if many of them ranted endlessly when XP came out, complaining about how "good old Win 3.1" was so much faster than the new, bloated, bulky, buggy Windows XP.
Actually XP was excellent from day 1, blowing away 3.1/95/ME/98 in just about every respect. It was in many ways the first mature consumer OS and remains the corner stone of many company's IT systems.




Logged
JGColeman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8



WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 13, 2012, 02:16:17 PM »
ReplyReply

And I offered a perfectly logical explanation why it is so and why it makes sense, but you would rather stick to your theory how people are just whining.

Hey, I'm just saying... when everybody thinks the same, nobody thinks.  And I, for one, think it's 90% whining and about 10% legitimate complaints.  I chuckle to myself when I see posts by users who are intently staring at their core activity, practically jumping out of their chair to accuse Adobe of "not using all their cores to maximum capacity".  C'mon guys... since when did you all become computer engineers?  Or software engineers, for that matter?

Quote
It will until Adobe understand that optimisation of code and responsiveness of the user experience is important to people and get it right in version .0

What you want is unreasonable... as much as you seem to feel horribly violated by anything less.  There are virtually infinite combinations of scenarios to potentially test for the release of a piece of software: operating systems, hardware, potentially conflicting software, the health and/or state of each individual operating system, the wide range of functions and the equally numerous ways in which the functions can be used in combination, etc, etc.  If software developers held themselves to a standard of "getting it right in .0", then nothing would ever improve and nothing new would ever be released!  By the time they homed in on every conceivable bug in a piece of software like LR4, for example, the underlying algorithms and processes would already be dated and behind the times. 

Quote
Actually XP was excellent from day 1...

Yep... I bet it was.  I don't remember too well, really, since I left that dinosaur in the dust a LONG time ago.  But if XP users want to dial up Adobe (with their crank-operated telephone, no less... those always were the best phones... no bloat, y'know... no annoying numbers to dial... just talk to the operator) to complain that they are making a big mistake with LR4, that's certainly their prerogative.  Just don't be surprised if Adobe isn't interested.
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 13, 2012, 05:20:10 PM »
ReplyReply

It will until Adobe understand that optimisation of code and responsiveness of the user experience is important to people and get it right in version .0

I think they completely understand this.  But even with a large public beta, it's a big difference to actual release and issues that never even hinted at existing during testing and development can pop up.  It's not affecting everyone, so I doubt it's a generic "optimisation" issue, but rather a specific bug of some sort.  As they've had a good track record of resolving these things (see the recently linked thread), I'm confident they'll do so again.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1925


WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 13, 2012, 06:04:21 PM »
ReplyReply

I think they completely understand this.  But even with a large public beta, it's a big difference to actual release and issues that never even hinted at existing during testing and development can pop up. 
The lack of responsiveness of the develop module has been very well reported since the release of the public beta. The standard reply was 'it's slow because it's a beta and has debugging code added', but that issue is still here. It's interesting to see some speculation that the debug code might still be in place and will get removed in a point release later.

I think what makes these sort of issues so annoying for those us who've used LR since the very first version 1 beta is remembering just how great version 1 was.
As a version 1 program it was almost perfect, great usability, no dreadful bugs and a fantastic feature set. We know the LR software engineers can deliver the goods, but it seems now they're locked into Adobe corp's roundabout of needing new features and an upgrade on a regular basis. Some of that original touch of thoroughness seems to have been lost.
People get annoyed because they care so much about it. We've spent huge amounts of time learning how to get the absolute best out of it and have invested a lot effort into importing, cataloguing, processing and finishing our images in LR. We get this schizophrenic update with some great new potential features, that fail to fully deliver by not being complete or the most important module being so unresponsive it's really difficult to use the new features in it, it's very frustrating.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad