Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Adobe's Performance Hints for Lightroom  (Read 8450 times)
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5039



WWW
« on: December 08, 2012, 07:37:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Adobe released tips for improving the performance of Lightroom 4:

http://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/performance-hints.html

Hope this helps. My apologies if this is old news.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1441



WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2012, 10:07:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Well... it should be old news, but it wasn't that long ago (a few months) where some threads became more than a bit snarky at my claims SSD's and RAM in excess of 8gb could significantly improve performance certain parts of our work flow..    I also mentioned a few other areas for improvement..   This is all just common sense stuff, if you know what equipment your work flow task and how certain equipment works the conclusions should be a a no-brainer.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Sharon Van Lieu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 360


Nantucket Landscape and Architectural Photographer


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2012, 01:24:36 PM »
ReplyReply

When I had my new computer built, I opted for more memory (32 gigs) and didn't go with the ssd. I wanted the system builders to install and troubleshoot the memory and figured the ssd was something I could more easily upgrade myself. Everything is lightning fast. I'm looking forward to adding the ssd when I spot the right sale.  Grin
Logged

kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 666



WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2012, 01:08:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm looking forward to adding the ssd when I spot the right sale.  Grin
I went for an SSD when the price per GB (for 240gb) got closer to 50c than $1, and don't regret it.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2012, 06:40:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting to read their recommendations for "Order of Develop operations "

It's rather different to the recommendation of working 'top to bottom in the panels' that's been given here by some folk in the past.
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2184



WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2012, 10:33:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Some of those suggestions including the order of operations, only make a difference on the slowest of outdated systems.  A modern build negates any such editing order 'need'.  Top down is still the best solution for image quality, which is what was referred to, not 'speed'.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2012, 03:26:00 AM »
ReplyReply

..  Top down is still the best solution for image quality, which is what was referred to, not 'speed'.
Er no. Have you read the page ?
Specifically:-"performing spot healing first improves the accuracy of the spot healing, and ensures the boundaries of the healed areas match the the spot location."

That's a quality issue, not just speed.
Logged
Vistographer
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


Anne van Houwelingen


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2012, 03:44:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Let me pick this subject to have a first post here. This might have been mentioned before, but it took me a long time figuring it out. That might be just me, but I doubt it:
When changing from LR3.x to LR4 my catalog size increased considerably. This coincided with a long photographic trip to the US Southwest and many images in dusty places. Long story short, my catalog exploded from 350K to over 6GB. For 35K images in total. This not only slows down performance when working, but also slows down and fills up the backup chain. I tried everything from optimizing the catalog to rebuilding it from scratch and doing some fancy stuff on the database directly with SQlite commands. Nothing helped. But deleting the history did help. A lot. The catalog went from 6GB to 700MB. That is a massive reduction in size, much more than I had expected from the information I was able to find on this subject.
Why did the catalog grow out of proportion? Probably because I do a lot of local adjustments and I had to deal with thousands of dust spots in my SW images. And when you are working on multirow, multi exposure panoramas, that all adds up. I print some images really big, so every spot has to go.
So, if you do not need all that history, it might be a good idea to delete it once in a while.

Anne  

Logged

Anne van Houwelingen | www.vistography.com
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2184



WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 11, 2012, 04:00:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Er no. Have you read the page ?
Specifically:-"performing spot healing first improves the accuracy of the spot healing, and ensures the boundaries of the healed areas match the the spot location."

That's a quality issue, not just speed.

Agreed. And if you didn't notice, spot healing is at the top.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 11, 2012, 04:47:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Agreed. And if you didn't notice, spot healing is at the top.
Indeed spot healing IS at the top, but the other geometric corrections are at the bottom. You have looked at the page ?
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2184



WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 11, 2012, 05:56:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes I did. As I said the effects are only seen on slow outdated systems.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2012, 06:51:32 AM »
ReplyReply

... the effects are only seen on slow outdated systems.
That's not actually what it says.You've missed a potentially important point here.
This isn't just about speed, but it specifically says "improves the accuracy" and "ensures the boundaries of the healed areas match the the spot location"

This differs to the 'it doesn't matter what order you do things in, LR just does it all together regardless of what order you do things in' advice that has been proffered by some here in the past.

"slow outdated systems" well yes, that's what most people use. Not everyone can afford to stay at the bleeding edge of technology which is why LR4's demands on hardware aren't well received by a lot of users.
Logged
JRSmit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 315


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2012, 12:29:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Some of those suggestions including the order of operations, only make a difference on the slowest of outdated systems.  A modern build negates any such editing order 'need'.  Top down is still the best solution for image quality, which is what was referred to, not 'speed'.
Would you call a ivybridge platform with an i7 3770 and 16gb and ssd outdated? Yet comes to an almost complete standstill with spothealing!
Logged

Fine art photography: www.janrsmit.com
Courses and workshops: www.centrumbeeldbeleving.nl

Jan R. Smit
David Eichler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 285


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 11, 2012, 01:06:57 PM »
ReplyReply


Why did the catalog grow out of proportion? Probably because I do a lot of local adjustments and I had to deal with thousands of dust spots in my SW images. And when you are working on multirow, multi exposure....  I print some images really big, so every spot has to go.
So, if you do not need all that history, it might be a good idea to delete it once in a while.

Anne  



I don't know why anyone would do heavy spotting with Lightroom. Photoshop seems much better suited to that.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5039



WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2012, 01:49:54 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't know why anyone would do heavy spotting with Lightroom. Photoshop seems much better suited to that.

Because it is easier, faster, and simpler?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3691



« Reply #15 on: December 11, 2012, 01:56:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't know why anyone would do heavy spotting with Lightroom. Photoshop seems much better suited to that.

Because it is easier, faster, and simpler?

And because it can be synchronised almost automatically to other shots taken around the same time.

Jeremy
Logged
David Eichler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 285


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 11, 2012, 02:06:27 PM »
ReplyReply

And because it can be synchronised almost automatically to other shots taken around the same time.

Jeremy

The synchronization is great with the appropriate subject matter, which is pretty much only shots that have the same composition. Depending on where the spots are, variations in the composition and subject matter can make synching useless.
Logged

David Eichler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 285


WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 11, 2012, 02:10:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Because it is easier, faster, and simpler?

I don't find it so, except for a few easy to find spots against a relatively even background.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5039



WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 11, 2012, 02:21:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Doing it in LR does not require a round trip to PS, is parametric, i.e., can be corrected at later time if necessary, and does not create another, and huge, file, as would be the case when round-tripping to PS.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 666



WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 11, 2012, 02:22:51 PM »
ReplyReply

It's rather different to the recommendation of working 'top to bottom in the panels' that's been given here by some folk in the past.
I don't see any inconsistency. at least which the advice I have read in the past, which has been to work top to bottom within the panels, particularly the "Basic" panel to optimize tonal corrections, rather than to work the panels top to bottom. Eg, I have never seen any advice to do, eg,  local corrections before general, or Camera Calibrations last, which would be the order of the panels.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad