Do You Wish Lightroom Was Quicker? Adobe Does Too

[LDS]

1/ Get rid of the SQLITE and perhaps... write something of their own.

I hope they'll avoid to reinvent the wheel because it takes a lot of time, and a recipe for disaster. LR doesn't store "pixel modifications" in the database - AFAIK it stores "actions" which are computed and applied to the original image to display the actual one. That allows LR to be "non-destructive", and apply the modifications in the "best" order regardless of the order the user selected them. The data stored into the database or sidecar files are small.

SQLite may or may be not one of the bottlenecks, depending on how it is used. Single image editing should be the less impacting situation.

Yet computing changes for large images quickly is surely a challenge, which will require deep changes in the way LR works. Doing work in parallel is one way, the issue is when one modification needs the previous one to be applied before computation can occur. An image could be "split" into slices to be computed in parallel - the tricky part are the boundaries, and coordinating everything because there's a shared display area. Bringing a GPU in also requires deep changes.

Adobe can do it, but I don't expect a "revolutionary" LR release, IMHO Adobe will introduce changes to tackle what customers feel is more important. It has telemetry, but may not say what users "feel" slow - regardless of the actual numbers i.e. saving a few tens of second when a brush is applied may make the application more responsive than saving several seconds while importing or generating a panorama.

 

[bitm2007]

LR's speed isn't an issue for me. I'd prefer it they put the time and effort into development mode improvements , Adobe it's now the latter half of 2017, and we are still expected to use Lightroom CC 2015. Pull your finger out guy's.

 

[Mikehit]

LR's speed isn't an issue for me. I'd prefer it they put the time and effort into development mode improvements , Adobe it's now the latter half of 2017, and we are still expected to use Lightroom CC 2015. Pull your finger out guy's.

They are two different programs for two different purposes.
What do you want LR to do?

 

[BillB]

@batman6794: re C1 Pro .. i have looked at it. don't like the user interface. especially that i need to handle explicit "LAYERS" just to make any (small) local adjustments ... i very much prefer LR concept and approach to edits: no layers, no explicit nasks and the like. select the tool, stamp, clone, gradient, whatever ... and DIRECTLY apply to desired image area, done!

LR concept of "no layers, but chronology stack of actions" is the major reason for the apps success! simple, clear, intuitive and "more than enough" for all of my edits. i do not need the depth/pixel level of PS style edits for my images. i also never do "multiple capture stuff" ... no composite images, no stitching/panos, no focus stacking, no HDRs. not my style, not needed here. just like "no time lapse, no video, no moving images" either. others do. i dont. many others also do not.

Canon DPP, Adobe PS elements etc. are "too little" for my needs ... whereas PS or C1Pro or Affinity etc. are "too much" for what i need. LR editing features are "right there". if adobe offers me a - permanent license! - blazingly fast performing "LR 7 lite" version - sans database/catalogue - i will buy instantly.

Reminds me of "Goldilocks and the Three Bears". This porridge is too hot! This porridge is to cold! Can Adobe put together a Lightroom that is just right for Baby Bear by getting rid of the database and putting everything in file headers? Don't think they can meet my needs without sidecar files. Would a Lightroom that allowed us to tailor functionality be nice? Of course.

 

[Khalai]

@batman6794: re C1 Pro .. i have looked at it. don't like the user interface. especially that i need to handle explicit "LAYERS" just to make any (small) local adjustments ... i very much prefer LR concept and approach to edits: no layers, no explicit nasks and the like. select the tool, stamp, clone, gradient, whatever ... and DIRECTLY apply to desired image area, done!

LR concept of "no layers, but chronology stack of actions" is the major reason for the apps success! simple, clear, intuitive and "more than enough" for all of my edits. i do not need the depth/pixel level of PS style edits for my images. i also never do "multiple capture stuff" ... no composite images, no stitching/panos, no focus stacking, no HDRs. not my style, not needed here. just like "no time lapse, no video, no moving images" either. others do. i dont. many others also do not.

Canon DPP, Adobe PS elements etc. are "too little" for my needs ... whereas PS or C1Pro or Affinity etc. are "too much" for what i need. LR editing features are "right there". if adobe offers me a - permanent license! - blazingly fast performing "LR 7 lite" version - sans database/catalogue - i will buy instantly.

Reminds me of "Goldilocks and the Three Bears". This porridge is too hot! This porridge is to cold! Can Adobe put together a Lightroom that is just right for Baby Bear by getting rid of the database and putting everything in file headers? Don't think they can meet my needs without sidecar files. Would a Lightroom that allowed us to tailor functionality be nice? Of course.

I'm happy with Lightroom catalogue philosophy, I'm very happy with UI, I'm quite happy with image output. I'm very UNHAPPY about its speed, especially considering having high-end PC doesn't mean squat for LR. Give me performance boost, keep LR philosophy as is and I'll be happy camper (as long as they offer LR as a standalone product and not CC only I might add).

 

[ronaldbyram]

The catalog system is bloated and a resource hog.

exactly! that database stuff needs to go. OS could take care of metadata and keywords directly.

They need to do something with it.. Anything I hope can be an improvement. my catalog on the C: SSD is almost full. (Guess my mistake for putting it on the home Drive.)
They need a better option during install to spread the files apart (Different drives) if possible.

 

[bitm2007]

LR's speed isn't an issue for me. I'd prefer it they put the time and effort into development mode improvements , Adobe it's now the latter half of 2017, and we are still expected to use Lightroom CC 2015. Pull your finger out guy's.

They are two different programs for two different purposes.
What do you want LR to do?

Two different aspects of the same program, surely !

Don't get me wrong, Lightroom is an excellent all round piece of software, but it's the jack of all trades, the class leading master of very few, so there is plenty of room for improvement.

 

[markesc]

I thought I would gain some speed by upgrading computers... ha!

Old computer: 2012 Dell xps 8500 intel i7 3770, 8gb ram, pointless amd video card, samsung 830 ssd

New computer: AMD Ryzen 7 1700, overclocked to 3.7ghz on all 8 cores. Evga gtx 1080ti, Samsung 960pro, two extra samsung 850's, one of which I use as a dedicated scratch disk. 16gb ram.

Difference: I'd say about 10-15% at best with LR.

Whether I enable or disable gpu useage, the thing just gets slower and slower after about the 50th photo, so I have to close/reopen... good times!

 

[stevelee]

I talked with some pros who use Lightroom all the time and asked them about the advantages over Photoshop and when and why I might want to use it. The answers they gave were largely in the "time is money" category, and I could see why they used it, but didn't get any reason why I might. I don't often have that many pictures shot under the same lighting conditions, so my rare batches are just a handful of pictures, easily done in Filmstrip mode of Bridge. And I don't feel the need for the database. Just having pictures made on the same day put into the same folder on the computer is organization enough for me. Then if there are multiple days in one project or trip, I'll put those folders into an enclosing folder topically named.

Scott Kelby flat-out tells people to use Lightroom instead of Bridge and Photoshop, but doesn't much elaborate.

 

[Otara]

For me its that you arent changing the underlying images. Means I can keep the original and still edit it, rather than having to keep track of both original and editted versions.

Also having built in options for upload to flickr etc makes life easy, built in for making books too is nice. One stop shop basically, unless you're doing very complex editting.

 

[stevelee]

For me its that you arent changing the underlying images. Means I can keep the original and still edit it, rather than having to keep track of both original and editted versions.

Also having built in options for upload to flickr etc makes life easy, built in for making books too is nice. One stop shop basically, unless you're doing very complex editting.

Using Bridge and Photoshop, I keep the original RAW file and the generated .xmp file that is automatically place in the same folder, which allows me to revisit the RAW file with my edits still in place to tweak if I wish. For me that pretty much accomplishes the same things that Lightroom does in a way that seems to make more sense to me. I can just move the folder wherever I wish without dealing with a database issue. I know you can move stuff in LR, too. I just haven't bothered to learn how.

I might also save a .psd file if I like my edits and think I might want to revisit them or use the file as a basis for a version to print. But I don't bother is all I want is a JPEG to put on the web. Also, if I do HDR or panoramas in Bridge, it creates a .dng file I can come back to and change the ACR settings.

I don't have any trouble keeping up with all that myself. Everything winds up in the same folder except the JPEGs that go in the folder for its place in the website. For the latter, I normally keep the same file name as the original .CR2 with just the .jpg extension instead, so I always know where to find the original if I decide I want to do a better web version.

So while I understand why LR works better for a lot of other people, and I understand that even folks who are doing about the same workflow I do might still prefer to use LR, I don't see any advantage for me to switch. I'm going to wind up taking almost everything into Photoshop eventually anyway, out of habit even if not out of necessity.

But, yes, thanks. I still am interested in reasons why LR works well for people. Perhaps some day I'll have a project that I think will go better for me in LR if I know how other people use it and benefit from it.

 

[ethanz]

For me its that you arent changing the underlying images. Means I can keep the original and still edit it, rather than having to keep track of both original and editted versions.

Also having built in options for upload to flickr etc makes life easy, built in for making books too is nice. One stop shop basically, unless you're doing very complex editting.

Using Bridge and Photoshop, I keep the original RAW file and the generated .xmp file that is automatically place in the same folder, which allows me to revisit the RAW file with my edits still in place to tweak if I wish. For me that pretty much accomplishes the same things that Lightroom does in a way that seems to make more sense to me. I can just move the folder wherever I wish without dealing with a database issue. I know you can move stuff in LR, too. I just haven't bothered to learn how.

I might also save a .psd file if I like my edits and think I might want to revisit them or use the file as a basis for a version to print. But I don't bother is all I want is a JPEG to put on the web. Also, if I do HDR or panoramas in Bridge, it creates a .dng file I can come back to and change the ACR settings.

I don't have any trouble keeping up with all that myself. Everything winds up in the same folder except the JPEGs that go in the folder for its place in the website. For the latter, I normally keep the same file name as the original .CR2 with just the .jpg extension instead, so I always know where to find the original if I decide I want to do a better web version.

So while I understand why LR works better for a lot of other people, and I understand that even folks who are doing about the same workflow I do might still prefer to use LR, I don't see any advantage for me to switch. I'm going to wind up taking almost everything into Photoshop eventually anyway, out of habit even if not out of necessity.

But, yes, thanks. I still am interested in reasons why LR works well for people. Perhaps some day I'll have a project that I think will go better for me in LR if I know how other people use it and benefit from it.

I'm in the same boat as you. I've sometimes thought about trying Lightroom to see what it's like. No idea why people use it over PS.

 

[AvTvM]

I've sometimes thought about trying Lightroom to see what it's like. No idea why people use it over PS.

[/quote]

simple: ps user interface is atrocious for newcomers. lr user interface lets anybody work away immediately, once you overcome the initial hurdle of having to "import image files into the database", rather than just "opening files". for light editing work, lr is a really good tool, but the database and associated performance issues are a problem.

 

[tpatana]

I've sometimes thought about trying Lightroom to see what it's like. No idea why people use it over PS.

simple: ps user interface is atrocious to newcomers. lr user interface lets anybody work away immediately, once you overcome the initial hurdle of having to "import image files into the database", rather than bust "opening" them. for light editing work, lr is a really good tool. only the database and associated performance issues are a problem.
[/quote]

That, and half my shoots I'm dealing with 2k+ images and edit 100+ of them. LR saves lives.

 

[SteveM]

That, and half my shoots I'm dealing with 2k+ images and edit 100+ of them. LR saves lives.
[/quote]

Give 'Photo Mechanic' a try. Blazingly fast on the 'cull' and you can then open them directly into Lightroom, Capture One, PS, and keywording is also excellent.
I personally use it to cull from a folder on my hard drive, allocating 1 star for those to be deleted which I do through Photo Mechanic in one batch at the end of my analysis, this leaves me with the photos I wish to keep.

 

[Diko]

I talked with some pros who use Lightroom all the time and asked them about the advantages over Photoshop and when and why I might want to use it. The answers they gave were largely in the "time is money" category, and I could see why they used it, but didn't get any reason why I might. I don't often have that many pictures shot under the same lighting conditions, so my rare batches are just a handful of pictures, easily done in Filmstrip mode of Bridge. And I don't feel the need for the database. Just having pictures made on the same day put into the same folder on the computer is organization enough for me. Then if there are multiple days in one project or trip, I'll put those folders into an enclosing folder topically named.

Scott Kelby flat-out tells people to use Lightroom instead of Bridge and Photoshop, but doesn't much elaborate.

Mostly it is about wokrflow. I don't understand why in "Adobe asks for LR performance feedback" topic actually people began discussing LRvsPS+Bridbge - bad AvTvM. ;-)


Actually Lr has always been meant to be used as:

1/ Culluing processor (most colleagues who cull on pc instead of doing mostly on the camera, however these days avoid doing it in LR, since it's way too slow for this kind of job).
2/ Catalogue
3/ Developing environment
4/ Publishing tool.

Now having in mind that Camera RAW was invented just for 3/ doesn't make sense. When you add bridge which is amazing if you collaborate with people (don't remember: does it have a server part for LAN workflow?) or within few programs like InDesign or AI it is the right tool for the job.

Now if you shoot event (photos shot are usually in the hundreds), or you prefer to tether-shoot, or just seeing the results prior to last culling with applied corrections on a big screen - LR was supposed to be the tool ;-)

So the whole discussion LR vs PS+Bridbge is stupid. Each of us has his/her own workflow - ergo different tools for his/her job.

 

[tpatana]

For me culling on LR is fast enough, but the pain is when I go through edits one by one. Especially the crop/rotate tool takes ages to activate. If I restart LR the first 10-20 are fine, but then it slows down again. That's my #1 fix-wish for the next LR version.

 

[ethanz]

That, and half my shoots I'm dealing with 2k+ images and edit 100+ of them. LR saves lives.

Give 'Photo Mechanic' a try. Blazingly fast on the 'cull' and you can then open them directly into Lightroom, Capture One, PS, and keywording is also excellent.
I personally use it to cull from a folder on my hard drive, allocating 1 star for those to be deleted which I do through Photo Mechanic in one batch at the end of my analysis, this leaves me with the photos I wish to keep.
[/quote]

That's how I 'cull' through my images, make them one star in bridge. Then edit all one stars in ps. Not sure how that is any different from lr or how lr saves time. I also have 2-3000 images to go through. I've been using ps for over ten years so I'm used to the interface. I wouldn't call it atrocious. I guess I just don't know what else is out there.

 

[Diko]

...That, and half my shoots I'm dealing with 2k+ images and edit 100+ of them. LR saves lives...

...Give 'Photo Mechanic' a try. That's how I 'cull' through my images, make them one star in bridge...

For culling I use FastRaw viewer. It really counts ;-) Because as they say: "To Choose Correctly You Need to See a Correct Preview".

 

[EdelweissPirate]

for light editing work, lr is a really good tool, but the database and associated performance issues are a problem.

Others have attempted to convey this to you without success, so maybe I'm tilting at windmills here:

The association between Lightroom's database and its performance issues exists only in your imagination. It's a mistake to claim that SQLite is an a priori cause of Lightroom's performance issues.

All of the fixes you suggest, especially storing all the metadata in the image headers, would be both slower, uglier and more failure-prone than Lightroom's SQLite approach. I'm not trying to insult you here, but your understanding of programming/computer science is not quite what you seem to think it is.

There's no shame in having an incomplete understanding of these subjects, but you might at least consider that people who do this for a living (including other posters on this forum and the Lightroom developers) have thought about these things and rejected them for good reason.

SQLite (or something very much like it) is the right tool for this particular job, though I'd have preferred a true multi-user database to allow catalogs to be stored on networked drives. Others have already explained why OSes are not databases and why Spotlight and the Windows search/indexing function would be worse than Adobe's use of SQLite. One thing I didn't see mentioned is that if you rely on the OS to build its own database for your photos, switching between Windows and OSX (either way) becomes enormously problematic.

Why would you want to lock yourself into a particular OS simply because your photo editing app relies on that OS's database? Additionally, because your "ideal" OS-database would be entirely different for Mac vs. Windows, Adobe would have to spend time and money developing hooks for two entirely independent database structures. Oh, and if those OS-based databases don't support exactly the same metadata, then your feature set diverges on the two platforms. Speaking generally about DAM software, you really want a database, and you really want it to be completely independent of the OS.

AvTvM, you don't seem to reject the idea of Lightroom using a database, but rather you seem to think that Adobe has chosen the wrong one. I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that you think that somehow SQLite is a "big," ponderous database, so you pin all of Lightroom's performance issues on SQLite. SQLite isn't a slow database. It's efficient and fast for small data sets, and no matter how big you think your catalog is, it's not a big data set in the grand scheme of things.

If you don't think that SQLite is a big, slow database, then what's your objection to it?

That's not to say that Lightroom doesn't have issues. It does, but I don't pretend to know the root cause of those problems. For example, as far as I can tell, exporting JPEGs and building 1:1 previews (which are basically the same thing) should be embarrassingly parallel or nearly so. Yet, as the plot Diko posted shows, Lightroom doesn't efficiently use more than four CPUs for these tasks. In other words, building 1:1 previews should take half as much time with eight physical cores as it does with four, but instead it takes nearly the same amount of time.

There's a reason for that, and I don't know what it is. But I doubt that it's because all of the Lightroom developers know less about parallel computing than I do. (I don't know very much).

I'd love to see better performance from Lightroom. I agree that Adobe hasn't taken users' performance complaints seriously, and I agree that there are other workflows that have advantages over Lightroom. But pinning all of your complaints on SQLite only highlights your incomplete understanding of the issues at hand.