Do You Wish Lightroom Was Quicker? Adobe Does Too

[Diko]

It may also create issues the one LR creates when storing changes inside DNGs - which means incremental backups need to backup the new DNG (possibly several MBs) too.

LR does NOT change anything in DNG AIFAK. Unless there's a certain setting of which I am not aware.

Otherwise my take:

Adobe, really? And when do you intend on releasing LR 7?!? December?

I mean everyone knows that the SQLite is its biggest champ and bigest bug.
Everyone knows that C1 gets sharper images than LR.
Everyone knows that LR can't possibly utilize more than 8 CPU cores (Logical, not necessarily physical).

Why now?

I did everything - DNG conversion (parallel computing, instead the regular RAW files), more RAM (32@2400), on SSD, with 1:1 preview on a 6700K. And still can't get faster importing and DNG conversion, still need to wait when using Spot removal or Local brush.

And that is on regular 30MP files.... Don't ask me when I go the 50MPs path :/

 

[mcschlotz]

The complaints regarding performance have already been well documented over the past year(s). Adobe's competition is available to all to review including them! Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see they are finally talking about it openly and supposedly have made it their top priority, but given their long avoidance of this issue, it's hard not to be pretty skeptical regarding their sincerity going forward.

What would be more convincing? If they were to indicate they have put a moratorium on any additional changes until the performance issues have been resolved AND going forward that no enhancements will be deployed if it negatively affects the corrected performance measurements.

JMTC
Matt

 

[LDS]

Performance is not the same as speed. Bridge+ACR can open pretty much any image file so for an imaging professional it is a much more efficient tool, efficiency ends up equating to time.
How many .PSB files do you have? LR can't see them, it is primarily a 'simple' photo program that can't open a lot of 'photo' files.

Does ACR open PSB files? If so, the fact LR can't it's just an artificial limit by Adobe (although LR don't support all the PS features and have more stricter limit on the max image size).

If you mostly edit your photos in PS it's surely simpler to use ACR than using LR and export them to PS - just, the RAW image processing is the same - which also makes PR and LR inter-operable.

LR was never designed to be a full replacement for Photoshop, especially as long as it is sold separately at a cheaper price. IMHO, unless forced by competition, LR standalone won't support layers. If it is only sold along PS in a CC subscription, there will be less commercial interest in neutering some advanced features.

It is true it was designed to be a "simple" application for digital cameras workflows - remember the first versions? - and probably has far outgrown its roots. It was built on some readily available tools (ACR RAW engine, the Lua engine, SQLite database), and probably some changes are needed to improve speed.

Anyway, there's a lot of value in non-destructive and multi-image editing, which makes it complementary to ACR/PS, depending on your needs.

 

[LDS]

LR does NOT change anything in DNG AIFAK. Unless there's a certain setting of which I am not aware.

Yes, there is a setting you're not aware of It's under "Catalog settings", "Include develop settings in metadata inside...". When checked, the develop settings too are recorded inside the file (otherwise only metadata are) - only for file formats that can support that, of course. The format is XMP.

It's a nice feature if you need to exchange files between LR instances without a full catalog or adding the sidecar file, but it also means the files are modified.

If it's good or bad depend on your workflow.

 

[jeffa4444]

Bridge and ACR combined are more powerful, have more features and are faster than LR.

Actually, ACR and LR, AFAIK, share the same RAWand image editing engine, just with slightly different UIs built on top of it. Thereby, performance are the same.

the UI is not "slightly different", but "night and day" different.
PS = absolutely unusable for people like me [unwilling to "learn" software] .
LR = quite fine for people like me [people wanting a intuitive UI]

I have not many issues with Adobe RAW engine per se. Problem is elsewhere: I want a *limited, but still powerful set of "simple photo editing" options, to be applied directly on RAW.

meaning:
* good perspective correction [like LR]
* plus simple, "no-levels-needed" local edits/adjustments [like LR]
* things like "intelligent content aware fill" etc. also welcome
* big bloated database = not needed, not wanted

Current options:
* Bridge+PS = way too complex for what i need.
* PS Elements = too dumb, does not offer what I need
* LR has editing functionality, but only in rental/CC version - not in LR 6 ... ... and only with that bloated database
* DPP = only Canon Raws, good raw converter, only global adjustments, no reasonable perspective correction
* other RAW converters: suffer from exactly the same
* other photo editing software: either dumb as Elements and/or "instagram/art filter orgy" or overly complex

THAT's the problem

PS: of course that's only me. I know that many others mileage will vary. But i also know, there are many "photo enthusiasts" looking for exactly the same thing I am after: something like *Lightroom lite* ... sans database.

I don't use DPP, import everything into LR CC either on a brand new top of the range MacBook Pro with touch bar, or on an iMac, then do more complex corrections in PS CC.

LR definitely runs slower than PS and loading shots on the iMac is painfully slow as are any complex adjustments to update. Its much faster on the MacBook Pro but the machine is more than twice the price of the iMac with newer faster processor and more powerful GPU & double the memory, its been slow LR for at least three years. Would 100% agree LR is intuitive to use unlike PS which is overly complex and illogical hence Ive learnt just about enough but there are features I'm not using because they are way too complex to learn & life is too short to do so (Apple why did you blow out Aperture anyone could use it and Adobe could learn lessons there).
If Adobe has woken up to the resource issues its about time its software hogs resources and again Apple proved you can retain complexity whilst at the same time conserving resources (until you count in iCloud local disc space!).

Frankly if a really good competitor stepped up to the plate Adobe would lose many customers

 

[Mikehit]

I like LR for its intuitive, quick edits.

I am using PS as my pixel editor, and I have tried OnOne but prefer the PS interface so see no reason to switch.
I would have no objection to using Photomechanic or Breezebrowser to cull and do basic cataloging but because LR comes bundled with PS I would probably still use LR for simple adjustments.

 

[Khalai]

It may also create issues the one LR creates when storing changes inside DNGs - which means incremental backups need to backup the new DNG (possibly several MBs) too.

LR does NOT change anything in DNG AIFAK. Unless there's a certain setting of which I am not aware.

Otherwise my take:

Adobe, really? And when do you intend on releasing LR 7?!? December?

I mean everyone knows that the SQLite is its biggest champ and bigest bug.
Everyone knows that C1 gets sharper images than LR.
Everyone knows that LR can't possibly utilize more than 8 CPU cores (Logical, not necessarily physical).

Why now?

I did everything - DNG conversion (parallel computing, instead the regular RAW files), more RAM (32@2400), on SSD, with 1:1 preview on a 6700K. And still can't get faster importing and DNG conversion, still need to wait when using Spot removal or Local brush.

And that is on regular 30MP files.... Don't ask me when I go the 50MPs path :/

I feel the pain. i7-5820K @ 4.2 GHz, 32 GB RAM @ 2400 MHz, Samsung 950 Pro SSD for OS/applications and Samsung 850 EVO for photo storage. And Lightroom still can get sluggish or even unusable sometimes. And that should not happen on a PC of this performance potential...

 

[grainier]

I do not care. I do not have budget or desire to endlessly upgrade my PC, so I gave up on LR when it was still v. 4

 

[SteveM]

I'm appalled it has taken this long to address an issue which I seem to have been reading about for years. I doubt very much this is being done for no reason, I wonder if this is the opening salvo in a soon to be released Lightroom 7?

 

[BillB]

I'm appalled it has taken this long to address an issue which I seem to have been reading about for years. I doubt very much this is being done for no reason, I wonder if this is the opening salvo in a soon to be released Lightroom 7?

Don't know whether it will be Lightroom 7, but my guess is that they already have something cooking. When you admit that you have a serious problem that needs fixing, it's a good idea to be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat pretty quickly. To some extent, LR has the problems of success. A lot of people use it for a lot of different things on a lot of different equipment. Not surprising that there are some pretty unhappy people out there. The good news for Adobe may be that the people that are most unhappy with Lightroom may not have any alternatives that work any better for them.

 

[tpatana]

Everyone knows that LR can't possibly utilize more than 8 CPU cores (Logical, not necessarily physical).

Do you mean cores or threads? I've had 8c/16ht i7 for couple years, and I'm pretty sure it draws all 16 threads.

 

[Diko]

I feel the pain. i7-5820K @ 4.2 GHz, 32 GB RAM @ 2400 MHz, Samsung 950 Pro SSD for OS/applications and Samsung 850 EVO for photo storage. And Lightroom still can get sluggish or even unusable sometimes. And that should not happen on a PC of this performance potential...

And you know what pisses me of the most? The fact that I am entering every time the same info on their feedback form that appears when LR is opened now and then.

That means they DO have all the info and stats back their HQ and all that "monkey survey" seems like refined PR to the hardcore users like us.

I DID adapt all the way, but didn't received the service they were looking for :/ But now they are listening.... WTF?

 

[ethanz]

Serious question, why not just use Bridge and Photoshop? Its fast and I would assume has almost all the features of Lightroom.

Bridge and ACR combined are more powerful, have more features and are faster than LR.

Like my typical shoot I'm doing some ~100 pic crop in a row, how you do that on Bridge/ACR? Aside from the slow-down, LR is perfect for my use. I wonder if I complained often enough about that so they invited me to the public beta couple weeks ago

I can do batch crops in ACR.

 

[tpatana]

Serious question, why not just use Bridge and Photoshop? Its fast and I would assume has almost all the features of Lightroom.

Bridge and ACR combined are more powerful, have more features and are faster than LR.

Like my typical shoot I'm doing some ~100 pic crop in a row, how you do that on Bridge/ACR? Aside from the slow-down, LR is perfect for my use. I wonder if I complained often enough about that so they invited me to the public beta couple weeks ago

I can do batch crops in ACR.

Yes, if you don't need them individually cropped. Which I need.

 

[Diko]

Everyone knows that LR can't possibly utilize more than 8 CPU cores (Logical, not necessarily physical).

Cores. Check below.

Do you mean cores or threads? I've had 8c/16ht i7 for couple years, and I'm pretty sure it draws all 16 threads.

Cores, not threads. Check the graph below. ;-)

But indeed I was mistaken for one fact. 4 Cores, not 8

I'm appalled it has taken this long to address an issue which I seem to have been reading about for years. I doubt very much this is being done for no reason, I wonder if this is the opening salvo in a soon to be released Lightroom 7?

Don't know whether it will be Lightroom 7, but my guess is that they already have something cooking. When you admit that you have a serious problem that needs fixing, it's a good idea to be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat pretty quickly. To some extent, LR has the problems of success. A lot of people use it for a lot of different things on a lot of different equipment. Not surprising that there are some pretty unhappy people out there. The good news for Adobe may be that the people that are most unhappy with Lightroom may not have any alternatives that work any better for them.

I doubt LR 7 would see things improved enough.

IMHO it is time they stop adding features but work on the core (read DEVELOPMENT + LIBRARY modules) performance improvements. Please read below 1/, 2/ & 3/ for detailed argumentation why CORE engines rewriting from scratch is needed in order to achieve the required performance boost expected and awaited in the near future.

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

SQLITE is a database engine and is what reads and writes for each pixel modification. It is the heart of the non-destructiveness. It is open-source (if I recall correctly) and is meant for in-program usage on a local machine just as LR is doing. However...

As a start back in the days (2006-2007-uish) with the 10-15 Megapixels back then maybe it seemed quite alright. But with 100 megapixels on the horizon anytime in the next 2-5 years available for the FF DSLRs/MILCs not a chance SQLite to be enough usable. I am unsure what kind of logic or database should be expected to utilize such tremendous dataflows, but we DO already have 100mp Medium Format DSLRs. So they'd better think of some novelty! Perhaps more intense utilization of RISC GPUs logic could be of any help to them. Don't know if doable. Not that low-level code write myself. But this non-destructiveness takes its toll and it has to be overcome while writing each pixel's virtual modification. After all it is either in RAM or on the SSD in a parallel file to read/write on.

2/ CPU handling

You can check a few tests like this one or this major conclusion which states that in most scenarios even more than four physical cores are not a factor for better performance:

And now we are entering in the era of mandatory 8 cores |16 Threads. What will Adobe make of it depends on the core engine complete rewriting from scratch.

3/ GPU utilization - almost NONE.

Bugs instead. In the new era of Direct X 12 and Vulkan - where by both enough control is provided for code developers we are awaiting of the miracle to happen. Currently my GPU is almost unused as everybody else's. It seemed to be more like a Marketing trickery the implementation of that GPU feature instead of a true boost...

What do you think? This Monkey Junkey survey for me is still kind of PR... nothing more. Nothing less ;-)

 

[Batman6794]

the UI is not "slightly different", but "night and day" different.
PS = absolutely unusable for people like me [unwilling to "learn" software] .
LR = quite fine for people like me [people wanting a intuitive UI]

I have not many issues with Adobe RAW engine per se. Problem is elsewhere: I want a *limited, but still powerful set of "simple photo editing" options, to be applied directly on RAW.

meaning:
* good perspective correction [like LR]
* plus simple, "no-levels-needed" local edits/adjustments [like LR]
* things like "intelligent content aware fill" etc. also welcome
* big bloated database = not needed, not wanted

Current options:
* Bridge+PS = way too complex for what i need.
* PS Elements = too dumb, does not offer what I need
* LR has editing functionality, but only in rental/CC version - not in LR 6 ... ... and only with that bloated database
* DPP = only Canon Raws, good raw converter, only global adjustments, no reasonable perspective correction
* other RAW converters: suffer from exactly the same
* other photo editing software: either dumb as Elements and/or "instagram/art filter orgy" or overly complex

THAT's the problem

PS: of course that's only me. I know that many others mileage will vary. But i also know, there are many "photo enthusiasts" looking for exactly the same thing I am after: something like *Lightroom lite* ... sans database.

Capture One Pro is not on your list and probably should be. I also bailed on lightroom because it doesn't support my current cameras and I won't rent software. I was mad at Adobe for a while, now I'm thankful they drove me to Capture One.

Try the 30 day trial, nothing to lose.

 

[TomDibble]

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.

Metadata and keywords are instrumental to the database.
And if the metadata and keywords are in the OS, how would you transfer things between machines?

For me, metadata belongs right into the header of the respective image file, not into a big fat database. Writing/Reading/Searching metadata in file headers is something every reasonable OS can do .. natively. Quite well and very fast as a matter of fact. I never understood, why Adobe felt the need to duplicate file organization with its weirdo database/catalogue, rather than letting the OS do that job.

Generally I don't agree, as a software guy. Yes, OSs have metadata management and searching databases (ex, Spotlight on OS X), but you are then using a very general-purpose database which is not tuned towards the types of searches you are doing instead of a special-purpose database indexed on the specific fields you care about. If performance is important to you, the special-purpose database will generally win out every time.

That said, that data does belong in the sidecar (not in the original raw file headers, as I'd rather absolutely limit the number of edits to those original files to zero if possible), and I really wish that were the default in Lightroom or even a setting we could set globally instead of on each catalog we create (I separate various projects with separate catalogs, keeping everything self-contained).

Also, with regards to metadata headers within (some) file formats: this is practical for small file sizes, but the larger the file size the less efficient having frequently-updated metadata in the file becomes. Adding a new header generally means rewriting the whole file on disk, so to put a 20 character title on a 32MB image, you are writing 32,000,000 bytes of data instead of just 20. If you want metadata associated with files "transparently" then using file system-level metadata is a great solution (just a small amount of data written to disk instead of the whole file), although it is limited in what it will store and if you move your files around between file systems you will lose metadata which isn't fully supported in the destination (or any hop along the way). The .XMP sidecar file format is dreadful (as all XML-based formats are), but better than an embedded header. Also, the same .XMP format works no matter what the original image is (CR2, JPEG, DNG, TIF, PNG, etc), which allows that IO code to be as highly optimized as possible.

 

[pwp]

And you know what pisses me of the most? The fact that I am entering every time the same info on their feedback form that appears when LR is opened now and then.

That means they DO have all the info and stats back their HQ and all that "monkey survey" seems like refined PR to the hardcore users like us.

I DID adapt all the way, but didn't received the service they were looking for :/ But now they are listening.... WTF?

You're right of course, the survey is certainly a PR exercise. They've known the facts for years. But at least there is a glimmer of hope. As a daily LR user all the way from the first public beta, I've seen it get slower and slower with each version. I'd say the last genuinely quick one was V4. It's become a real love/hate relationship. I love what it purports to deliver, it's UI, features and so on. But the speed humps that have been explained ad-nauseum here and on other forums have driven me to very reluctantly abandon LR-CC for C1 Pro which I'm still learning the finer points of, but appreciating it's rapid performance.

My business simply couldn't afford the punishing slowdowns with LR when there are 100's of images to process and a same-day or next-day deadline. Adobe used to be the good guys. Times change. ???

-pw

 

[AvTvM]

@TomDibble: understand the points you make and agree with many of them.

but ...

typically (my) raw image files are worked on only once. tagging on import, plus image editing (wb, contrast, colours, lens and perspective corrections, local adjustments, etc). only in very few cases do i go back later on and change some or all of these edits to create another version of "output" file (currently .jpg).

yes, by all means i would like to have that possibility and non-destructive edits.

but if the "edit recipes" plus all metadata were stored directly in the raw file header necessitating the entire file to be re-written would be no real performance issue, since it haüpens so very rarely. it may be more frequent for a few users, but i am convinced that vast majority of all images imported into a raw converter/image editor like LR are edited only once.

the database - both the very concept and the weak implementation - are the root cause of LR's performance issues. getting rid of the entire database concept while retaining LR/ACR raw engine, LR UI and editing capabilities (limited to photo-centric tasks, but powerful) would be the "LR lite" software i would like to get.

image tagging will be done by OS pretty soon - face and motive recognition. i am sure in windows 11 i can type in the search field "eiffel tower, rita" and it will quickly list all my images of "rita in front of or somewhere up on eiffel tower". add GPS data in every image of newer cameras ... and there will be absolutely no more need to manually tag my images in an app like LR or any other image editor.

same for exif and iptc data - any os should allow immediate access abd edits - including batch - for that data (stored in inage file header).

again: that duplicate LR database layer is not needed for my use (and presumably that of most LR users).

 

[AvTvM]

@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.