Lightroom 4.1 Running SLOW!

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Serious_Paul

Guest
I am currently running Adobe Lightroom 4.1 on:

MacBook Pro 2.53GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
8 GB 1067 MHz DDR3 RAM

With 2 Hard Disk Drives: one 60GB SSD (Which is used only to run applications from) and a 750GB 7200RPM HDD which holds all the data and serves as the cache disk.

I have noticed for some time now that even with what you would think would be perfectly sufficient specs on a machine, that my MB Pro pathetically struggles to run LR. The performance is reminiscent of running Adobe Photoshop on a first-run Pentium Processor with 512MB of ram lol. WTF?

Does anyone have any ideas on what I can do to improve performance? Does anyone else experience a similar issue? I'd appreciate any help that you all might be able to offer! Thanks!
 
Mt Spokane Photography

Mt Spokane Photography

CR Pro
Mar 25, 2011
16,847
1,835
Mine is running about expected with my 3 year old PC. 8gb ram, first generation i7 processor, Samsung 250 gb SSD, older video card.

If you want to see slow, try DXO.

It does take a while to render my 100+ mb images from my D800, but nothing I can't manage. Canon images from my 5D MK II or MK III are much faster.

I expect that Adobe is working on speeding it up, but until they do, I really do not have a issue editing 1500 images from a shoot.
 
Upvote 0
e-d0uble

e-d0uble

Mar 9, 2012
46
0
Sandy Hook, CT
I'm not a fan of griping about software produced by a loathsome company like adobe.. It's like saying "Darn those Nazis were real poopy-heads".. Regardless, I noticed that every iteration of this 4.xx version of lightroom is dog slow on my Core i7@ 1.73GHz with 8G of ram and GeForce GT 435M. Sadly, this 4.1 version is no better.. It seems to really lag when I hook the laptop up to an external monitor. The 3.x versions of lightroom were far faster.
 
Upvote 0
S

stevenrrmanir

Guest
bloatware, and POS software that slows down your machine... why the sudden degradation in performance?

I hope some other company out there will release something useful, because this POS is NOT worth it!

software companies should be optimizing their software instead of expecting people to buy the latest PCs with the fastest videocard and 1 million GB of RAM...

i7, 12GB RAM is still not enough?

if you want to do something about it, write Adobe and tell them that you intend to return the software back because it has rendered your work, the requirement specs on the package are MISLEADING and INACCURATE and you want your money back!

without the threat of financial loss, they don't give a rat's arse
 
Upvote 0
RichATL

RichATL

Mar 19, 2012
65
0
The slowdown has been an issue since the Beta...
I even made a video about it a few weeks back.
Lightroom 4 is SLOWWWWWWW!

The bottlenecking is most prevalent on rendering previews, and exporting web galleries...

Constant beratement of Adobe has yielded ZERO results...

I've been a LR user since the very first incarnation (pre-LR1), and this is by far the biggest screw up thus far.
and there seems to be no fix in sight, except for a complete teardown and re-build.
 
Upvote 0
Viggo

Viggo

Dec 13, 2010
4,932
1,608
I have a 3,6ghz i5 with 16gb ram and it's veeeeryyy slooooow here also.

I got it to run better for a couple of hours yesterday, after a reinstall and remembering to manually select Camera Raw 7.1 (since it doesn't to that just by updating, ridicolous!) And I could run the sliders realtime, and the changes happen instantly on screen and I felt like I wasn't in 1984 anymore. But then hour and a half maybe, in a catalog with 1600 pictures, it stopped and went back to doing nothing, zooming in takes about 10-14 seconds, and all the sliders just won't move, then I wait 5-6 seconds at best and they suddenly move a lot, then stop again... I also tried a smaller catalog, but it made absolutely no difference.

Adobe has seriously gone downhill lately. I hope they will charge double the money again and begin to make it work again. I have a bunch of friends gone back to Lr 3.6 because they don't have the time or patience (who can blame 'em) to sit and watch Lr 4.1. It's like watching a 90 year old run a stadium marathon, it was fun to watch the first few meters, than you just want to lay down and die.....
 
Upvote 0
Marsu42

Marsu42

Canon Pride.
Feb 7, 2012
6,310
0
Berlin
der-tierfotograf.de
Serious_Paul said:
Does anyone have any ideas on what I can do to improve performance? Does anyone else experience a similar issue? I'd appreciate any help that you all might be able to offer! Thanks!
Click to expand...

I already wrote this in another LR4 rant thread: disable nr and esp. sharpening until you're finished with the picture, it speeds up 1:1 rendering tremendously. And optimize your (large) catalog frequently.

However, LR4.1 is slow anyway, esp. the betas - my feeling is that the performance worsens the longer the program runs, so shutting it down and restarting it helps. However, after a restart it takes some time to initialize smart collections, don't have too many of them because they drag performance down, too.

The general problem is that Adobe rushed the LR4 release because they wanted their new process version 2012 to be used, but there are many issues like the broken autotone and they even keep introducing features without testing in a release candidate which should be a no-go.
 
Upvote 0
F

fiend

Mar 17, 2012
68
0
RichATL said:
The slowdown has been an issue since the Beta...
I even made a video about it a few weeks back.
Lightroom 4 is SLOWWWWWWW!

The bottlenecking is most prevalent on rendering previews, and exporting web galleries...

Constant beratement of Adobe has yielded ZERO results...

I've been a LR user since the very first incarnation (pre-LR1), and this is by far the biggest screw up thus far.
and there seems to be no fix in sight, except for a complete teardown and re-build.
Click to expand...

I know Lightroom 4.1 is slow as hell, but you compare COPY and COPY AS DNG. That's not a fair comparison because your computer converts the .cr2 -> .dng in the process on COPY AS DNG
 
Upvote 0
RichATL

RichATL

Mar 19, 2012
65
0
fiend said:
I know Lightroom 4.1 is slow as hell, but you compare COPY and COPY AS DNG. That's not a fair comparison because your computer converts the .cr2 -> .dng in the process on COPY AS DNG
Click to expand...

Because I was using files from my 5d3 I had to convert them to DNG first (not recorded or measured)
I then imported to both LR3 and 4.1RC2 (which is what is in the video and measured) via "copy as DNG"
I did not measure how long it takes to import CR2s. Just DNG and JPEG. Percentage wise they are both the same percentage slower than LR3

Which in theory shouldn't take any longer than just plain "copy", but I wanted to make sure that it knew it was working towards DNGs and to render the packaged previews over again.

a note on turning off sharpening and noise reduction to speed things up.
...it wasn't necessary in LR3...so it shouldn't be necessary now...
but it will help things when viewing, but does nothing on import...
The sharpening and noise reduction are only applied (accurately) to the preview when zoomed to 1:1
 
Upvote 0
Marsu42

Marsu42

Canon Pride.
Feb 7, 2012
6,310
0
Berlin
der-tierfotograf.de
[email protected] said:
Try opening a new catalog more often and starting fresh. Works for me. I love LR.
Click to expand...

Is this a joke? I indeed did this once (saving metadata/keywords to files, new catalog, read stuff back), but all your collections are gone. For a program with a professional attitude, this hardly can be the solution... and creating a new catalog shouldn't be doing anything different from optimizing it in the first place.
 
Upvote 0
pwp

pwp

Oct 25, 2010
2,530
24
It's slower than 3.6 which from memory was slower than the V2. I now have the shipping version of 4.1 which is a little brisker than 4.1RC. After trawling through the 800 post thread on the Lightroom page of the Adobe forum, I picked up a couple of items that have been useful.

The first and most important is that LR4 works quicker with DNG. So be sure to import as DNG and be absolutely sure to check the "Embed Fast Load Data" check box in Preferences. This adds an insignificant 80-100Kb to your filesize. Why do you suppose Adobe has added the "Embed Fast Load Data" option? It's pretty clear they've struggled with performance benchmarks, and kicked in with "Embed Fast Load Data" as a workaround. Also, go to File, and check Optimize Catalog.

The earlier non-public betas were absolutely glacial in the way they rendered files, responded to adjustments etc. But the software engineers knew the new tools were worth persisting with, and they're right! But those same engineers still have a lot of work to do to sharpen performance.

Filesize. I notice a speed difference between my smaller 1D4 files and the bigger 5D3 files. Spare a thought for photographers who dropped their $$ on a Nikon D800 and choose to process through Lightroom. Yar!

PW
 
Upvote 0
J

jsylar

Guest
I have both LR 3.6 and 4.1 installed in the same computer and I don't notice any performance degradation at all between 3.6 and 4.1.

The size of catalog of LR 3.6 is 673.13 MB and that of LR 4.1 is 907.3 MB. I have tens of thousand photos stored. A lot of times along with LR I have PS CS 5 running in the background. All fine performance wise.

Core i5 2.7 GHz, 8 GB RAM running Mac OS X. For storage, I have 1 TB 7200 rpm disk for system, applications and catalog (the catalog on its own partition), and 2 TB Western Digital Green exclusively for photos.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

drmikeinpdx
What's needed for fastest Lightroom exports?
Replies
6
Views
3K
Mt Spokane Photography
Mt Spokane Photography
E
  • Locked
Lightroom 3/ PS CS5.5 on a Macbook Air
Replies
2
Views
2K
neuroanatomist
neuroanatomist
eyeland
  • Locked
Lightroom 4 performance
Replies
0
Views
1K
eyeland
eyeland
Top Bottom
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Home
Forums
Media
Menu