# Anyone with new speed issues in 2.0...



## Victoria Bampton (Aug 7, 2008)

Whilst the majority of people are saying that LR2 is faster than 1.4.1 for normal tasks, there are some reports of LR2 being slower, but just saying it's slow doesn't give the team anywhere to start looking.  Ignoring the local adjustments, which have no point of comparison, specifics would be useful.

So, those who are having problems, could we please have:


 OS: (Windows XP SP3, OS X 1'.4.11 etc)
 32-bit or 64-bit
Where are the files stored (Internal hard drive, external hard drive, NAS)
 Specifics comparisons with earlier versions ("It takes 39 seconds for Loading to disappear in Develop but 1.4.1 only took 8 seconds"... that specific)
Anything else that you might find relevant
Hopefully then the engineers will be able to get fixes into the next release quickly.


----------



## RipIt (Aug 7, 2008)

I am aware of some speed issues in general.

OSX 1'.5.4 (32 OR 64bit)
Files on internal HD
Mac Pro Quad Core 2.66
3GB ram

Of course there are the local adjustment speed hits and while you have noted those as a known entity I don't think we should take them solely as Develop Module issues.
My 1''% previews on 1.4 run around the 2sec mark
On 2.' they are 3-4sec unless the file has been treated with local adjustments then the 1''% preview speed can be as much as 11-13 secs. Granted once they have been created, performance in this respect is normal.

As for the general program I find switching between modules to be slower in v2.' perhaps from 2 secs to 4 secs. The big difference in module switching comes from the Web Module.
v1.4  performed 2' image gallery in about 4 secs where v2.' took over 2'. Again, this was with a "first look" at any given set of images. I could not repeat that time though and subsequent tests v2.' performed as normal.

In general I would say the program is a little slower but aside form the local adjustments, not tediously so. Exporting and uploading has been as normal. Certainly I would not say it was any faster. 

In 64 bit I noticed no difference but thats no surprise as I only have 3GB ram so far. The preview speeds of 1' plus secs don't really concern me too much at this point as I don't see the DEV module as a place to rush things, Thats what presets are for. 

Now if it took a longer time to get images out of lightroom (web upload and PS edits) then I might be a little more concerned. I do feel for those whose main machine is an iMac or suchlike though.


----------



## davidmknoble (Aug 7, 2008)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Anything else that you might find relevant




I would suggest you also post whether or not you have already rendered the larger previews - that always takes more time.

I haven't done a comparison of the time it takes to render the previews, but I may try.


----------



## Braders (Aug 7, 2008)

Speed issues here. 

1. Specs below + 32bit.
2. I run LR off an external HD in one catalogue (3''' images). This has not changed.
3. Standard previews upon import - 1:1 when required. This has not changed.

Issues 
a. Import time - i have done 2 imports in 2.' (Convert DNG, render standard) . 15 images = 8minutes. 47 images = 21minutes. Painfull. With 1.4.1 import was never really fast, but double this speed. What has always been the case is the conversion to DNG seems to slow things down. Before i converted to DNG, my CR2 import time was fast.
b. Switching modules - hanging time 5-1'seconds
c. Switching grid to loupe view and back - hang time 1-2 sec
d. Zooming in to 1:1 - Library = 5 sec, Develop = 7-1'sec
e. Develop sliders - sticky and slow. I can not judge how far i have gone because i the slider does not respond until the last minute. The image responds the exact same way, no smooth transition, just a sudden change from one state to the next. 1.4.1 WAS INSTANT.

Local corrections - oh man... Houston.....

Also, it does not matter whether i run LR on my laptop in sole mode, or in dual mode on my new monitor. The speed is the same. My new monitor is a beast and i thought might tax my video card to the point where LR would slow, but it really hasn't. The one issue i have in dual mode that is different is LR suddenly crashing. Hasn't happened often, but LR has not crashed on me since 1.1!


----------



## joseph.allan (Aug 8, 2008)

I use the "nView Desktop Manager". It was fine for Lightroom 1.4 but causes real performance problems with Lightroom 2.', in particular when loading the Develop Module.​ 
Select the Develop Module then close Lightroom. The time taken between starting Lightroom and for it to become responsive with nView enabled was around 25 seconds, with nView disabled it takes around 7 seconds.​ 
I had similar performance issues whenever I used the Spot Removal Tool or Adjustment Brush, and in particular the first time loading the Development Module within a session. Basically the tools in the Develop Module are now responsive whereas before it took 3 to 5 seconds each time I clicked on one of them.​ 
To disable "nView Desktop Manger" for Lightroom only;​ 
Right click the desktop > nView Properties​OR Control Panel > NVIDIA nView Desktop Manger

then;​ 
Applications > Add... > Browse... > C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2\Lightroom.exe > OK > lightroom (Application) > Disable... > CLEAR Enable nView Desktop Manager for this application and/or class > OK > OK


----------



## Brad Snyder (Aug 8, 2008)

Joseph, Welcome to LR Forums. Thanks for the input. Since you're using nVidia, are you aware of another potential incompatibity, with 3D acceleration?

See this thread:
http://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/showthread.php?t=2137&highlight=nvidia


----------



## hedehodo (Aug 8, 2008)

Have been trying LR 2 beta and final release, but it is quite slow on an iMac 2.16 Ghz (Core 2 Duo) w/ 2GB of RAM - Leopard 1'.5.4 (64 bit). 

Actual image files are located on a network drive (via NFS), but all LR files are on local disk. 

1. Switching to the next window of thumbnails in Grid View (scrolling down) takes ~ 2-3 seconds (renders fuzzy thumbnails which are quite useless, then it takes 2 passes to make them sharp + properly visible)

2. Switching to the next preview image in Loupe View takes ~1 second between each photo (Renders a fuzzy image, then says 'Loading from Previews' and renders the actual thing).

Suggestions/Requests:

1. For this, thumbnail disk cache should be implemented to make browsing faster + smoother. AFAIK, it renders them and puts them in memory which is again not that useful (every restart will flush this cache). And, needless to say, LR is probably the slowest here compared to anything else (iPhoto, Aperture, Picassa, etc.)

2. No idea why it takes that much to render/load a preview even after Previews are generated (already did Library -> Previews -> Render Standard/1:1 Previews)...

I think LR 2.' is a great product, and I was ready to purchase 2.', but seeing how slow things are and how much CPU/Memory load it puts on the machine; I am not so sure! It really is not a smooth experience to do the simplest things such as browsing thru your images for tag/flag/rating them etc.


----------



## Brad Snyder (Aug 8, 2008)

Did you use LR1.x previous to trying V2?  If so how does the performance compare between the two? I ask, because using the image files from a network connection is discouraged because of the lower speed. 

Nonetheless, your subjective observations seem to be a relatively common occurrence.


----------



## hedehodo (Aug 9, 2008)

> Did you use LR1.x previous to trying V2?  If so how does the performance compare between the two?


I have not used LR 1.4 before, and not sure about how that performed.



> I ask, because using the image files from a network connection is discouraged because of the lower speed.


Well, each screen has about 2' images, and they are ~ 4 MB jpgs each. Given my network speed, it would take at least 4-5 seconds just to read those from network. So, I don't think they are loaded from actual source (network), and to be honest I would be surprised if these thumbnails are generated from original sources each of which are huge. And, previews (as I mentioned before) are stored on local disk. So, storing them on network should/would affect image operations, but I don't see how they can affect browsing performance.

As I mentioned before, the main problem, I believe, is that thumbnails are dynamically generated and not cached. In fact, caching thumbnails is what most (if not all) of other software do (aperture/iphoto/picassa/etc.). For example, aperture has a "Generate thumbnails" option.



> Nonetheless, your subjective observations seem to be a relatively common occurrence.


My comments are subjective, and suggestions are somewhat subjective (even though they are based on experience). But, I am not sure how performance observations can be subjective???

Thanks


----------



## Ian Farlow (Aug 9, 2008)

hedehodo said:


> But, I am not sure how performance observations can be subjective???
> 
> Thanks



Because your definition of slow and my definition of slow are not likely to be the same, and my definition of slow is not likely to be the same as someone else's, so on and so forth...


----------



## hedehodo (Aug 9, 2008)

I really don't want to derail the discussion, which defeats the whole purpose of this thread. But, I should have clarified it a bit more I guess: 

*Basic operations like going through thumbnails/tagging/skipping thru' previews are much slower compared to other software like iPhoto/Aperture/Extensis*, is what I should have said I guess. But, once again, in terms of overall functionality, I definitely like LR way more.

- Also, during regular usage (e.g. thumbnail browsing), I keep seeing CPU/Memory usage spikes that freeze the whole machine. These are really just 1-2 (or a few more) second spikes, but very annoying nevertheless, since everything gets really sluggish.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Aug 10, 2008)

Keep the reports coming, the more information the better.


----------



## RJNear (Aug 12, 2008)

I am running LR-2 on Windows XP-Pro SP-3 system with 4GB ram, my LR catalog is stored on a internal drive and my photos are on a external drive connected with firewire 8''. I run one LR catalog and it has just over 3',''' images in it. Generally the speed of LR 2 is much the same as LR 1.4 the only area i have notice is slower responce is when importing images from a hard drive location, there seems to be a new step in this process a screen will pop up saying comparing Catalog and this seems to take some time and I never noticed this under LR 1.4.


----------



## monsoon (Aug 15, 2008)

I'm currently experiencing same issue with the thumbnails as hedehodo. 

-The thumbnails are constantly re-rendered even though no changes have been made to the picture. 
-The fuzzy initial thumbnails and wait inbetween makes it less than user-friendly for thumbnail selection and browsing.

Perhaps the thumbnails can be stored in the harddisk till additional changes are made. Only then will the thumbnails be re-rendered. This could perhaps make for a smoother workflow and more pleasant user-experience





hedehodo said:


> Have been trying LR 2 beta and final release, but it is quite slow on an iMac 2.16 Ghz (Core 2 Duo) w/ 2GB of RAM - Leopard 1'.5.4 (64 bit).
> 
> Actual image files are located on a network drive (via NFS), but all LR files are on local disk.
> 
> ...


----------



## I Simonius (Aug 19, 2008)

The one thing I notice so far ( only just starting to get to grips wth it) is the time it takes to change modules - between library and develop havent tried the others yet - usually at lest 8 secs, sometimes longer
(already mentioned elsewhere)


----------



## calvinphoto (Aug 20, 2008)

*Develop adjustment refresh speed*

or in other words, how long do you wait after you move, say, the brightness slider? here's how i test it:

-pull up a photo in Develop mode
-size it to 1:4
-click on the Brightness label to highlight it, set to min. (-15')
-hit SHIFT-TAB to clear the screen of panels (makes a big difference when you're not updating previews and histograms!)
-hold down the '=' key and time how long it takes brightness to go from -15' to + 15' (6' steps of +5)

I get 16 seconds, 6'/12= 5 fps. not too quick.

Vista
e66''
4gb ram
images and ACR cache 12gb on internal SATA II drive
catalog and preview images on second SATA II drive
Windows on third SATA II drive

Anyone care to try this?


----------



## calvinphoto (Aug 20, 2008)

*Im taking my own challenge*

tried it on my laptop, I got 19 seconds, or ~3.2 fps

I have no clue what's inside it, AMD 2-core I think, and 4 gigs ram. 1 HD.


----------



## Katherine Mann (Aug 20, 2008)

*Lr, I love you, but ...*

Windows XP Pro SP2
32-bit
1.5 SD DDRAM
P4, 3.1G dual something processor
Files stored on primary HD, secondary HD partition and external USB drive, current work all on primary drive
1.4.1 was fine, usuable. 2.' ranges from impossible to sludge to better. 

I upgraded on top of v.1.4.1. 
Un-installed 1.4.1.
Deleted all the various preference files - that seemed to help a lot.
Faster when auto-mask is off. 
Quite a delay in the adjustment brush even at best. 

Several crashes for no apparent reason. 

This is not so much fun as it could be, is it?

Program is not functioning as it should.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Aug 20, 2008)

Katherine Mann said:


> Program is not functioning as it should.



Yep, I think we've all got that idea!    All this information is useful in narrowing down where the problems are occurring.


----------



## Mark Sirota (Aug 20, 2008)

I tried calvinphoto's test, and found it kept up with my key repeat rate.  If I raise my key repeat rate in the system's Keyboard preferences to the max, it takes about 8 seconds from -15' to +15' (timing by my wristwatch).

This is a first-generation (two year old) 17" Macbook Pro, 2.16 GHz Core Duo (not Core 2 Duo), 2 GB ram.  Lots of other apps running at the same time, too.


----------



## calvinphoto (Aug 20, 2008)

hmm, could it be the pc version is more of a mess than the mac version?


----------



## calvinphoto (Aug 21, 2008)

*speed and image size*

:idea: just a thought: I edit mostly 1'mp raw files from Nikon D2''s. Anyone getting crazy results with really big or really small files? I'm gonna test with a d7' 6mp file right now...


----------



## Mark Sirota (Aug 21, 2008)

My test was also with a raw file from a D2''.


----------



## I Simonius (Aug 21, 2008)

Im getting the beachball in quite a lot of things, e.g. putting te cursor on the top of an image where it will then bring up the menu, the menu came up but I had 4 secs of beach ball before it would scroll to the bottom of the menu, also the navigator window is much slower than before - it used to (v1.4.1) give instant preview when hovering over an image, now there is a delay; also when cropping an image it will pause unresponsive, then the beach ball arrives for a second then it will start responding again


----------



## calvinphoto (Aug 22, 2008)

I tried converting to dng, and now everything's just a little faster. My speed test went from 5 fps to 6.6 fps. Still nowhere near a real-time feel, but a noticeable improvement nonetheless. I await the fabled 2.'.1 with great anticipation.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Aug 7, 2008)

Whilst the majority of people are saying that LR2 is faster than 1.4.1 for normal tasks, there are some reports of LR2 being slower, but just saying it's slow doesn't give the team anywhere to start looking.  Ignoring the local adjustments, which have no point of comparison, specifics would be useful.

So, those who are having problems, could we please have:


 OS: (Windows XP SP3, OS X 1'.4.11 etc)
 32-bit or 64-bit
Where are the files stored (Internal hard drive, external hard drive, NAS)
 Specifics comparisons with earlier versions ("It takes 39 seconds for Loading to disappear in Develop but 1.4.1 only took 8 seconds"... that specific)
Anything else that you might find relevant
Hopefully then the engineers will be able to get fixes into the next release quickly.


----------



## Denis Pagé (Aug 22, 2008)

calvinphoto said:


> or in other words, how long do you wait after you move, say, the brightness slider? here's how i test it:
> ...
> -hold down the '=' key and time how long it takes brightness to go from -15' to + 15' (6' steps of +5)
> 
> ...


There is also a Keyboard Key Repetition Speed factor and buffer size to account for. On most PCs the repetition rate can be adjusted in the BIOS. And there is also a delay before the repeating do occur.

On a different point of view, I would not be happy working that way if going from -15' to +15' would take a split second!


----------



## I Simonius (Aug 22, 2008)

Denis Pagé;2'294 said:
			
		

> There is also a Keyboard Key Repetition Speed factor and buffer size to account for. On most PCs the repetition rate can be adjusted in the BIOS. And there is also a delay before the repeating do occur.
> 
> On a different point of view, I would not be happy working that way if going from -15' to +15' would take a split second!



one instance of 8 secs for RH pallettes to scroll back up in develop:shock:

another 1' secs wait for zoom back to 'fit' from 1''% zoom


----------



## medic583 (Aug 25, 2008)

> Whilst the majority of people are saying that LR2 is faster than 1.4.1 for normal tasks, there are some reports of LR2 being slower, but just saying it's slow doesn't give the team anywhere to start looking. Ignoring the local adjustments, which have no point of comparison, specifics would be useful.
> 
> So, those who are having problems, could we please have:
> 
> ...



Unfortunately I don't have times written down... but Lightroom 2 is DRASTICALLY slower than 1.4 on my fairly barebone dual core machine :(

Windows XP Pro SP3
Intel E675' - 4GB DDR2 - NVidia Geforce 88'' GTS
Asus P5K Deluxe Wi-Fi
Lightroom 2 Stored on C Drive along with operating system and very few programs (computer used just for photos), all files backed up to a second 5''GB drive as well as a 5''GB NAS drive (using ViseVersa Pro)

Roughly Double the time to initially open Lightroom without verifying the integrity or backing up.

Quadruple the time to:
After Lightroom starts, initially going to the recent folder list and finding the recent month to get ready to import new files for the day (folders based on year/month/day and located in "My Pictures" folder created by XP by default)
Switch between Library and Develop modules

Other than that... the program seem to run about the same speed for all editing and sorting... but is seriously sluggish on the startup and initial getting to the recently used folder and moving between areas.

I added the LR/Mogrify plugin recently... but no change decrease in speed... it's been this way right from the download.  Sorry I can't be more specific on the times... but thought I'd post up about the increase in times loading LR.


----------



## billg71 (Aug 25, 2008)

I just posted a reply to a similar topic in the LL forum: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=27436

More Mac users there seem to be having problems than Windows users.

Personally, other than a delay in display response when using auto-masking with the brush tool, LR2 seems to be faster on my machine than 1.4. When auto-mask is off, the brush tool performs just as well as in PS(no lag)

Haven't played with keyboard repeat, though. Just did and everything seems to function normally, no delays anywhere others have reported.

I'll take luck over skill any day!!! :mrgreen:


----------



## Sean McCormack (Aug 28, 2008)

My 1'.4.11 config on my iMac is slower than my 1'.5.4 config on my Macbook Pro.
I did find that optimising helped with the folder reading speeds though. 
Automask is slow, but I know it's pretty processor intensive.


----------



## Mark Stanczak (Aug 30, 2008)

This is slightly off topic, but I thought you guys might find it interesting.

I'm currently building 2 lightroom catalogs simultaneously from the same set of images. The first catalog is building on a Macbook Pro 2.2ghz Core 2 duo, 4gb ram, 1'.5.4, LR in 64-bit mode. The second catalog is building on a Power Mac dual G5, 1gb ram, 1'.4.11.

Both machines are building 1:1 previews and the Power Mac is kicking the Core 2's butt. My Macbook Pro is chewing on #355 while the G5 is tearing through #5'3. Go figure...


----------



## I Simonius (Aug 30, 2008)

Spray keywords is slow. Dragging across several shots will not take with some unless dragged across slowly. ( was faster in v1)


----------



## Brad Snyder (Aug 31, 2008)

Yes, but sporadically, sometimes it's fine. Other times, to quote Mark Sirota, it's 'tedious'.


----------



## Katherine Mann (Aug 31, 2008)

That is one of the interesting things about the speed of v. 2.' - it isn't _consistent_. Even with the worst offender, the adjustment brushes - it will be fine for a bit and then suddenly bog down completely. The sliders are the same - they work fine for a bit and then they simply won't work for half a minute. Sometimes the exposure adjustment brush will stop the program entirely and then start drawing all over the photo - wherever the mouse has moved to change the sliders. It's appalling.

I'm doing a lot of counting to ten. I do love this program and wish to hell it worked.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Sep 1, 2008)

Any of you guys messed around with RAM Disks?  Someone mentioned putting the ACR Cache on a RAM Disk on another forum, and I have to admit, it has stopped me complaining anywhere near as much.  The 3 seconds before the sliders free up when moving between photos was bugging me, now they're almost instantaneous. The theory only works if you've got stacks of spare RAM, but if you do, it may be worth a try.


----------



## I Simonius (Sep 1, 2008)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Any of you guys messed around with RAM Disks?  Someone mentioned putting the ACR Cache on a RAM Disk on another forum, and I have to admit, it has stopped me complaining anywhere near as much.  The 3 seconds before the sliders free up when moving between photos was bugging me, now they're almost instantaneous. The theory only works if you've got stacks of spare RAM, but if you do, it may be worth a try.



Does it come free with LR2.1?:lol:


----------



## Braders (Sep 3, 2008)

94 minutes to load 536 images and render standard previews along with the extra 25 minutes involved with 7 freezes, 3 total crashes, reboots and integrity checks is driving me nuts

Bring on 2.1


----------



## I Simonius (Sep 3, 2008)

It is getting to be  a bit much I agree, the left hand pane for example hides and reveals so slowly sometimes it's almost humerous.

Yep lots of slowness throughout the program..so much so that it's annoying enough to seriously consider reverting to V1 AFAIC until 2.1 comes out:x


----------



## rubberband (Sep 5, 2008)

*Bleah*

I registered specifically to post in this thread.  My main machine is definitely not new, but not quite a doorstop yet.  Centrino 1.8, 2GB ram, 25'GB hdd.  LR2 and the library all live on the local drive.  XP SP2.

1.4 wasn't blindingly fast, but worked just fine.  2.' is completely unusable for me.  I'd return if if there was a way to do so.

Rendering a 1:1 preview: 3' seconds.  For jpeg files.  Don't even ASK about RAW.
Loading a 1:1 preview from previews: 7-8 seconds
Pressing tab to hide or show the side panels: about 4-5 seconds to refresh the view regardless of the module.
Selecting an editing tool: about 4 seconds
Using any edit tool: go get a coffee.
Using the local modification brush tool: DRIVE to go get a coffee.
Switching to the develop module & waiting for loading prompt to clear: 15 seconds.

Exporting 1' files to small (1'''px long edge) web quality jpegs with no post processing: about 4-5 minutes.

Importing is worse.  1'' RAW files with no presets takes over 2' minutes.  

I really, really want to like LR2.  LR1.4 was useable, but this version is essentially useless to me.   Time to try NX again, I guess, until 2.1 comes out.


----------



## Brad Snyder (Sep 5, 2008)

rubberband, Welcome to LR Forums. Sorry you're experiencing problems. 

I'm not sure where your Centrino falls on the Intel spectrum, but I believe the minimum CPU recommendation for Windows was the Pentium 4.

In the meantime, do you have an nVidia graphics adapter? A recently uncovered tweak of those settings did wonders for performance on my system.


----------



## I Simonius (Sep 5, 2008)

*cancelling task...or not*

Tried to cancel task.. now 5 mins and waiting:roll:

Might be Jeffrey's SM plug in though to be fair


----------



## mjmw (Sep 5, 2008)

I have two machines side-by-side at the moment with the same catalog of 9'''+ images from a selection of cameras (Canon 2'D, 4'D, 4''D, 1DmkII, 1Ds, Nikon D2'', D7').

Machine 1: Vista 64, 4gb RAM, 4x 5''gb internals, Intel core duo, nVidia GTX 26'

Machine 2: XP SP3 (32 bit), 4gb RAM, 4x 1tb internals, Intel core duo, Matrox P69'

Both machines running LR2.

Machine 1 has slower components than machine 2 (i.e. slower processor, RAM, disks) except graphics. 

Subjectively, machine 1 seems to run LR2 at about the same speed as LR1.4.  Yes, the new local adjustment brush can be tedious (even with the nVidia settings changes) but in general LR2 is running great.

Working with LR2 on machine 2 just sucks!  I had to stop using dual monitors because the screen started flickering (only when using LR2) or LR2 just crashed.  Importing, exporting, rendering previews, changing modules are all slower.  It also suffers from the auto WB problem - click auto WB before other adjustments and it sets one core at 1''%, never returning...this doesn't happen on machine 1...

Machine 2 is newly built (and not mine) so I haven't seen how LR1.4 runs on it.


----------



## Andrew Hayton (Sep 5, 2008)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Any of you guys messed around with RAM Disks?  Someone mentioned putting the ACR Cache on a RAM Disk on another forum, and I have to admit, it has stopped me complaining anywhere near as much.  The 3 seconds before the sliders free up when moving between photos was bugging me, now they're almost instantaneous. The theory only works if you've got stacks of spare RAM, but if you do, it may be worth a try.



How do you create the RAM disk on OS 1'.5. Do you use the command line or a third party app?


----------



## Sverre (Sep 5, 2008)

I have serious speed issues in all part of LR. Just innstalled SP3 and hope that can improve my situation.  Very often LR freeze and many times the title bar get blue.  If I just wait several minutes usally LR finnish what ever it does...


----------



## Brad Snyder (Sep 5, 2008)

Sverre, some folks are encountering problems with NVidia graphic adapters. If you have an nVidia, read this:

http://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/showthread.php?t=3186

If not, rest assured Adobe's working on it.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Sep 6, 2008)

Andrew Hayton said:


> How do you create the RAM disk on OS 1'.5. Do you use the command line or a third party app?



I didn't fancy messing around with command lines Andrew, but this works a treat: http://boredzo.org/make-ram-disk/

2.2gb is as big as you can go on Leopard.  If you try to go more, the program won't do anything.


----------



## Sverre (Sep 7, 2008)

Brad Snyder said:


> Sverre, some folks are encountering problems with NVidia graphic adapters. If you have an nVidia, read this:
> 
> http://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/showthread.php?t=3186
> 
> If not, rest assured Adobe's working on it.


 
Brad,

I have a ATI Radeon X8''GT. No issues with that card?

Sverre


----------



## Brad Snyder (Sep 8, 2008)

Sverre, don't know for sure. Haven't seen anything specific tho'.


----------



## rubberband (Sep 8, 2008)

Brad Snyder said:


> rubberband, Welcome to LR Forums. Sorry you're experiencing problems.
> 
> I'm not sure where your Centrino falls on the Intel spectrum, but I believe the minimum CPU recommendation for Windows was the Pentium 4.
> 
> In the meantime, do you have an nVidia graphics adapter? A recently uncovered tweak of those settings did wonders for performance on my system.



The Centrino is a p4 in intel laptop speak.

Let's see..

-XMP file writes are disabled
-Library cache is ~5.' GB
-Lots of free RAM
-No NVidia card.  The laptop uses an ATI adapter.
-I've optimized the catalog

It's just plain SLOW.  It wouldn't be so bad if RAW conversion was the slow bit and a hardware upgrade would be the answer.  Jpeg images are unbearably slow to render (previews or 1:1 or anything else) whereas an application such as, say, Picasa, can load them very quickly on the fly.  I'm not convinced that it's a hardware problem since v1.4 was at least resonable.

Are there any other speed fixes out there I've missed?  I really want to like the product and I'm open to options.  Should I try creating a new catalog?  I don't particularly want to lose my past adjustments - can I save them somewhere else and re-integrate them later?


----------



## Sverre (Sep 8, 2008)

rubberband said:


> ...It's just plain SLOW. It wouldn't be so bad if RAW conversion was the slow bit and a hardware upgrade would be the answer. Jpeg images are unbearably slow to render (previews or 1:1 or anything else) whereas an application such as, say, Picasa, can load them very quickly on the fly. I'm not convinced that it's a hardware problem since v1.4 was at least resonable.


 
I think your logic is very valid. I agree that LR have some general speed problem that Adobe has to fix before we really can enjoy what I think can became an excellent application.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Aug 7, 2008)

Whilst the majority of people are saying that LR2 is faster than 1.4.1 for normal tasks, there are some reports of LR2 being slower, but just saying it's slow doesn't give the team anywhere to start looking.  Ignoring the local adjustments, which have no point of comparison, specifics would be useful.

So, those who are having problems, could we please have:


 OS: (Windows XP SP3, OS X 1'.4.11 etc)
 32-bit or 64-bit
Where are the files stored (Internal hard drive, external hard drive, NAS)
 Specifics comparisons with earlier versions ("It takes 39 seconds for Loading to disappear in Develop but 1.4.1 only took 8 seconds"... that specific)
Anything else that you might find relevant
Hopefully then the engineers will be able to get fixes into the next release quickly.


----------



## Brad Snyder (Sep 8, 2008)

Rubberband, two options to create a new catalog to experiment with:

1) Create the new catalog, and use 'Import from Catalog....' which should give you a dialog allowing you to specify a source catalog and to select all/subsets of that catalog to import. Perhaps just a folder or two, to play around.

2) Take advantage of the XMP writes, to force the saving of your adjustments/metadata changes externally to the catalog. Create a new catalog, and do an Import images from the folders where you've forced the XMP writes.  (Again, you can do this piecemeal on just a folder or two to test the concept.) Data that's not stored in XMP includes: Stacks, Virtual Copies, intermediate Develop History steps, collection membership, and pick flags. (And a couple of panel/view settings, not important in this context)

And as Sverre says, folks have been reporting widely varying performance results on this build, and with a few exceptions, there don't seem to be any common denominators yet. The consensus is 'too slow'.


----------



## Mark Stanczak (Sep 8, 2008)

Creating 1:1 previews with Lightroom running in 64-bit mode is 5'% slower than 1:1 previews in 32-bit mode. This applies to Macbook Pros running Leopard. Can anyone confirm this behavior on a Mac Pro?

Anyone from the world of Windows notice a similar issue?


----------



## Braders (Sep 14, 2008)

:xOh my, i had very little hair left when i bought LR, it will soon strip me of all folicles.

When in develop i can not do any work with any precision. I move a slider and it jerks and blocks to around about where it feels like to. I feel i have no control over this, with 2-4 second delays between adjustment movements. Its getting worse too. Bogged.

And then there is the freezes and crashes...


----------



## Braders (Sep 14, 2008)

3 attempts 2 freezes and 9 minutes to render 33 images at 1:1.

Can't live with this for much longer.


----------



## Braders (Sep 14, 2008)

ok

time for LR to have a small period of hybernation until the .1 release.

Total computer crash when trying to run a slideshow on dual monitors.

3 yrs of owning this laptop, and never a crash.

now lightroom smashes system and i get fatal errors.

enough....see you after the release


----------



## I Simonius (Sep 14, 2008)

certainly hard to get to grips with when everything is like an old jerky film

Just been gettig to grips with the graduation thingy and it's like, move it a bit, wait.. tick, tick tick, oops it's gone too much.. move, wait, tick tick tick..

Not really practical or usable in its current state


----------



## pjamedia (Sep 15, 2008)

*Coming to the end of my teather with LR2!*

Lets's give you some facts:
I have all my RAW images from anything other than the shoots I'm working on located on a share on a SAN server. Now access to the SAN is rapid with everything else as it's on a Gigabit LAN connection.

My catalog is on a local WD Raptor hard drive - one of the fastest SATA drives on the market.

My PC is one of the fastest. most advanced Asus Mainstation motherboards on the market with a Q66'' quad core processor, and 8GB of RAM running Vista x64 Ultimate. I have one hard drive just for the windows swap file, and another just for temporary files. I have an pci-x 133 Hardware SATA Array controller looking after 6 SATA2 drives. I have 2 nVidia 68''gs graphics adaptors with 512MB RAM onboard - so what I'm saying here, is that my PC is not a crappy old slow one - it should have very few bottlenecks, and generally runs very quickly with all applications - Ahem, apart from Lightroom 2 that is!

Lightroom, continually hangs if I'm accessing files on my NAS device, not now and again, at least once every minute, especially if I flag a file then try to select a new one in the Grid view. Even worse if I have the grid on the second display - and when I say hang, I mean the app reports that it has stopped respoinding to windows and it sits like this for up to 2 minutes, then bursts back to life! Often, if the second display was showing the grid, once it bursts back to life it comes back in single disaplay mode, and I have to manually turn it back on again. even if I have just one screen in the loupe view in Library with the thumbnails at the bottom, and use that to select images, it hangs again.

I must admit, I love the features of LR2 despite some of the new functionality not being fixed yet by Adobe, and would begrudge having to go back to 1.4, but this freezing is slowly killing me, and I'm getting extremely p**sed off with Adobe for not releasing a stable system, and taking their time to address these issues, and the annoying non customer-focused way they have of releasing fixes. I am really struggling to run my business using LR2 at the moment, as even though my past images have been worked on, and need no forther tweaking, I still need access to them from time to time, and this is really impossible in the current climate.

What have I done to try and resolve this:
I have created a new preferences file - no improvement.
I have moved my ACR Cache between drives - no improvement.
I have Tried the nVidea control panel fix - little improvement in screen response if any.

Now I have my ACR Cache on the same drive as my catalog and windows Temp files - I may experiment moving this to a RAM Drive as per Victoria's suggestion.

I just what what very other fare paying Adobe passenger wants - the software we have paid for. The software we have now is barely fit for purpose. Adobe need top re-consider their lousy release policy, and get some fixes out more often than their 4 release a year. The current situation is a joke!

Cheers, Paul A


----------



## I Simonius (Sep 15, 2008)

pjamedia said:


> I just what what very other fare paying Adobe passenger wants - the software we have paid for. The software we have now is barely fit for purpose. Adobe need top re-consider their lousy release policy, and get some fixes out more often than their 4 release a year. The current situation is a joke!
> 
> Cheers, Paul A



did you submit a bug report/feedback form thingy? We have to let them know (apparently)


----------



## Braders (Sep 15, 2008)

Paul

I could not agree with you more. 

I don't have a huge system, but it's not slow or low end and it works great for everything except LR. 

Yes, i am probably due for an upgrade but i am not going to be held to ransom, and forced to go out and buy the latest generation hardware because Adobe chooses to test it on 16gig quad core machines. 

I can develop images faster using layers in PS than i can in LR...seriously. I avoided getting to know how to use PS when i began shooting digital, being a RSP user. 

I expect LR to perform better than this. Time to look at the competition.


----------



## Braders (Sep 15, 2008)

....Moreover, i am not going to go to MIT to get a degree in computer engineering to understand how to optimize my system or move around cache....

this is a software program that considering the size of the company it comes from and the price they charge for it......should just work.  basta


----------



## reidthaler (Sep 16, 2008)

Oh boy....

I posted at http://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/showthread.php?t=3382

I can't really use LR2 with my P4 3.', 2GB RAM--the local adjustment brush is way too slow.

I was hoping to wait for the Nehalem CPUs, but that could be well into next year. 

I have a lead on a Dell E52' 2.13, 2 GB RAM. Would this computer work? What would be a reasonable price? Money is tight with a big Calif mortgage.​But reading what Paul wrote, it doesn't seem that it's only a hardward issue. Sound like I'd be throwing money at it only to watch it blow away in the wind while I'm waiting for the sliders to move.

I have a 1.8 Core 2 at work, and it's not a whole lot better than my home system. Bug report time.

Reid


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Sep 17, 2008)

There are definitely known issues with the 2.' performance, and all of the data gathered here is no doubt helping to narrow down where the problems are occuring.  I'm sure Adobe are already hard at work on a new release, which should hopefully solve many of the reported problems.  I wouldn't rush to buy new hardware until 2.1 is available.... unless, of course, you want an excuse for a new computer, in which case....


----------



## psibbald (Sep 17, 2008)

I'm just trying to get a handle on what to expect in terms of performance. 

I imported a FW 8'' drive with only roughly 75'' RAW 1Ds TIFs and a few jpgs to a new catalogue a couple of weeks ago and have been playing with the thing off and on. Yesterday I selected an image in a very large collection and tried to make a Virtual Copy and the machine took off trying to make a VC of every file in the collection. I was unable to interupt the process and after an hour forced quit. That appeared to corrupt the file and so I went back to a backup. The backup, from prior to this muckup with the VCs nonehtless found a ton of newly generated VCs which I didn't want. It likewise found these VCs in a backup from a couple of days ago well prior to the VC debacle (no idea where it was getting the data on the VCs which did not appear to have been stored inthe Finder folder of the images in question. 

Anyway to make a long story short, as I'd been having a variety of problems with that whole catalog I decided to kill it and start fresh. I've now been 4 hours waiting while the thing imports, and I'm not even half way there. It seems to me the original import of the identical files took only a couple of hours. At this point it appears to be importing about 3 files per second which seems to me incredibly slow. It's not as though I'm asking it to move and/or write files. The import was set to minimal thumbnail previews or however it is refered to (i.e. I'm not getting it to generate previews beyond basic thumbs).

What should I be expecting?

My System is a Mac G5 2GHz with 8.5GB RAM running LR2 on OSX 1'.4.11.

-Peter


----------



## I Simonius (Sep 23, 2008)

*2.1 RC better but still slower than LR1*

2.1 is better speedwise but it is still slower than v1

e.g. I still have to wait to scroll from folders to collections while it has a think, and back again
At least it's usable now but it still is far from snappy:frown:

the first change of modules was a s bad as before but since the first time it has sped up now there is no spinning ball 
Othe controls are faster except grad filter which although better still has a time lapse , more than the others


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Sep 23, 2008)

Can you quantify exactly where it's slower that 1.x Simon... and specific times and examples too.  The team will want to know.  Official Feature Request/Bug Report Form


----------



## I Simonius (Sep 27, 2008)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Can you quantify exactly where it's slower that 1.x Simon... and specific times and examples too.  The team will want to know.  Official Feature Request/Bug Report Form



I'll get on it , I only tend to use it about once a week at te moment though due to work pressure at the mo


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Sep 27, 2008)

I know the feeling Simon.  I guess at least my work pressures include LR!!!


----------



## Andrew Hayton (Sep 28, 2008)

I have just had the attached screen shot happen a couple of times with 2.1 Not sure if I can re-create it but wondered if it was user error or LR error?


----------



## Kiwigeoff (Sep 28, 2008)

Andrew Hayton said:


> I have just had the attached screen shot happen a couple of times with 2.1 Not sure if I can re-create it but wondered if it was user error or LR error?



What were you doing just prior Andrew, the screen cap should give you a clue???


----------



## Andrew Hayton (Sep 28, 2008)

Too many sleepless nights, I must be missing something. What have I done?


----------



## Kiwigeoff (Sep 28, 2008)

Andrew Hayton said:


> Too many sleepless nights, I must be missing something. What have I done?



Oh well back to bed !!:cheesy::cheesy:


----------



## kiF (Sep 30, 2008)

Barebone laptop:
Intel Core 2 Duo T725' 2.'GHz, 2MB cache, FSB8'', Merom, Santa Rosa
3GB RAM
nVidia GeForce 84''M G 512MB 

Win XP SP3


The adjustment brush is unbearable, I have to wait ~5 sec for a stroke... Its simply unusable. Ive tryed tweeking the nvidia settings, and installed the 2.1 RC1, nothing helps. Switching the masking on/off doesnt help either. I really want to use lightroom but i can't and have to work with PS CS3 and Elements... what else I should consider? Or if buying a new computer dedicated for my photo editing (im a professional photographer) what would be the system recommendations?

P.S. I have more than 6'% free on my hard drive and i've done that catalogue optimization thing too


----------



## I Simonius (Sep 30, 2008)

kiF said:


> Barebone laptop:
> Intel Core 2 Duo T725' 2.'GHz, 2MB cache, FSB8'', Merom, Santa Rosa
> 3GB RAM
> nVidia GeForce 84''M G 512MB
> ...



I read somewhere that nvidia cards were  a problem. Might be cheaper to try an ATI?:?:


----------



## Sverre (Sep 30, 2008)

I Simonius said:


> I read somewhere that nvidia cards were a problem. Might be cheaper to try an ATI?:?:


 
I have ATI card and LR 2.1 is still very slow in many operations.


----------



## I Simonius (Sep 30, 2008)

Sverre said:


> I have ATI card and LR 2.1 is still very slow in many operations.



same here I just meant that I had reead that nvidia were worse still especially on certain Models of G5


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Aug 7, 2008)

Whilst the majority of people are saying that LR2 is faster than 1.4.1 for normal tasks, there are some reports of LR2 being slower, but just saying it's slow doesn't give the team anywhere to start looking.  Ignoring the local adjustments, which have no point of comparison, specifics would be useful.

So, those who are having problems, could we please have:


 OS: (Windows XP SP3, OS X 1'.4.11 etc)
 32-bit or 64-bit
Where are the files stored (Internal hard drive, external hard drive, NAS)
 Specifics comparisons with earlier versions ("It takes 39 seconds for Loading to disappear in Develop but 1.4.1 only took 8 seconds"... that specific)
Anything else that you might find relevant
Hopefully then the engineers will be able to get fixes into the next release quickly.


----------



## I Simonius (Oct 10, 2008)

Well - my Ati 85' XT died! - fan's stopped working -:evil:

So now Im using a Ati 96''. :roll:

I mention this because I am still finding LR slow and it might be relevant. It is slow when I first open it taking the usual 1' secs to change modules, after the first go it speeds up , only to slowly get less responsive the more I use it. It is generally better than v2 but every now and then it really grinds to a halt taking 11 secs to perform one function and two secs and occasionally more, generally to do many functions, like undo, redo etc

I had to click on the contrast slider 3 times to get it to respond recently as well so I hope the final v2.1 has these speed sissues better resolved.


----------



## brian + gry (Oct 10, 2008)

Victoria,

We just installed LR2.' and the 2.1RC download. The program still hangs (program not responding) after about 1'-15 minutes of use, have to end the program and reboot. Sometimes when using the loupe, the screen goes black when it zooms in. Sometimes when trying to use the second monitor feature, the second monitor displays an OOM error. Yikes, really buggy!

Hope Adobe is on the job and working on a fix. . .when 2.x starts working like 1.4 it will be awesome.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Oct 11, 2008)

Hi Brain & Gry

I think there's something weird going on with your machine, because the reports on 2.1 have been very positive, and I haven't heard any other reports of OOM errors on 2.1.  What graphics card have you got in that machine?  And OS?  Either way, put in an official report as the engineers will need to know as much as they can.  Official Feature Request/Bug Report Form


----------



## brian + gry (Oct 11, 2008)

Hi Victoria,

Thanks, as always, for your prompt response! We are running XP Pro SP2 (build 26'') and the graphics card is an NVIDIA GeForce 86'' GT. Our machine's configurations have not changed since we ran LR1.3.x and 1.4 and both of those ran fine so I'm not inclined to believe that the problem lies with our machines. We shouldn't have to reconfigure/change out components everytime we upgrade LR should we??

I'll follow your advice and submit a report. If any one knows of any issues with the graphics card we are using or any other suggestions we're all ears. 

Again, it is really frustrating to upgrade a piece of software and have the upgrade not run as well as the previous version on the same machines.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Oct 11, 2008)

No, I'd agree Brian & Gry, you shouldn't have to change components.  It is really odd that it's not working, so definitely worth putting in the report.


----------



## Brad Snyder (Oct 11, 2008)

brian + gry, here's some stuff relating specifically to performance and nVidia. I believe this may have applied to older gear than yours, but perhaps worth a read and a fiddle. (Made a tremendous difference for me on my old nVidia stuff).

nVidia Settings Tip


----------



## brian + gry (Oct 13, 2008)

Brad Snyder said:


> brian + gry, here's some stuff relating specifically to performance and nVidia. I believe this may have applied to older gear than yours, but perhaps worth a read and a fiddle. (Made a tremendous difference for me on my old nVidia stuff).
> 
> nVidia Settings Tip



Thanks Brad, we'll give it a read and let you and everyone else know if it helped! Appreciate your help!


----------



## I Simonius (Oct 14, 2008)

I have notice that the mask lags way behind the brush in adjustment brush- is every one already aware of this?

Also I get te spinning beachball when I change the settings e.g. alter the brightness for a masked area


----------



## daveprice (Oct 21, 2008)

Victoria Bampton said:


> I think there's something weird going on with your machine, because the reports on 2.1 have been very positive, and I haven't heard any other reports of OOM errors on 2.1.



That's easy for you to say with your 14Gigs of RAM and Triple Dual Quad Cores.  You should be able to run _NASA_ on that... :shock: :cheesy:

Meanwhile back in _the real world_...... 

There are lots and lots of Windoze people having 2.' and 2.1RC speed problems.  Sticky sliders, unrepsonsive brushes, the works.  

I have been using LR since 1.1 with an above average Windows machine:

AMD X2 64 Dual 42'' processor
4 Gigs RAM
GeForce 68'' XT with latest unified drivers
XP with Service Pack 3
Dedicated Raptor 1'k rpm scratch drive. 

1.4 positively zips along.  But 2.X releases.....no way are they usable on a day to day basis. 

That said last night I found the thread where its recommended to turn all the 3D settings off.  So I tried it. 

That improves speed by about 75% here  - a vast improvement - but its still "sticky" on the sliders and unresponsive on the brush and grad _just enough _so I'm not about to abandon 1.4 altogether just yet. 

Making the window smaller (I tried half my screen real estate) also speeds it up.  

So it's could well be a screen redraw/refresh function problem?  But then I ask myself why CS3 running ACR 4.6 is fine.  I can move sliders so silky smooth in ACR 4.6 within CS3 its a completely different experience than using LR 2.X 

Got to be Adobe's coding - surely?  No other program (and I have a few) I own runs this sluggish. If they can code ACR 4.6 and LR 1.4 to work properly without the third world national debt in computing power why not Lightroom 2.X?? 

One thing is for sure - I'd hate to try and run LR 2.X with the minimum specced machine...that would be really interesting!


----------



## brian + gry (Oct 22, 2008)

Brad Snyder said:


> brian + gry, here's some stuff relating specifically to performance and nVidia. I believe this may have applied to older gear than yours, but perhaps worth a read and a fiddle. (Made a tremendous difference for me on my old nVidia stuff).
> 
> nVidia Settings Tip




Hey Brad + Victoria,

OK, tried the nVidia tweaks and that may have helped with one of the issues we were having. . .the OOM errors we were getting when zooming or using the second monitor view. 

But, LR still just unexpectedly crashes. . .either it closes abruptly altogether or we get "An Unknown Error Occurred" in white letters on a black screen and the program is just totally unresponsive and we have to restart. Always happens in the develop mode.

We submitted this to Adobe but got no response which I guess is not unusual given the volume of bug reports they probably get. This is very frustrating again since LR 1.3.x and 1.4 ran with no problems on our machines. This has got to be a coding issue within LR since the other versions ran without these problems on the same machines.

Anyway, thanks for your help and if anything/anyone else has suggestions we are all ears.


----------



## Denis Pagé (Oct 22, 2008)

brian + gry said:


> Anyway, thanks for your help and if anything/anyone else has suggestions we are all ears.


Lightroom 2.1 is just released _(not the RC but the final one)_.
Give it a try then...


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Oct 22, 2008)

daveprice said:


> That's easy for you to say with your 14Gigs of RAM and Triple Dual Quad Cores.  You should be able to run _NASA_ on that... :shock: :cheesy:
> 
> Meanwhile back in _the real world_......



Hi Dave

Don't worry, I don't use my machine for a benchmark for speed issues - I'm very worried if it doesn't fly on this thing (and I put in my fair share of bugs reports too!)

My comments were based on real user feedback on a variety of forums, and on a variety of hardware.  2.' speed issues were numerous, but the majority have been fixed in the 2.1 release - and the reports on 2.1 have overall been very positive.  That said, there are still issues that some people are having, that do still need to be addressed.


----------



## I Simonius (Oct 22, 2008)

Denis Pagé said:


> Lightroom 2.1 is just released _(not the RC but the final one)_.
> Give it a try then...



where please - I can't find it on here or adobe ( I did look Im not just being lazy)


----------



## Kiwigeoff (Oct 22, 2008)

I Simonius said:


> where please - I can't find it on here or adobe ( I did look Im not just being lazy)



It is later today for me or maybe tomorrow for you !!:lol:


----------



## Denis Pagé (Oct 22, 2008)

Kiwigeoff said:


> It is later today for me or maybe tomorrow for you !!:lol:


Well, not yet available here neither. :?
Counting minutes tic toc tic toc... 

And to answer Simonius' question, if you deactivated the automatic check for updates, simply go in the help menu and look for "check for updates"... until there is one.


----------



## I Simonius (Oct 22, 2008)

Kiwigeoff said:


> It is later today for me or maybe tomorrow for you !!:lol:



harummpf!:evil:


----------



## I Simonius (Oct 25, 2008)

t answer the dissapeared post ) I just installed it over the RC2.1

Seems ok so far - but not any faster AFAICS


----------



## Chinadobe (Oct 26, 2008)

*Slow?*

I made the move from 1.4.1 to LR2 then 2.1 at the same time I added my 3.'6 GHz iMac (4 GB DDR ram). Left 1.4 on the XP machine and upgraded to LR 2 on the iMac.

In the process, I had to transfer more than 1'',''' images (I need to seriously edit and cull, I know) from a 1TB My Book to a 2TB version. Sometimes LR2 would slow to a crawl.

So as advised by Adobe, I did the relaunch and optimize after one particularly frustrating download, and everything started working quickly again. Since then, after every download, I use relaunch and optimize. 

I download standard previews, and that slows things to a crawl as well. I cannot view the images while downloading, but can after the download when the find-previews processing is working.

All of my images are now on a My Book Studio Edition II (7,2'' RPM) and are being backed up to another. I'm not keeping anything on my iMac hard drive, which I'm saving for work.

After reading this thread, I opened a file on the 2 TB My Book via LR2, opened an image, then clicked develop and began counting. I did not get to "two thousand" and it was open.

So LR2 is working fine on my iMac, but I look forward to seeing how this sorts itself out in future posts.


----------



## I Simonius (Oct 26, 2008)

I still find LR too _frustratingly slow_ and _difficult to be accurate in selections_ to make local adjustments, especialy with the adjustment brush. The time lag if LR is also exporting is quite unworkable but even without other things going on it's too rough and ready really 

I think from now on I'll just use LR for global adjustments and go back tp photoshop for local stuff - I think I have worked with LR long enough now to have given it  afiar chance and have a reasonable enough understanding of what it is and isnt useful for as far as my workflow goes.

Hopefully in future versions the localised adjustments will be more usable on a amcihine such a mine or maybe by nthen I will have upgraded to somnething speedier to make it workable. As it stands it is notpossibale to work with it for any extended time without thinking very derogatory thought s about these localised functions in LR

Better IMHO to concentrate on getting the rest of the program running faster and reliably and stop adding fiddly bits that are - well - fiddly


----------



## Kiwigeoff (Oct 26, 2008)

I Simonius said:


> I still find LR too _frustratingly slow_ and _difficult to be accurate in selections_ to make local adjustments, especialy with the adjustment brush. The time lag if LR is also exporting is quite unworkable but even without other things going on it's too rough and ready really
> 
> I think from now on I'll just use LR for global adjustments and go back tp photoshop for local stuff - I think I have worked with LR long enough now to have given it  afiar chance and have a reasonable enough understanding of what it is and isnt useful for as far as my workflow goes.
> 
> ...



Works ok for me on my very humble system and on a mates Mac that is about the same as yours. I'm sure you must have a conflict somewhere, can you give a bit more info on what applications etc that you may have running,please. cheers - and I hear your frustration and acknowledge your persistence.:cheesy:


----------



## I Simonius (Oct 26, 2008)

Kiwigeoff said:


> Works ok for me on my very humble system and on a mates Mac that is about the same as yours. I'm sure you must have a conflict somewhere, can you give a bit more info on what applications etc that you may have running,please. cheers - and I hear your frustration and acknowledge your persistence.:cheesy:



Only other apps running would be PsCS3 and safari


----------



## a_j (Oct 26, 2008)

Am having same performance issues with 2.1. as with 2.'.--constant 1''% CPU usage (or close to it), slow rendering etc. Have today reinstalled 1.4.1. and it works much better, CPU usage peaks at 7'% or so sometimes, otherwise runs smoothly.


----------



## Brad Snyder (Oct 26, 2008)

A question maybe worth asking, IS, or AJ, either of you folks running antivirus/security stuff?

(This thread is so long, and this problem is so frequently discussed, forgive me if already asked or answered.  )


----------



## a_j (Oct 27, 2008)

Hi Brad,
yes, Sophos Antivirus is running. Will try to turn that off though it does not seem to interfere with LR 1.4.1.
AJ


----------



## Brad Snyder (Oct 27, 2008)

The reason I ask is that LR does a tremendous amount of disk i/o, and if your AV is set to examine all file writes in real time, that has sometimes been reported to create a performance bottleneck. If there's a folder or filetype exclusion setting in the AV monitor, that may be a help.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Aug 7, 2008)

Whilst the majority of people are saying that LR2 is faster than 1.4.1 for normal tasks, there are some reports of LR2 being slower, but just saying it's slow doesn't give the team anywhere to start looking.  Ignoring the local adjustments, which have no point of comparison, specifics would be useful.

So, those who are having problems, could we please have:


 OS: (Windows XP SP3, OS X 1'.4.11 etc)
 32-bit or 64-bit
Where are the files stored (Internal hard drive, external hard drive, NAS)
 Specifics comparisons with earlier versions ("It takes 39 seconds for Loading to disappear in Develop but 1.4.1 only took 8 seconds"... that specific)
Anything else that you might find relevant
Hopefully then the engineers will be able to get fixes into the next release quickly.


----------



## a_j (Oct 27, 2008)

I added NEF-files and the external harddrive to the list of exceptions for Sophos Antivirus but, alas, cannot see a change. Something else I noticed is that exporting to Flickr and Smugmug via the plugins seems to be getting slower and slower. On LR 1.4.1., it moves right along. I do not recall LR 2.', when I first installed it,  being as sluggish as it and LR 2.1 then became .


----------



## I Simonius (Oct 27, 2008)

Brad Snyder said:


> A question maybe worth asking, IS, or AJ, either of you folks running antivirus/security stuff?
> 
> (This thread is so long, and this problem is so frequently discussed, forgive me if already asked or answered.  )



Anti-virus? Yach - ptui! ( that's a no)


----------



## a_j (Oct 28, 2008)

Looks like I found the problem. I created a new catalog in LR2.1 and noticed that cpu was not going up, only spikes when rendering images. So it was not a problem independent of the catalog. Imported all images from the old LR2.1 catalog. Now, with all 12,''' images loaded into it, cpu no longer hovers close to or at 1''%. LR2.1 not superfast now, but not as sluggish as before.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Oct 29, 2008)

That's good to hear AJ


----------



## Chinadobe (Apr 25, 2009)

Earlier, I wrote that if I had problems with speed I simply re-optimized and it solved everything.

But now, whenever I'm loading pics into LR, everything comes to a halt. I cannot even "minimize" LR to wait it out. Cannot look a pics. It doesn't hang up; it's just slow as it can be without hanging.

I'm still using LR1.4 on my other machine, and I can view pics while loading and no problem using other programs while this is taking place.

Since I've loaded LR2 (now 2.3) on an iMac with 4GB ram, I'm pretty disappointed.

I've tried to keep my hard drive lean and mean, but have about 15',''' images on a 2TB external hard drive (WD) that I put there via LR.

I am no computer geek, but I've read elsewhere that there's speed issues with Macs in general in that some chip configurations are faster than others.

But this this so far over my head, I don't know where to turn next.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Apr 25, 2009)

Ok Dukes, let's start at the top.  For a start, on your 2.3 machine, have you checked whether it's running in 32-bit or 64-bit mode, how many other programs you have running, and how much RAM is still free?

Next, have you tried with a fresh catalog, and see whether that works fast, as that can help narrow down where the problem is occuring?

And next, we could do with knowing exactly which parts of LR are going slowly - real specifics like 'I launch the import dialog and it takes forever to come up' or 'it takes a long time loading the picture in Develop module before I can start adjusting it' or 'it beachballs when I click Quick Develop buttons' - anything like that will help narrow down where your problem is occuring.

It'll also be useful to know which camera, where the catalog is stored (internal vs. external) and how the external is connected too.  That should get us going!


----------



## I Simonius (May 6, 2009)

sorry to bang on about this but i am still very frustrated:evil:

I know I have what is now an old mac [dual PPC] and have huge files from the 5D2 BUT LR is *very* much slower than DPP at scrolling and rendering thumbs and so slow at so much  else that it's frustrating the blazes out of me.

I suppose if DPP wasnt so much faster I would accept it's just big files and old comp combo, but as it is I find it hard to accept.

*The library scrolls so slow* sometimes I am not sure its even responding [e.g. in a collection of 9'' images] 

and in develop the adjustment brush makes its own mind up as to when its going to get up for work. *The changes using the sliders* in the adjustments panels are farsical, I wait and wait, then try again just as it responds and hence I undo the change I was trying for, or overdo it. Talk about sluggish - its really not workable!

Other things work ok in develop module, its just when I try to use any of the local adjustment tools.

Sorry but it is very frustrating and , well , dissappointing


----------



## Victoria Bampton (May 6, 2009)

I'm really sorry Simon, but you said it yourself.... big files and old computer.  

You could try the speed tips in my latest blog post http://www.lightroomqueen.com/blog/2''9/'5/'2/hurry-up-lightroom-the-best-speed-tips/ and see if they make any difference.  

If they don't, I hate to say this, but you have a choice - use another program which does perform well on your current spec, or buy a new computer to go with your new super-camera.  It is one of the joys of fast moving tecnology I'm afraid....


----------



## I Simonius (May 6, 2009)

Victoria Bampton said:


> I'm really sorry Simon, but you said it yourself.... big files and old computer.
> 
> You could try the speed tips in my latest blog post http://www.lightroomqueen.com/blog/2''9/'5/'2/hurry-up-lightroom-the-best-speed-tips/ and see if they make any difference.
> 
> If they don't, I hate to say this, but you have a choice - use another program which does perform well on your current spec, or buy a new computer to go with your new super-camera.  It is one of the joys of fast moving tecnology I'm afraid....



humph!:evil: I can't afford another computer until next year as I am buying  a big printer next

The slow library I can understand being due to file size, but why are the local adjustments so lethargic? Surely they should be nearly as fast as Photoshop(which is MUCH faster)? 

 I have no problems working with Ps on this machine, so I guess It's the contrast in speed between LR and Ps or DPP that makes me suspect it's more than just the age of the Mac and file size that is the bottleneck:?


----------



## Victoria Bampton (May 6, 2009)

Local adjustments are a completely different ballgame to PS.  If you're having trouble with speed, I'd stick to PS for those kind of adjustments.


----------



## I Simonius (May 6, 2009)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Local adjustments are a completely different ballgame to PS.  If you're having trouble with speed, I'd stick to PS for those kind of adjustments.



I would but... to get some of the useful features I would have to open them in ACR and lose (presumably) the other adjustments I had made in LR

There seems to be no easy solution workflow-wise


----------



## Victoria Bampton (May 6, 2009)

Oh you mean the local adjustments in ACR are quicker than in LR?  I thought you meant doing brush strokes in PS.

ACR for CS4?  Make your other changes in LR, and hit cmd-S to save the xmp.  Switch to ACR to do the local adjustments.  When you come back to LR, go to metadata menu > read metadata from files to pull the changes back in...


----------



## I Simonius (May 6, 2009)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Oh you mean the local adjustments in ACR are quicker than in LR?  I thought you meant doing brush strokes in PS.
> 
> ACR for CS4?  Make your other changes in LR, and hit cmd-S to save the xmp.  Switch to ACR to do the local adjustments.  When you come back to LR, go to metadata menu > read metadata from files to pull the changes back in...



I need to double check that it's true but assuming it is thanks for a great tip!
(how come you know _everything_?:cheesy


----------



## Victoria Bampton (May 6, 2009)

LOL  I don't know _everything_.... I just learn from you guys asking questions, and you're all really good at it!


----------



## Mark Sirota (May 6, 2009)

Who's up for a game of "Stump Victoria"?  Lightroom-related questions only.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (May 6, 2009)

ROFL Mark!!  I'm meant to be working (and yet somehow I've ended up procrastinating and scanning and shredding........)


----------



## Chinadobe (May 9, 2009)

Victoria: Sorry to take so long to get back to you. Very busy. Also, this note may seem a bit jumbled but I started writing it, then decided to do an import to get the numbers you asked for. Sorry to everyone for what may seem a ramble.

You wrote: "Ok Dukes, let's start at the top. For a start, on your 2.3 machine, have you checked whether it's running in 32-bit or 64-bit mode, how many other programs you have running, and how much RAM is still free?

"Next, have you tried with a fresh catalog, and see whether that works fast, as that can help narrow down where the problem is occuring?

"And next, we could do with knowing exactly which parts of LR are going slowly - real specifics like 'I launch the import dialog and it takes forever to come up' or 'it takes a long time loading the picture in Develop module before I can start adjusting it' or 'it beachballs when I click Quick Develop buttons' - anything like that will help narrow down where your problem is occuring.

"It'll also be useful to know which camera, where the catalog is stored (internal vs. external) and how the external is connected too. That should get us going!"

CJD Answers: I'm using 32 bit.

I seldom download directly to the iMac since I usually shoot early in the morning and download via LR 1.4 at the office to an external hard drive (Hitachi Travelstar, NTFS, 54'' RPM) at the office. Later, I transfer from the hard drive via the iMac and Firewire 8'' to the 2TB WD external hard drive that I use for LR images and files only. I store backed up LR catalogs on another WD 1TB external hard drive via Firewire 4''.

For this note, I began an import of 338 images at 21:'6 hours. It's actually going faster than normal with Firefox and Entourage open. Import completed at 21:28 hours. Much faster than normal.

Memory on iMac says:

Wired 531.3' MB
Active 1.29 GB
Inactive 381.48 MB
Used 2.41 GB

CPU: % User (max at about 51.98)

On the activity monitor (something I hadn't noticed before) next to the Lightroom entry on the list the "Lightroom" not responding... warning comes on for a few seconds at a time, then goes off then returns and so on.

If I try to move the cursor (even without clicking anything) I get a beachball. I cannot view an image while importing. I cannot scroll as I often do at the office.

Because things have been so slow, I usually do not use other programs when downloading from the external drive. Usually, I do this overnight because it takes so long.

The last transfer was 347 images (equal mix of "large fine jpegs" and "compressed NEF" files), and it took about eight hours. On my D3, I capture both jpeg and NEF files almost all the time. I download Jpegs with NEF so I can view and edit both.

Version 1.4 at the office downloads them just fine and I can view the images as they download (6 year-old Dell desktop (?), 2GB ram). On 2.3, when transferring files, I get beach balls if I try to do anything. I cannot even use "Hide Lightroom" when importing images. LR hangs only occasionally (I've reported these via the system) but runs painfully slow. As the images build up in LR (and on the WD 2TB external hard drive), it gets slower and slower. Sometimes I stop the import and re-optimize; this speeds things up a bit.

When importing, I use the 144'px standard preview set to "medium" quality and discard 1:1 after 3' days.

By all means, the biggest problem is in importing files, and there seems to be no difference in speed whether importing from a CF card (SanDisk 8GB Ducatis) or the external hard drive. Both are very slow and I get beach balls if I try to do anything. I can only access other programs, like e-mail or Word (for Mac) via the tool bar at the bottom of the screen. Whether I use other programs like e-mail or iTunes seems to make no difference.

Sometimes I can "Hide Lightroom" using the tool bar; usually, I cannot.

Re: catalogues: As Martin Evening suggested, I put everything in one "Photo" catalog and use metadata and keywords to sort.

Once I get everything into LR 2.3 everything works at least as quickly as the 1.4 on the Dell at the office. (I think it's 2.3; I constantly get prompted to upgrade to 2.3, and I have, but when I click on "About Lightroom..." I get Version 2.' - 481478 on the splash box.

For this note (when not importing), I clicked from Library to the other modules; times were as follows: to Develop, 3.5 seconds; Slide Show, 1 second; Print, instantaneous; Web, 9 seconds to see images from 547 image catalog file.

Now, this is a LR forum, but I'll throw this in for what it's worth: I have the latest version of DxO Elite. Today, I tried to search my WD 2TB external drive for an image, but I never got all the thumbnails to light up (no other programs running).

My iMac is 3.'6 GHz, 4GB Ram, Intel Core Duo. Storage devices are WD 1TB and a second 2TB (has photo files). D3 has most recent Nikon firmware, but I never download from the camera.


----------



## Brad Snyder (May 9, 2009)

Chinadobe said:


> Once I get everything into LR 2.3 everything works at least as quickly as the 1.4 on the Dell at the office. (I think it's 2.3; I constantly get prompted to upgrade to 2.3, and I have, but when I click on "About Lightroom..." I get Version 2.' - 481478 on the splash box.



That's not Lr 2.3, which has a build number of 5394'7.  

To be honest, any discussion of performance on a 2.x version prior to 2.3 is pointless. V2.3 consolidated numerous bug fixes and performance enhancements. 

If the auto upgrade is not working for you, try downloading and installing 2.3 directly from Adobe. It will install directly over your existing 2.x, with no effect on your existing data or configuration.


----------



## Chinadobe (May 10, 2009)

thank you Brad. I will try this. I was wondering why LR2 kept prompting me to upgrade. I thought I had.

BTW: Since my import last night went so fast, I decided to do another this morning: 1,'86 images (almost equal mix of large, fine jpegs and NEFs). After 1.5 hours, I'm about halfway through the download. Free RAM 2.16 GB: Used RAM 1.82 GB.

I have no idea how normal or abnormal these times and rates are.

dukes


----------



## Chinadobe (May 10, 2009)

Whoa Nellie! (Or Brad)

Did what you suggested: the very definition of vast improvement.

Demands on CPU dropped by half. Not sure about memory readings.

I started trying to download 1,'86 images this morning. As I noted above, 1.5 hours got me nearly halfway through so I stopped and returned to the LR forum to see if anyone had responded. Brad, you did.

After downloading 2.3, I re-imported the images using "Don't re-import suspected duplicates", and the remaining more than 5'' images were imported within a matter of minutes. Just great.

Haven't tried the tools yet.


----------

