# Speeding up "Export" - possible, worthwhile?



## bardwellpeter (Jul 19, 2018)

Just wondering, although not keen to spend the money to speed things up, but which of my PC's various shortcomings is the most likely cause of it taking perhaps 30 seconds to export a 2048 pixel long-side JPG from a 12MP RAW file (one that has, admittedly, undergone quite a lot of local adjustments etc etc etc)?

Essentially.... it's a fairly basic, four year old Dell 3847 desktop, running Windows 10 and latest LR Classic, with...

Intel i5-4460 Processor (6M Cache, up to 3.4 GHz)

8GB Dual Channel DDR3 1600MHz (4GBx2)

Plenty of space on the hard disk that's my C drive, but with Windows Defender possibly checking the file during / after creation?

Or perhaps that's about as good as it gets!

Thanks, Peter


----------



## Jim Wilde (Jul 19, 2018)

It may be "as good as it gets". The problem is almost certainly the "quite a lot of local adjustments", as any edited image will take longer to export than an equivalent unedited one. I just exported a 22mp image, which has had a lot of local adjustments applied, and it took around 20 seconds. A Tif version of the same file, edited in PS to apply more adjustments (thus all those local adjustments made in LR were baked in), was exported in around 1 second.

More RAM might help a little, but no guarantees. Have you tried exporting an unedited file, just to get a benchmark?


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Jul 19, 2018)

As a general rule (which like all general rule means there are exceptions) it is processor speed that helps the most.  And since around 7.2 or so number of cores can help (though for a single file at once maybe not), and the i5-4460 if I recall is not hyper-threaded so it looks like 4 cores all the time.

So short version is the processor is likely the main culprit, and also the least likely to be fixable as it usually requires a new motherboard, which often needs new peripherals, and why put in a 4 year old HDD.... so it's really new computer time if you really want it faster.  And even a higher end desktop rarely makes lightroom run FAST, just a bit faster.  If I had to make a wild guess, spend $2000 on a new computer and it's going to be half again to twice as fast,.  Emphasis on guess.

Adobe has made great inroads on performance, but LR is still pretty slow in a lot of operations.


----------



## LouieSherwin (Jul 19, 2018)

Peter,

I would recommend increasing RAM to at least 16GB.  Current releases of Lightroom are now taking advantage of more memory. It used to be that it only used up to 4 GB even if you had more. You might not see an improvement with single images because of the issues already mentioned but you might expect improvement when doing a batch of images. 

-louie


----------



## bardwellpeter (Jul 19, 2018)

Thanks to you both!

Jim - I could but laugh... tried to time a similar export from a very similar but unedited RAW file, only to hear LR bong to say the job was done before I'd finished starting my watch's timer! 

So I guess it's all those extra calculations my sad old processor is having to make.... Thanks heavens I've not got a camera over 20MP, and rarely do as much intricate work as the original "offender" had needed?

Changing one of the 4GB RAMs to 8GB doesn't look to be overly expensive, so I've bookmarked a vendor's page and that can be a little project for autumn's first rainy days... and can make a decision re doing the other one, depending on results from the first.

But the time I'd save certainly isn't worth the UK cost of the sort of new PC that $2000 buys in the States!

Thanks once more, and to Louie, whose post has just appeared,
Peter


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Jul 19, 2018)

bardwellpeter said:


> Changing one of the 4GB RAMs to 8GB doesn't look to be overly expensive, so I've bookmarked a vendor's page and that can be a little project for autumn's first rainy days... and can make a decision re doing the other one, depending on results from the first.


Check carefully for your motherboard if you can do mis-matched sizes.  On some the answer is no, on some the answer is yes but it slows down access.  One some you can add a third board and that also may slow down access.


----------



## bardwellpeter (Jul 19, 2018)

Thanks, but it's something I've had to do at least twice before! 
Motherboards with further slots would a much better solution, rather than rendering the original memory redundant.,, although there are only two spaces in this instance - however the vendor...

Computer Memory | Laptop Memory | RAM Upgrade | SSD

.... claims to check, and then sell memory either in pairs, for machines built that way - or singly, only where such arrangement are OK..

But yes, some of the possible benefit may indeed be lost until / unless I double my spend!


----------



## PhilBurton (Jul 19, 2018)

Ferguson said:


> Check carefully for your motherboard if you can do mis-matched sizes.  On some the answer is no, on some the answer is yes but it slows down access.  One some you can add a third board and that also may slow down access.


And also check to see if your motherboard needs DDR3 or DDR memory.  New systems typically use DDR4.  Older ones, depending on age, probably use DDR3.

Phil


----------



## bardwellpeter (Jul 19, 2018)

PhilBurton said:


> And also check to see if your motherboard needs DDR3 or DDR memory.  New systems typically use DDR4.  Older ones, depending on age, probably use DDR3.
> 
> Phil



Might I refer you to the opening post?


----------



## Jetze Posthuma (Jul 19, 2018)

Maybe consider the use Photoshop for pictures needing a lot of edits?
Regards Jetze


----------



## bardwellpeter (Jul 19, 2018)

Jetze Posthuma said:


> Maybe consider the use Photoshop for pictures needing a lot of edits?
> Regards Jetze


Indeed a good idea, if only I could learn how to tell beforehand!  
Regards, Peter


----------



## Jetze Posthuma (Jul 19, 2018)

I used to work on a slow laptop making every local edit a slow down torture...

Besides that I've learned PS to be much easier/better equiped in applying local edits.
So I've started to use LR for it's great catalog and the basics and then when I think I need to do more I open PS.
I've learned this after years of neglecting PS....
Regards, Jetze


----------



## AlanHaynes.com (Aug 5, 2018)

Take a look at this article from PugetSystems.com: "_*Lightroom Classic CC Version 7.2 Performance*__*."  *_They make computer systems specifically for Lightroom and have done a lot of testing of various components. The quick answer, according to them, is that the latest version of Lightroom makes good use of multiple CPU cores when exporting images. They suggest 8 cores if you do a lot of exporting.

Alan


----------

