# Lightroom 4.1 Speed vs 3.6



## flashpixx (Jun 18, 2012)

Got the opportunity yesterday to use LR 4.1 in a "real world" environment. Had 1,111 Nikon D3s RAW images to Import, Develop and Export.

I am running both 3.6 and 4.1 on the same machine but each refers to a different Catalog. Machine in running Win 7 32 Bit with 4GB RAM Quad Core i5 M430 @ 2.27GHz. 

I didn't time the import for 4.1 as compared to 3.6 but it did seem inordinately long for only 1,000 or so images.

The following tasks in 4.1 took 3 - 5 seconds compared with less than one second in 3.6



select an image in Library and open in Develop
open Crop
close crop when Done is clicked
Paste Develop parameters from another image in the Library

Exporting a single image to the hard drive is similarly slower.

After using 4.1 for the evening I quite like the resulting image, it has more pop and a more pleasing sheen or smoothness. While the slowness is annoying it wasn't bad enough for me to not want to use 4.1

I wonder if uninstalling 3.6 would make any difference?


----------



## ukbrown (Jun 18, 2012)

Is that all tasks too 3-5 seconds or each item in the bullet list took 3-5s?

IF I click crop and then then click crop again the open and close is instant, so I am not sure where the timings come in.

Similarily sync in develop module takes very little time on my machine, the background work after you click may go on for 20-30 seconds to sync lots of photos and update thumbnails.

So in summary I am not too sure what you are timing because it is so much different from my experience.


----------



## flashpixx (Jun 18, 2012)

ukbrown said:


> Is that all tasks too 3-5 seconds or each item in the bullet list took 3-5s?
> 
> IF I click crop and then then click crop again the open and close is instant, so I am not sure where the timings come in.
> 
> ...



thanks for your reply. The timings are for each dot point task - ie 3 to 5 seconds to open crop and 3-5 to close it again. Using LR 3.6 it was almost instantaneous.


----------



## pknight (Jun 18, 2012)

Indeed, it does seem that the first time you use a feature in 4.1 it takes longer than it does subsequent times.  For example, the first time I take an image into the Develop module during a session it takes several seconds.  Subsequent images are opened in Develop almost instantly.


----------



## ukbrown (Jun 18, 2012)

The 3-5 seconds to open and close the crop tool worry me as this near to 0.2s on my PC.  In the develop module when I press R twice it happens as quick as the screen can redraw.  I am not too sure why it would take this long on your PC.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jun 18, 2012)

I'd be interested to know whether you see the same slowness with LR4 set to PV2010.  If not, perhaps knowing which settings you're using would help narrow it down.


----------



## flashpixx (Jun 19, 2012)

Victoria Bampton said:


> I'd be interested to know whether you see the same slowness with LR4 set to PV2010.  If not, perhaps knowing which settings you're using would help narrow it down.



PV2010?

System Info

Lightroom version: 4.1 [829322]
Operating system: Windows 7 Home Premium Edition
Version: 6.1 [7601]
Application architecture: x86
System architecture: x86
Physical processor count: 4
Processor speed: 2.2 GHz
Built-in memory: 2546.6 MB
Real memory available to Lightroom: 716.8 MB
Real memory used by Lightroom: 255.5 MB (35.6%)
Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 254.7 MB
Memory cache size: 63.5 MB
System DPI setting: 96 DPI
Desktop composition enabled: No
Displays: 1) 1920x1080


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jun 19, 2012)

PV2010 is the old sliders.  You'll find the setting in the Camera Calibration panel.  The new sliders are much more processor intensive, but the old sliders should behave at a similar speed to LR3.  There are some minor differences because the noise reduction is now always applied to the Develop preview, but apart from that, I'd expect it to be close.


----------



## flashpixx (Jun 23, 2012)

Victoria Bampton said:


> PV2010 is the old sliders.  You'll find the setting in the Camera Calibration panel.  The new sliders are much more processor intensive, but the old sliders should behave at a similar speed to LR3.  There are some minor differences because the noise reduction is now always applied to the Develop preview, but apart from that, I'd expect it to be close.



Thanks ma'am Queen, I'll try and let you know. Can I get all images in the folder to be in PV2010, without having to do it one by one? They are currently all in PV2012.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Jun 23, 2012)

Select them all, go into Develop, turn on Autosync, choose 2010 from the Process box in the Camera Calibration panel. Done.

If you don't normally use Autosync, don't forget to turn it off again after you're done!


----------



## flashpixx (Jun 23, 2012)

TNG said:


> Select them all, go into Develop, turn on Autosync, choose 2010 from the Process box in the Camera Calibration panel. Done.
> 
> If you don't normally use Autosync, don't forget to turn it off again after you're done!



Thanks Jim


----------



## flashpixx (Jun 23, 2012)

Victoria Bampton said:


> PV2010 is the old sliders.  You'll find the setting in the Camera Calibration panel.  The new sliders are much more processor intensive, but the old sliders should behave at a similar speed to LR3.  There are some minor differences because the noise reduction is now always applied to the Develop preview, but apart from that, I'd expect it to be close.



Thank you. That fixed the speed issue, just like 3.6 now  What am I losing, apart from the sliders, by using 4.1 with PV2010, rather than 4.1 with PV2012? What is the difference between LR3.6 and 4.1 with PV2010?

I wondering if it is worth backing up all my data, reformatting the harddrive and installing Win 7 64 bit. That way I can use the 8 Gb of RAM I have installed.

Thanks again Jim too for your guidance


----------



## Jim Wilde (Jun 23, 2012)

What you lose if you stay with PV2010 in LR4.1 is the ability to use what is generally accepted as a superior develop engine, especially when dealing with trickier shots requiring highlight/shadow detail recovery. But if you stay with LR4.1 you could perhaps stay with PV2010 for the majority of your processing, with the option to take individual images into PV2012 where you feel you need access to its improved controls. Also you'd lose access to having all the basic development tools available as local adjustments. All other new features would, however, be available.

If you're comfortable doing it, installing 64bit Win7 would be worth trying, especially getting access to that extra 4gb of RAM.


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Jun 23, 2012)

Actually, the way that LR is set up, you'll get access to more than just 4 GB. On 32-bit OS's, LR limits itself to using less than one GB. It shows up when you issue the Help/System Info... command. Yours shows 716.8 MB of real memory available to LR. Mine shows over 10 times that amount. If your machine is 64-bit capable, it makes no sense to run a 32-bit OS.

Hal


----------



## flashpixx (Jun 24, 2012)

Hal P Anderson said:


> Actually, the way that LR is set up, you'll get access to more than just 4 GB. On 32-bit OS's, LR limits itself to using less than one GB. It shows up when you issue the Help/System Info... command. Yours shows 716.8 MB of real memory available to LR. Mine shows over 10 times that amount. If your machine is 64-bit capable, it makes no sense to run a 32-bit OS.
> 
> Hal



Thanks Hal, looks like I've a weeks work ahead of me. Just as well I have the week off.

Best Gordon


----------



## flashpixx (Jun 25, 2012)

well I'll be buttered on both sides!

there were a few broken links in the Catalog so I removed them all and optimised the Catalog. Shut LR4.1 down ran a backup and optimisation.

Started LR4.1 and imported about 30 images into an existing folder, and started developing them. I didn't realise but I was using PV2012.... no slowness, no sticky sliders,

Dunno if I've stumbled on some sort of fix....


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jun 25, 2012)

Excellent!  I'm going to bet that it was the optimize that helped - there were some code changes in 4.1 that now optimizes the preview cache at the same time.


----------

