Lightroom 4 power hungry?

RevLinePhoto

All I can say is on windows LR4 seams a little power hungry I feel it is not runing as smothly as intended.With my computer build it should have not even have the slightest hickup yet moving the white balance slider or even exposure slider seams to take a second to render the results with a raw from a 30d.

system specs
AMD Penom II x6 1055T 2.81 GHz
8.0gig DDR3 1333
7200 sata drive
Windows 7 Ultimate
EVGA Gforce 560GTX 2gig
resolution 1920 x 1080

However with my Macbook pro 13" 2011 it seams to be runing fne with almost instant results with raws from a 7D which are much larger.
2.7Ghz Intel Core I7
4GB DDR3 1333
Intel HD Graphics 3000 384mb
500GB 7200 sata

Is anybody else haveing the same results.

lifeinfocus

RevLinePhoto wrote: »

All I can say is on windows LR4 seams a little power hungry I feel it is not runing as smothly as intended.With my computer build it should have not even have the slightest hickup yet moving the white balance slider or even exposure slider seams to take a second to render the results with a raw from a 30d.

system specs
AMD Penom II x6 1055T 2.81 GHz
8.0gig DDR3 1333
7200 sata drive
Windows 7 Ultimate
EVGA Gforce 560GTX 2gig
resolution 1920 x 1080

However with my Macbook pro 13" 2011 it seams to be runing fne with almost instant results with raws from a 7D which are much larger.
2.7Ghz Intel Core I7
4GB DDR3 1333
Intel HD Graphics 3000 384mb
500GB 7200 sata

Is anybody else haveing the same results.

These are the system requirements:
Windows

• Intel® Pentium® 4 or AMD Athlon® 64 processor
• Microsoft® Windows Vista® with Service Pack 2 or Windows® 7 with Service Pack 1
• 2GB of RAM
• 1GB of available hard-disk space
• 1024x768 display
• DVD-ROM drive

Mac OS

• Multicore Intel processor with 64-bit support
• Mac OS X v10.6.8 or v10.7
• 2GB of RAM
• 1GB of available hard-disk space
• 1024x768 display
• DVD-ROM drive

Phil

Zerodog

Mine seems a little slow too. At least compared to 3.6

lifeinfocus

Zerodog wrote: »

Mine seems a little slow too. At least compared to 3.6

Just wondering, are both of you using a 64 bit OS?

Phil

catspaw

local photographers here have commented on this as well, especially on laptops compared to imacs, but it's not quite quantifiable

Pupator

Mine seems slow on my Macbook Air - slower than 3.6 was at least. I haven't been home yet to try it on the desktop (Windows, i7, 12GB RAM).

RevLinePhoto

Im sorry I forgot that yes I am running 64bit on a personal built computer so I know there is no junk operating in the background.

I am going to speend some time tonight adjusting some settings and see what happens. I have read that they are not taking advantage of graphics processors to take any of the work load. However even with a six core processor I should have no problem. Only thing i can think of right now is maybe they are not taking advantage of multi core processors very well. Seams how the minimal spec still includes single core processors.

MarkR

For what little I've done, seems snappy enough on my two year old iMac.

RevLinePhoto

Reading the Lightroom forums I have found is lightroom has a tendancy to run slowly while using a updated catalog. If you create a new catalog and load freshly shot photos it does seam to increase in some performance. Not that this is a real fix but I guess it may help some windows users.

Zerodog

So for me at first it seemed to run very slow. But this was with old catalogs. Importing new files and running from a new catalog it seems to be fine. Maybe slightly, SLIGHTLY, slower. But the detail it renders is worth it. This is HUGE. It seems to improve the from the quick preview than get worse. With 2 or 3 you would import photos and see this great looking bright preview, then it would switch to the LR rendering. Flatter and darker. Less like your in camera preview. This is when working with RAW files. LR4 might actually be better than this initial preview. And very close to what I am seeing in the view finder. Very nice indeed. I am still trying to figure out what the new basic exposure sliders effect. So far so good with it.

basflt

if you import an old catalog , you can upgrade from old process (2010) to the new process (2012) by clicking the big ! icon

Pupator

So is the consensus that when I get home and start this up on my desktop (primary photo machine) I should create a new catalog going forward rather than importing my existing (five years' worth of photos) catalog?

basflt

Pupator wrote: »

So is the consensus that when I get home and start this up on my desktop (primary photo machine) I should create a new catalog going forward rather than importing my existing (five years' worth of photos) catalog?

why not both ?

Pupator

To compare, you mean?

basflt

no
it is a good idea to have several catalogs , rather then one
LR allready imports your old one ( called Beta )
beside that better make a new one ( one per year for example ) , it wont take much disk-space

as for comparing , click on the ! icon in develop section
with this tool you can compare difference , convert one photo and convert entire folder

Pupator

I wasn't talking about that kind of comparison.

I care about performance. My question meant to ask: is it better that I create a new catalog for images moving forward with LR4 or will I get the same performance by importing my existing catalog? I know that some folks have a 1 catalog per year or 1 catalog per event workflow but I don't. I have 1 catalog for my family pictures and 1 catalog for pictures I take for a NFP organization.

When I switched from LR 2 to 3 and from 3 to 3.5 and 3.6 performance was not an issue for my catalog. Is the consensus that it might be for LR4 and thus a new catalog is warranted?

Richard

Wait--isn't a catalog the same as a database? I would think you lose much of the power of a database if you have a bunch of them. Which database was that pic in?

basflt

Richard wrote: »

Wait--isn't a catalog the same as a database? I would think you lose much of the power of a database if you have a bunch of them. Which database was that pic in?

thats true
you could just use the old one , wont make no different on speed
but i think it is better to convert to new precess version , instead of using the previous

cmason

FWIW, Jeffrey Friedl mentioned in his blog post about his new LR4 plugins that LR4 does alot of hidden, background processing of images in the database, especially for geo-encoded stuff, and that there is no indication that it is doing it and it really slows LR4 down. My guess is that if you leave it running for a few days, it might noticeably improve once it gets through doing whatever its doing. It can't confirm, because I won't be moving to LR4 until I get a new machine

Pupator

cmason wrote: »

FWIW, Jeffrey Friedl mentioned in his blog post about his new LR4 plugins that LR4 does alot of hidden, background processing of images in the database, especially for geo-encoded stuff, and that there is no indication that it is doing it and it really slows LR4 down. My guess is that if you leave it running for a few days, it might noticeably improve once it gets through doing whatever its doing. It can't confirm, because I won't be moving to LR4 until I get a new machine

Thanks, I'll give this a try. I'm traveling for 5 days next week so I'll start LR4 and leave it open while I'm gone.

Blackwood

Also, watch for it building 1:1 previews for an upgraded catalog.

My first import was really peppy. Second import everything was dragging, and my Previews folder was north of 25GB. I manually deleted all 1:1 previews and it's back to good performance.

RevLinePhoto

I found a slight remidy while playing with settings, if you are a canon user convert your cr2 file to dng if working with raws seams to speed the adjustment reactions up a small bit. However while spot editing if you are taking out many spots it still seams to slow down ( I was taking gravel of the ground sadly 50 pluss pieces).

chuckdee1

Power hungry...I big reason why I'm not switching from LR3! Efficiency saves time and time is money...for me anyways.