It is official Lightroom 4 is snail slow

2»

Comments

  • ZerodogZerodog Registered Users Posts: 1,480 Major grins
    edited April 9, 2012
    Got to try the standard SM uploader LR 4 plug in. It might be even slower :( Next I am trying this 4.1. All is great but the upload.
  • ZerodogZerodog Registered Users Posts: 1,480 Major grins
    edited April 10, 2012
    Zerodog wrote: »
    Got to try the standard SM uploader LR 4 plug in. It might be even slower :( Next I am trying this 4.1. All is great but the upload.


    I must be missing something. Going through the LR publish services sucks. Not seeing options for Water Marking. Spent over 1 hr loading 50 images to have a wrong watermark show up. Not seeing were to replace it. I am giving up tonight. Went back to JF uploader. Another 1hr or so to update the 50. This is ridiculous. I know now why I stuck with the JF uploader and export, not publish services. I tried this a long time ago and remember why I don't like it. It is too "easy" with the trees and all. I just want a list. And when I select the ones I want, upload those. Don't show me a little preview and ask which one..........for every pic in a gallery. Yeah I picked em. I want to overwrite em. I am tired and going to bed.
  • CoreyDCoreyD Registered Users Posts: 33 Big grins
    edited April 10, 2012
    I have heard of several users with nVidia video cards having issues until updating the video card drivers. nVidia released mew drivers a few weeks ago that do seem to make a difference.
    The shortest distance between two points is........grossly over rated!
    http://www.deardsphotography.com
  • basfltbasflt Registered Users Posts: 1,882 Major grins
    edited April 10, 2012
    CoreyD wrote: »
    I have heard of several users with nVidia video cards having issues until updating the video card drivers. nVidia released mew drivers a few weeks ago that do seem to make a difference.
    you heard correct
    it is must better with latest nVidia-driver wings.gif
  • BlackwoodBlackwood Registered Users Posts: 313 Major grins
    edited April 12, 2012
    I'm convinced much of it is hard disk related. I added an SSD into my workflow. Now I import to and work in temp catalogs on the SATA3 flash drive and only when I'm done do I import that catalog into my archive on large slower spinning drives.

    Superficially, it feels much faster and more responsive. Now I'm considering raiding flash drives!

    Converting the DNG on import with the quick load option seems to help a little.
  • thebigskythebigsky Registered Users Posts: 1,052 Major grins
    edited April 14, 2012
    I just upgraded from LR 2 and it's dog slow in comparison, in fact it's so slow I'm convinced there's something wrong somewhere.

    Maybe my Mac Pro is finally starting to look a bit long in the tooth, although everything else seems to be running ok.

    Charlie
  • theprincereturnstheprincereturns Registered Users Posts: 132 Major grins
    edited April 16, 2012
    Hum. . . that is the first I heard of an nVidia related issue. Mine LR4 is definitly running dog slow, and I have tried just about everything else anyone has listed. Will definitly try the nVidia driver update when i get home today.
    CoreyD wrote: »
    I have heard of several users with nVidia video cards having issues until updating the video card drivers. nVidia released mew drivers a few weeks ago that do seem to make a difference.
  • thebigskythebigsky Registered Users Posts: 1,052 Major grins
    edited April 17, 2012
    I've optimised the catalogue and that has improved things a bit. However I've noticed that the main performance hit happens when editing files that already have edits associated with them from the previous version.

    If I edit a previously untouched file the performance is quite acceptable.

    Charlie
  • PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited April 17, 2012
    Mine is not running "snail slow," but it is slower than LR3 was.

    I've tried rearranging my catalog and files to see of that helps. I now have:

    1) LR installed on my primary drive (internal SSD)
    2) LR catalog saved to external ssd (via USB 3)
    3) Photo files saved to internal storage drive (7200rpm)
  • BlackwoodBlackwood Registered Users Posts: 313 Major grins
    edited April 18, 2012
    Pupator wrote: »
    Mine is not running "snail slow," but it is slower than LR3 was.

    I've tried rearranging my catalog and files to see of that helps. I now have:

    1) LR installed on my primary drive (internal SSD)
    2) LR catalog saved to external ssd (via USB 3)
    3) Photo files saved to internal storage drive (7200rpm)

    That's sorta like mine except the in-work photos are on the same (internal) SSD as the LR catalog. Like you, LR is installed on a separate SSD.

    Do you find having the photos on a separate drive from the LR catalog beneficial?

    The SSDs are much faster than my data drive which I suspect was hindering performance.
  • PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited April 18, 2012
    Blackwood wrote: »
    Do you find having the photos on a separate drive from the LR catalog beneficial?

    The SSDs are much faster than my data drive which I suspect was hindering performance.

    No. I think it's a hindrance to have the photos on a standard hard drive rather than an SSD. But, prices being what they are, I'm not able to shell out for an SSD large enough for my photos yet.

    My primary SSD is 120 (45 free currently). My Photos/Videos drive (non SSD) is 2 TB and my external SSD is 120GB. I may try moving my most accessed photos (say, just 2012 pictures) to the external SSD and see if that gives an advantage over the HDD.
  • ZerodogZerodog Registered Users Posts: 1,480 Major grins
    edited April 18, 2012
    I have a 2 TB external drive that is virtually full. And a new 4TB drive that is about half full mostly from this year alone. My laptop 500GB drive is really full. Just to keep my working catalogs on. SSD is not in my imidiate future due to size.

    I have had an interesting update though. I have been trying to use the LR smugmug plugin. I think it is quite a bit faster. When I was trying what I thought was this uploader out of the LR publish services I think it was just a version of jefferies uploader. It is sort of confusing which you are using. It takes a bit of fiddling with but you can do a lot with it. And the sync function seems to work very well to update photos. It doesn't have a timer on the status bar. So I need to time it to see how fast it can load up 100 or so images. I am guessing it will only be a few minutes.

    So in the end, it could be jeffery's loader.
  • PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited April 18, 2012
    That's funny ZD - I just finally gave up on the Smugmug uploader and went back to Jeffery's. I haven't had any performance changes since disabling one and enabling the other.

    I'll try the SM uploader again one day but it's not ready for prime-time. At least not with my catalog.
  • BlackwoodBlackwood Registered Users Posts: 313 Major grins
    edited April 18, 2012
    Right, it will be a while before we can use them for mass storage. But we use them in workflow. I don't store photos there. I import there, work them, and then offload to large spinning drives.

    It's pretty much the same procedure I use when going from my MacBook to my Windows desktop.
  • PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited April 18, 2012
    I moved all my 2012 folders to the USB3 external SSD drive. I love how easy that is to do in Lightroom.

    I'll report back with any speed increases.
  • CatOneCatOne Registered Users Posts: 957 Major grins
    edited April 19, 2012
    Pupator wrote: »
    No. I think it's a hindrance to have the photos on a standard hard drive rather than an SSD. But, prices being what they are, I'm not able to shell out for an SSD large enough for my photos yet.

    My primary SSD is 120 (45 free currently). My Photos/Videos drive (non SSD) is 2 TB and my external SSD is 120GB. I may try moving my most accessed photos (say, just 2012 pictures) to the external SSD and see if that gives an advantage over the HDD.

    Photos are accessed infrequently. And they are totally linear reads so a 2 TB 7200 RPM drive should be fine.

    Having your catalog and previews on the SSD would make a big difference. So do that, and the spinning drive is fine for the RAW files themselves.
  • ian408ian408 Administrators Posts: 21,938 moderator
    edited April 19, 2012
    CatOne wrote: »
    Having your catalog and previews on the SSD would make a big difference. So do that, and the spinning drive is fine for the RAW files themselves.

    And the swap/tmp space for PS.
    Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
  • thebigskythebigsky Registered Users Posts: 1,052 Major grins
    edited June 10, 2012
    I may yet buy a new Mac Pro, depending on what Apple announces next week. In the meantime however I've made a number of upgrades to my 2006 model, including swapping out the dual core Xeons for quad core ones and LR4 is now running nicely again.

    Processor Upgrade

    SSD, USB 3 upgrades

    Charlie
  • jhofkerjhofker Registered Users Posts: 136 Major grins
    edited June 27, 2012
    LR4 was definitely running slower than 3 for me in develop. Apparently, the preferences file can get corrupted and cause this issue. (This comes from another forum where a guy chatted with Adobe support for a bit)

    If you want to see if this is your problem too, do the following (Windows):
    Hit Start, type "%appdata%" (no quotes) and press enter.
    Open Adobe
    Open Lightroom
    Open Preferences
    Rename "Lightroom 4 Preferences.agprefs" to something else (like "old lightroom 4 preferences.agprefs").

    Start Lightroom (and make sure you choose your correct catalog). This probably killed a few of your settings, so you can redo those if you feel this sped things up. If you don't feel it's any faster, just repeat the steps above, deleting the new preferences file that Lightroom created and renaming the old one back.
  • naturewoodnaturewood Registered Users Posts: 1 Beginner grinner
    edited July 19, 2013
    I fixed my snail slow trouble
    I have an i5 wtih 8gb of memory. After trying every single thing out there to correct my incredibly slow Lightroom 4 use and exporting, I decided that maybe the on board video card wasn't effective enough for Lightroom 4. I read everywhere that it wouldn't fix the problem, but I will have to beg to differ. My on board video only had 500mb of ram. On Wednesday I installed an NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 card that has 2gb of ram (seriously, one of the less expensive cards for sale at only $40.00). I have to say that the moment I installed it Lightroom 4 it completely corrected my snail slow problems. All the edits were very fast and the best part the exporting. I exported 79 pictures and it took only a few minutes. Previously it actually took 45 minutes. I couldn't believe that it worked and worked so well. The sad thing is how many people have said that it wouldn't. I am SOOOOO glad I decided to go against their suggestions and make the change. It worked perfectly.
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,129 moderator
    edited July 20, 2013
    naturewood wrote: »
    I have an i5 wtih 8gb of memory. After trying every single thing out there to correct my incredibly slow Lightroom 4 use and exporting, I decided that maybe the on board video card wasn't effective enough for Lightroom 4. I read everywhere that it wouldn't fix the problem, but I will have to beg to differ. My on board video only had 500mb of ram. On Wednesday I installed an NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 card that has 2gb of ram (seriously, one of the less expensive cards for sale at only $40.00). I have to say that the moment I installed it Lightroom 4 it completely corrected my snail slow problems. All the edits were very fast and the best part the exporting. I exported 79 pictures and it took only a few minutes. Previously it actually took 45 minutes. I couldn't believe that it worked and worked so well. The sad thing is how many people have said that it wouldn't. I am SOOOOO glad I decided to go against their suggestions and make the change. It worked perfectly.

    Fantastic that it's working for you. clap.gif

    Thanks so much for sharing your experience and success with us. thumb.gif
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Sign In or Register to comment.