Lightroom..slow much?

livefreenski

Lightroom (demo) is my first software and i have orangized all my photos in the program keyworded and rated, then I begin to start to learn the "devolp" feature.. and holy slow... is this slow or is it just my computer it seems it takes a while for your new image to refresh while it is "working" this worries me, I have read all of andy's reviews and such but what do the Dgrinners think so far?
-ty

W.W. Webster

livefreenski wrote:

... is this slow or is it just my computer?

What is your computer?

marlof

Lightroom is slow. But you shouldn't expect something else, since they're probably not streamlining the app until they've put in all functionality. Right now, it's still a work in progress, so you shouldn't jump to conclusions based on its performance.

I Simonius

livefreenski wrote:

Lightroom (demo) is my first software and i have orangized all my photos in the program keyworded and rated, then I begin to start to learn the "devolp" feature.. and holy slow... is this slow or is it just my computer it seems it takes a while for your new image to refresh while it is "working" this worries me, I have read all of andy's reviews and such but what do the Dgrinners think so far?
-ty

have you looked at the Adobe ligtroom forum...? (google it)

I personally find it very difficult to use a program I know will expire soon before the full version comes out prolly and has bits missing
I played around with it for a day but don't have time to fully learn something in such earl;y stages, it's just too frustrating ... but ten I get frustrated easily!

However Im sure I will use it full time when it is finished:-)

livefreenski

I have a Dell
3.2ghz
2 gb ram
150 gb hard drive

I guees i assumed that once, the final version came out I could purchase that and it would be a smooth transfer not alot of work from the demo to the final product have i assumed incorrectly?

-ty

colourbox

I think the answer to both your performance and reliability questions is "it's a beta that won't be finalized for months." Especially if you are using it on Windows.

From the Lightroom site:

"We have not reached our performance goals on Windows and continue to work on improving speed in all aspects of the application."

"Note: This is a public beta, not a final release. Neither the quality nor the features are complete yet. We want to show you our direction and get your feedback so that we can incorporate it into future releases."

Also, I remember reading in the Lightroom forums that the database format and settings files are not final. No one should be doing irreplaceable work in the current version since as with many beta products the database or metadata formats can still change and your work today might not be openable in the final release. It might be, but no guarantee since this is pre-release.

While I'm playing with Lightroom too, all my real work is still happening in Bridge/ACR/Photoshop.

livefreenski

o lord.. haha well i hope it is openable. hey least lightroom beta is better than having ZERO post processing ablities i suspose

SloYerRoll

Lightroom is insanely resource intensive.
There is some pretty cool functionality w/ it. (I wish the windows in PS9 "slid out" like it does in Lightroom)
I am partial to PS9 over Lightroom since I was a designer in my past life though.
I used to think Bridge was resource intensive until I upgraded from my Quiicksilver (w/ 1.5Gb RAM even) to my Dual G5.

Please also note that Adobe products are partial to Mac. I won't get into the whole PC/Mac debate but the fact of it is Adobe = Mac. The Beta version of any Adobe product is going to be more buggy on a PC than the Mac version.

Bottom line though. It's all about the machine you are running it on.

pathfinder

SloYerRoll wrote:

Lightroom is insanely resource intensive.
There is some pretty cool functionality w/ it. (I wish the windows in PS9 "slid out" like it does in Lightroom)
I am partial to PS9 over Lightroom since I was a designer in my past life though.
I used to think Bridge was resource intensive until I upgraded from my Quiicksilver (w/ 1.5Gb RAM even) to my Dual G5.

Please also note that Adobe products are partial to Mac. I won't get into the whole PC/Mac debate but the fact of it is Adobe = Mac. The Beta version of any Adobe product is going to be more buggy on a PC than the Mac version.

Bottom line though. It's all about the machine you are running it on.

I always suspected as much, but have never seen it stated this overtly before.lol3

colourbox

SloYerRoll wrote:

Please also note that Adobe products are partial to Mac. I won't get into the whole PC/Mac debate but the fact of it is Adobe = Mac. The Beta version of any Adobe product is going to be more buggy on a PC than the Mac version.

Don't be so sure. From the web discussions I've seen, everybody thinks Adobe favors the OTHER platform (i.e. not the one they're using). Sure, PC users were sore about Lightroom coming out first on the Mac. But weigh that against the fact that if you compare today's new PCs with today's new Macs, Photoshop runs much faster on the PC, simply because Adobe hasn't shipped an Mac Intel-native Photoshop in the many months since Apple went Intel.

In addition, Mac users have a long list of other gripes with Adobe, such as why do the Windows versions of Acrobat and Photoshop Elements have more features than the Mac version. And if Adobe favors the Mac and the Mac is the best audio/video machine, why does the Adobe Production Studio have three major apps that they refuse to make for the Mac? (Audition, Encore DVD, and Premiere which started on the Mac but was made Windows-only.) Finally, I've read that Adobe sells more to PC users than Mac users now.

I'm not saying Adobe is anti-Mac or pro-Mac, just that the evidence seems to go against the Mac, but in reality they probably don't have an ideology about it.

DavidTO

colourbox wrote:

why does the Adobe Production Studio have three major apps that they refuse to make for the Mac? (Audition, Encore DVD, and Premiere which started on the Mac but was made Windows-only.)

Part of the answer to that is Final Cut Pro.

claudermilk

colourbox wrote:

Don't be so sure. From the web discussions I've seen, everybody thinks Adobe favors the OTHER platform (i.e. not the one they're using). Sure, PC users were sore about Lightroom coming out first on the Mac. But weigh that against the fact that if you compare today's new PCs with today's new Macs, Photoshop runs much faster on the PC, simply because Adobe hasn't shipped an Mac Intel-native Photoshop in the many months since Apple went Intel.

In addition, Mac users have a long list of other gripes with Adobe, such as why do the Windows versions of Acrobat and Photoshop Elements have more features than the Mac version. And if Adobe favors the Mac and the Mac is the best audio/video machine, why does the Adobe Production Studio have three major apps that they refuse to make for the Mac? (Audition, Encore DVD, and Premiere which started on the Mac but was made Windows-only.) Finally, I've read that Adobe sells more to PC users than Mac users now.

I'm not saying Adobe is anti-Mac or pro-Mac, just that the evidence seems to go against the Mac, but in reality they probably don't have an ideology about it.

I figure their ideology is the dollar. Where will the most be made. There's your answer.

In the LR thing, now that I finally was able to see a beta running here, I find that I wasn't missing out on much of anything.

rutt

Since the MacTel intros, things have become a lot easier for Adobe. Most of the deepest kind of performance tuning is now applicable to both platforms. Sure, it's sort of annoying that there won't be a Universal version of Photoshop until next year, but it's understandable why they have chosen to wait for the next major release (both as a technical and a business decision.)

There is a rumor of LR Beta 4 premiering at next week's Photoshop World. I think we'll learn a lot from the anouncment.

SloYerRoll

colourbox wrote:

Don't be so sure. From the web discussions I've seen, everybody thinks Adobe favors the OTHER platform (i.e. not the one they're using). Sure, PC users were sore about Lightroom coming out first on the Mac. But weigh that against the fact that if you compare today's new PCs with today's new Macs, Photoshop runs much faster on the PC, simply because Adobe hasn't shipped an Mac Intel-native Photoshop in the many months since Apple went Intel.

In addition, Mac users have a long list of other gripes with Adobe, such as why do the Windows versions of Acrobat and Photoshop Elements have more features than the Mac version. And if Adobe favors the Mac and the Mac is the best audio/video machine, why does the Adobe Production Studio have three major apps that they refuse to make for the Mac? (Audition, Encore DVD, and Premiere which started on the Mac but was made Windows-only.) Finally, I've read that Adobe sells more to PC users than Mac users now.

I'm not saying Adobe is anti-Mac or pro-Mac, just that the evidence seems to go against the Mac, but in reality they probably don't have an ideology about it.

There is allot of truth to what you are saying colourbox. Actually over 65% of all CS2 suite is sold for PC's. So the market is way to large for Adobe to ignore. (Adobe never sold more to Mac that PC's that I know of)
As far as gripes w/ CS2 specifically PS9. I think a majority of these gripes come from lower end users (NO OFFENSE INTENDED AT ALL) that use elements and are looking to get the most bang for the buck, but still want to hop on the Mac train. Not enough RAM and a single processor makes life SUCK when you are running actions and filters...
DavidTO nailed it on the head. Final Cut Pro 4HD is KILLER! They already have the market cornered w/ algorithmic rendering and now they are getting into flash and all that jazz since the acquisition of Macromedia.
Adobe is big, really big... But they aren't so big they can just waltz into a non graphic design/post production market and dominate it.
A PC may be able to outclock a Mac, clinical test have proven that pre-press and post production workflow is faster w/ Macs.
Claudermilk stated it well by saying their ideology is the dollar. Adobe cares about it's ROI and it's ROI is in big companies that spend big bucks on multiple licenses that use Adobe stock photos and aren't worried about the budget; just the end result. And the way it stands now. All those companies use Macs for this work.
Evidence may seem to go against the Mac. But being a former product development engineer for Adobe......

-Slo

DavidTO

I also want to add that Premiere was never a contender in the professional world. Never have I ever heard of a pro using it, at least not in the film industry. Avid or FCP. There were others early on, like the one with the shark (forget the name), but Premiere was just never even on the radar. Crapola, as far as pros are concerned. And without the pros, you'll never be much of a contender, IMO. Look at PS. It's the most widely used app of it's kind with professionals. And it dominates the market.

There you go.

colourbox

SloYerRoll wrote:

(Adobe never sold more to Mac that PC's that I know of)

Surprised to hear that perspective. There was a time where no one associated Adobe with PCs at all. The first Adobe products I knew of were Illustrator, Photoshop, and Premiere. All came out on the Mac first. Google brings up a 1997 article that says "Although Adobe used to generate 98 percent of its revenue from the Mac market, analysts note, it now constitutes only about 44 percent--less than half of what it used to be." At the time of the Macromedia merger Mac was at 25 percent.

SloYerRoll wrote:

Claudermilk stated it well by saying their ideology is the dollar. Adobe cares about it's ROI and it's ROI is in big companies that spend big bucks on multiple licenses that use Adobe stock photos and aren't worried about the budget; just the end result. And the way it stands now. All those companies use Macs for this work.

That is probably the truth behind the market share shift. They found out how to sell to the corporate world.

SloYerRoll

DavidTO wrote:

I also want to add that Premiere was never a contender in the professional world. Never have I ever heard of a pro using it, at least not in the film industry. Avid or FCP. There were others early on, like the one with the shark (forget the name), but Premiere was just never even on the radar. Crapola, as far as pros are concerned. And without the pros, you'll never be much of a contender, IMO. Look at PS. It's the most widely used app of it's kind with professionals. And it dominates the market.

There you go.

Well put David.
FCP is killer for what I do. And I'm definately not (nor do I want to be) a motion "film" pro.

SloYerRoll

colourbox wrote:

Surprised to hear that perspective. There was a time where no one associated Adobe with PCs at all. The first Adobe products I knew of were Illustrator, Photoshop, and Premiere. All came out on the Mac first. Google brings up a 1997 article that says "Although Adobe used to generate 98 percent of its revenue from the Mac market, analysts note, it now constitutes only about 44 percent--less than half of what it used to be." At the time of the Macromedia merger Mac was at 25 percent.



That is probably the truth behind the market share shift. They found out how to sell to the corporate world.

SloYerRoll wrote:

Adobe never sold more to Mac that PC's that I know of

Well 1997 was definately before I was w/ Adobe.
I only really paid interest to this aspect of Adobe was due to working there since I was all jazzed to be w/ the "big players".
Good research though. I will make sure to be more clear when I attempt making a statement.
I digress on that point.
-Slo