How's LR2.0 speedwise?

Nikolai · September 5, 2008

Anybody with a large image inventory (100,000+/1Tb+ images on multiple HDDs) can compare LR2.0 vs LR1.x (on PC) speedwise? Also, is it possible to eliminate the dreaded "import" process?

I have tried pretty much every version before 2.0 (starting with early betas) and while I was blown away with UI bells and whistles, it was the backend that made me to stay away from it.

TIA! :thumb

noeltykay · September 5, 2008

I'm using Lightroom 2 on an Aluminum iMac 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo w/ 4GB's of RAM and I am having performance issues. Prior to upgrading Lightroom was fantastic...no issues whatsoever. Now, it is painfully slow when importing. Yes, I have changed the preview size and it has not helped. When editing, the sliders are very tempermental! I constantly get spinning beach balls. I am not sure what the issue is, but it is beginning to bug me that I paid for an upgrade, and although there are some nice features...the performance has left me worse of than before.

Nikolai wrote:

Anybody with a large image inventory (100,000+/1Tb+ images on multiple HDDs) can compare LR2.0 vs LR1.x (on PC) speedwise? Also, is it possible to eliminate the dreaded "import" process?

I have tried pretty much every version before 2.0 (starting with early betas) and while I was blown away with UI bells and whistles, it was the backend that made me to stay away from it.

TIA!

Nikolai · September 5, 2008

noeltykay wrote:

I'm using Lightroom 2 on an Aluminum iMac 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo w/ 4GB's of RAM and I am having performance issues. Prior to upgrading Lightroom was fantastic...no issues whatsoever. Now, it is painfully slow when importing. Yes, I have changed the preview size and it has not helped. When editing, the sliders are very tempermental! I constantly get spinning beach balls. I am not sure what the issue is, but it is beginning to bug me that I paid for an upgrade, and although there are some nice features...the performance has left me worse of than before.

Thanks for the info!

bkatz · September 5, 2008

It seems to import faster in 32 bit mode rather than 64 bit but handles the rendering process much faster during the import now in 64 bit.

Richard · September 5, 2008

Nikolai wrote:

Also, is it possible to eliminate the dreaded "import" process?

Nik: It's a database, so you have to import. There's not much reason to use it rather than ACR unless you take advantage of the database. But you must know that. So I think you are really asking whether importing is faster in 2.0 than in 1.x. N'est-ce pas?

Nikolai · September 5, 2008

bkatz wrote:

It seems to import faster in 32 bit mode rather than 64 bit but handles the rendering process much faster during the import now in 64 bit.

Soo, the "import" is still there...:cry
How'z the library performance on a multitude on images, and how's the developer module performance on a large RAW file with a lot of non-destructive tweaks?

Nikolai · September 5, 2008

Richard wrote:

Nik: It's a database, so you have to import. There's not much reason to use it rather than ACR unless you take advantage of the database. But you must know that. So I think you are really asking whether importing is faster in 2.0 than in 1.x. N'est-ce pas?

I thought I've read something they made DB an optional thing, and also improved the performace on the developer modelue. With 1.x I could taken a lunch break each time I'd move a slider.. (while with CS/ACR it wouldn't even dent a CPU)

DavidTO · September 5, 2008

noeltykay wrote:

I'm using Lightroom 2 on an Aluminum iMac 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo w/ 4GB's of RAM and I am having performance issues. Prior to upgrading Lightroom was fantastic...no issues whatsoever. Now, it is painfully slow when importing. Yes, I have changed the preview size and it has not helped. When editing, the sliders are very tempermental! I constantly get spinning beach balls. I am not sure what the issue is, but it is beginning to bug me that I paid for an upgrade, and although there are some nice features...the performance has left me worse of than before.

Try importing into a fresh library. It could be the old converted library causing your problems.

Also try optimizing your existing library.

DavidTO · September 5, 2008

Nikolai wrote:

Soo, the "import" is still there...:cry
How'z the library performance on a multitude on images, and how's the developer module performance on a large RAW file with a lot of non-destructive tweaks?

Why not just download the demo and see?

noeltykay · September 5, 2008

Hmmm...I have optimized and that did not help. I need to figure out how to import into a fresh library. That will probaby take a good chunk of time with 23K images.

DavidTO wrote:

Try importing into a fresh library. It could be the old converted library causing your problems.

Also try optimizing your existing library.

DavidTO · September 5, 2008

noeltykay wrote:

Hmmm...I have optimized and that did not help. I need to figure out how to import into a fresh library. That will probaby take a good chunk of time with 23K images.

Well, I was suggesting a test with a few, see how it goes. If it helps, then maybe set the 23k to import overnight, and then see if you can maintain any improvements, or if it's simply the number of images.

Nikolai · September 5, 2008

DavidTO wrote:

Why not just download the demo and see?

Dave, I might end up doing that, but just like most people, I'd like to avoid reinventing the wheel (and wasting a whole evening - again), so I'd like to check first if the known issues have been resolved.

jdryan3 · September 9, 2008

noeltykay wrote:

... and although there are some nice features...the performance has left me worse of than before.

Which nice features do you like that made it worthwhile to upgrade?

cmason · September 9, 2008

Nik: a few comments. I am not running LR 2.0 yet, so these are based on LR1.

First, importing does not mean moving your files or changing your folder structure. Importing simply means adding the file metadata to the LR database. Moving/Copying and importing are not the same, and in fact, the operations in LR call out both copying to a location (or not) and importing as separate operations in your selection.

Simply choose "Import Photos from Disk", tell it to "Import photos from their current Location". It will then add the photos to the database, but not move or change where they are on your disk. All my images are on the same external harddrive they have been for years, I have not moved them or changed folder structure. I had LR adopt my folder structure when copying from my cards. (in fact I use same HD I used under my Windows PC, now being used on my Mac, and yes it is FAT32). When you import from your cards, you can use LR to do this, in which case it will copy them from your cards and place them wherever you like on your hard drive, renaming (if desired), creating folders (as you instruct) and even applying preset workflows, as well as, of course, import the metadata into the database.

You also are not stuck with one LR Database. Changing databases to be used in LR is dirt simple, and can even be done at startup. If you suffer from performance issues, perhaps the best method is to break the images into separate LR databases, say on date or other method. Simply choose "File>Open Database and you can work on a different set of images. To understand how powerful this can be...check out this from Layers Magazine: http://www.layersmagazine.com/working-with-database-catalogs-in-lightroom.html

I don't have more than 20k photos, and never had a performance issue, but it could be different for others. Though I have never heard or seen complaint from Michael Reichmann or other pros...but that doesn't mean it isn't so.

Ann McRae · September 9, 2008

noeltykay wrote:

I'm using Lightroom 2 on an Aluminum iMac 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo w/ 4GB's of RAM and I am having performance issues. Prior to upgrading Lightroom was fantastic...no issues whatsoever. Now, it is painfully slow when importing. Yes, I have changed the preview size and it has not helped. When editing, the sliders are very tempermental! I constantly get spinning beach balls. I am not sure what the issue is, but it is beginning to bug me that I paid for an upgrade, and although there are some nice features...the performance has left me worse of than before.

tel

Hi Noel

I am using LR2 on an iMac as well. I never used LR1. I also have those 'beachball' moments after moving a slider and it is frustrating. I am not importing from cards into LR, as I didn't immediately see how to change my organizational structure, so instead I import without copying from my original storage. I haven't wanted to bring my whole library in yet. What I thought I had concluded so far was that LR2 was better for batch processing sports shots, but that I would probably use ACR&PSCS3 for editing landscapes. Did so last night, and was wishing I was in LR2. I really prefer the adjustments that can be done with LR, so I may end up doing all conversions in LR2. I think many people could survive with just LR2 rather than CS3.
Now, if Adobe could resolve the 'hang time' problem, I would be extremely happy.

I guess this neither addresses your question or Nik's....

noeltykay · September 9, 2008

I made one change...on my iMac the application had been starting in 32 bit mode. I read that you have to uncheck the "Open in 32 Bit Mode" box under the "Get Info" window of the application.

*Finder
*Applications
*Commad click Lightroom 2
*Select "Get Info"
*Uncheck "Open in 32 Bit Mode"

It helped only slightly. I guess I will just have to wait for an update

Ann McRae wrote:

tel

Hi Noel

I am using LR2 on an iMac as well. I never used LR1. I also have those 'beachball' moments after moving a slider and it is frustrating. I am not importing from cards into LR, as I didn't immediately see how to change my organizational structure, so instead I import without copying from my original storage. I haven't wanted to bring my whole library in yet. What I thought I had concluded so far was that LR2 was better for batch processing sports shots, but that I would probably use ACR&PSCS3 for editing landscapes. Did so last night, and was wishing I was in LR2. I really prefer the adjustments that can be done with LR, so I may end up doing all conversions in LR2. I think many people could survive with just LR2 rather than CS3.
Now, if Adobe could resolve the 'hang time' problem, I would be extremely happy.

I guess this neither addresses your question or Nik's....

How's LR2.0 speedwise?

Comments