Sluggish Lightroom 3.6

I am a regular user of Lightroom 3.6. Suddenly it has become extremely sluggish. Will it help if I split my single catalog into a number of catalogs?

Will it help if I split my single catalog into a number of catalogs?
Terrible idea. Don't go there. Lightroom running slow is almost NEVER because you have too many photos.
Try File->Optimize Catalog, and then follow the suggestions here: Lightroom Help/Optimize Performance

Similar Messages

Customised Web Module

Would it be possible to have a feature in the Web Module to allow the user to add buttons to the generated website e.g Home, Galleries etc and allow these to be configurable as in the url and style. This would better facilitate the integration of the web galleries into the users existing website.
Regards
Trevor.

I'm posting a reply so that this is updated....
Fixed...After continous searching I ran across a tech talking to a user that had a very sluggish Lightroom problem (which I also experienced)... After following along, figured I could at least see if this helped the speed problem if not the missing image problem, well, everything was fixed... Turned out to be a corrupt preference file... go to... appdata/roaming/adobe/lightroom/preference... rename preference to oldpreference and restart Lightroom, see if that fixes any of your problems;)

Lightroom 5 sluggish and unstable (esp. book module)

I recently downloaded a trial of Lightroom 5 (then updated to 5.2) in order to evaluate its photo book creation capabilites. Apart from the program being sluggish in use (on an Intel Q6600 CPU running Win 7 Pro 32-bit with 4GB RAM and an SSD boot drive), the process went fairly well up until the time where I uploaded the book to Blurb.
The program kept crashing during the render of the 102-page book (also during Export to PDF render, despite lowering the PDF driver’s resolution settings as advised in the Readme file). There was no pattern to when it crashed; I removed tags, star ratings, set and reset background colour, etc. but to no avail as had been suggested on various forums (sometimes by Adobe support). Then one time (out of around 30), it completed the job. I monitored RAM usage, disc space and CPU temperature and all were absolutely fine. My machine runs cool and stable. When this kept happening, a quick Google revealed numerous people having the same problem, with Adobe conceding this.
I really like Lightroom and what it does; however, I'm struggling to justify spending money on a product which is sluggish and unstable.
I sincerely hope that Adobe will address these issues soon, but I'm not convinced they know what's causing them. Lightroom 5.2 didn’t seem to fix any of them and I find it difficult to understand how such a buggy product made it out the door of Adobe’s offices.
I wonder how widespread this is. Has anyone else had similar experiences?

Yes! I have just find it hopeless, and contacting customer care on the matter is virtually impossible.

Lightroom 3.3 export performance very sluggish - help?

Hello,
Last night I installed the 3.3 update and I started editing a day's worth of photos. Everything seemed fine until I went to export the photos. I only had 140 photos, exported as jpg, 800x600, 72 dpi, so they were pretty small. Normally it would take upt to 5 minutes to do this, but last night after about an hour it was only 36% done. On top of that my entire system slowed down and froze up, and I had to reboot. Exporting the remaining photos took another hour, so rebooting didn't fix the problem.
If there isn't a fix released soon, I'll have to downgrade back to 3.2, though I'm not sure how to do that. My business is suffering because of this.
I'm operating a fast processor on a PC with 4 gigs of RAM so I should be fine. The performance was excellent until the recent upgrade, and I haven't installed anything else recently.
Help!

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
FWIW, though it is not reflected in the release notes, a fix for this bug was included in 3.4 RC -- I cannot be sure that all forms of slowness which result in a large scratch file are fixed, but the one I had cornered is very dead in the 3.4 RC build (some were seeing more severe scratch file bloat than I witnessed, though in at least one case the slowdown was comparable). The fix was one that could definitely broad impact.
I don't know if anybody is still watching this thread, but if you were previously seeing this issue, definitely give 3.4 a spin and post your updates.
Dan,
I've been running 3.4RC since the day it was released. At first I was experiencing some general sluggishness overall but things improved dramatically when I increased my Camera Raw Cache settings as suggested in the general "why is Lightroom 3 so slow" thread. Overall, the general performance was back to 2.4 day and I was feeling pretty good. Then last night I had to do an export of 76 .jpg files and my system came to a total crawl. Then, after the very long export (sorry I didn't time it) working within LR was very sluggish with constant spinning and "Loading" dialogs as I moved around. In reflection, I recall having this same problem a few weeks ago when I did a SmugMug export. Sorry I don't have more details other than "this issue has not been resolved in 3.4RC.
Windows 7 Enterprise 64-bit
Intel Core Duo 2.50 GHz
4 GB Ram
Please let me know how I can be of further help.
Bill

Why is the crop tool in Lightroom 5 so sluggish on my otherwise very fast machine?

I'm running a Macbook Pro Retina, new from this time last year. It's got 16gb RAM, a 768gb SSD (with about 150gb free space), and 2.8GHz processor. Everything else is lightening fast on my system. Lightroom is fine otherwise, but the crop tool is almost unusably slow. When I tap "R", it sometimes takes 5-10 seconds to load into crop mode, and another 5-10 seconds to load out of it.
Additionally, it will show the incorrect preview in crop for the first few seconds, so if I go back to re-crop something, it will act as if I am adjusting the cropped version rather than the original, so if I exit too quickly, it comes back wrong.
I've tried what other users recommended - using both full screen and not, updated to the latest version, restarted multiple times with no solution. Please help!

I was amazed at the amount of info you put into that post. Thanks for that effort.
I made sure Onyx was up-to-date and ran all the schemes you listed. That did nothing. However, reading further in your support thread gave me some ideas. I started looking into third party extensions and plugins. I recalled installing Silverlight a few days ago, for what reason I have no idea, since I trust Microsoft only marginally more than I trust Google. Which is to say, I don't trust either of them at all. So I threw that plugin into the trash.
I should have checked the performance right there, but I didn't. Right under Silverlight, you mentioned Flash. I decided to check the prefs on it, and found that it was set to allow sites to save info to my computer, and Camera/Mic and Playback were changed from "Block" to "Ask Me". I distinctly remember setting those for maximum privacy. I reset them, cleared all the files, and exited the prefs.
I just checked them again, and everything is changed back to allow Flash to have its way. Looks like I'll be uninstalling that now...
I also installed Acrobat recently, just to have an alternative to Preview. Sea Monkey opened an alert box just now, telling me to watch out for the Acrobat plugins, as they've been known to cause problems. Gotta love Adobe.
Back to the topic at hand, I think it was the Silverlight plugin that caused the slowdown. All my browsers are running at full speed now after I threw that plugin out. (Now if I could just get Safari to allow me to back up a page without re-rendering it every time...)
Thanks very much for the help.

Lightroom 5.6 Error: The file could not be edited because Photoshop CC could not be launched...

I upgraded to lightroom 5.6 recently and i am using photoshop cs 6.
My OS is windows 8 on i5 4670 with R280X gfx card 16gb ram
After editing a photo with lightroom , when I right click to edit in photoshop, immediately photoshop launch but the image isnt imported to photoshop.
After like 30sec an error message pop out saying "The file could not be edited because Photoshop CC could not be launched".
After another 10sec then the photo appear in photoshop... this is getting irritating to me.
if i select to just open the original or a copy of the original it works fine. It only happens when I try to open it with lightroom changes.
I had uninstall/reinstall both photoshop and lightroom as well as remove all the plugins i had, but the problem doesnt go away.
Another issue with lightroom 5.6 is the the adjustment brush is slow and sluggish, it is so unusable when I zoom in to use the adjustment brush.
I didnt had that issue before i upgraded. OMG
anyone have solution to my problem ?

I upgraded to the latest version of ps cc 2014 , problem resolved.
look like cs6 i outdated or something

Macbook pro for lightroom editing?

Hi all
I am considering buying a 15 inch macbook pro with retina display to edit my pics in Lightroom but have some questions.
I know that laptops are not ideal for photo editing but while I am a serious-ish photographer, I am not a professional and, after a long day's work at a desk, I like to edit my photos sitting on a sofa at night!
I would prefer 17 inches to 15.4 but apple don't do 17 inches any more, yet I am inclining towards apple for four reasons: (a) I hear they're fast, (b) I hear the screens are great for picture editing, (c) I've had various frustrations with windows over the years, and (d) windows 8 in particular looks counter-intuitive.
But if I do go apple that will be a big change for me since I've so far been using a Dell Inspiron 1720 (1920 x 1080 resolution), which I've liked, though it's 7 years old and now sluggish.
I'd REALLY appreciate for any advice regarding any or all of the following questions -- thanks VERY much for your time in advance!
1. Is the macbook pro really a good deal better than the competition, regarding in particular its screen and speed? (It better be for the money!) One photographer told me she didn't like the retina display because it meant things looked very different on the screen compared with when printed. Is that right and a worry?
2. I take it that, as someone with a LR for pc license, I don't need to pay more to install LR for mac on it?
3. I take it that it would be straightforward transferring my pics and catalog from a pc to a mac?
4. While I am inclined to get the 1TB storage I could get less if I used an external hdd (whcih would also have the upside that my wife could edit our catalog on her computer without needing to borrow mine), but I take it that would slow the macbook down: both because an xhdd won't be as quick as a SSD, and because the link between xhdd and macbook would slow things down? If so, it seems silly to pay for the speed and then lose it by attaching an xhdd. Does that seem right? (I take it one day we'll all edit our pics in the cloud, e.g. using dropbox, but currently that would be very sluggish I am assuming.)
5. I could always attach an external monitor, I take it, if I decided that sometimes I needed something bigger than 15.4". Yes?
6. Importantly, it is cheaper for me to buy the macbook in the US. Are there signficant downsides to buying a laptop for UK in US (e.g. different keyboard layout, inapplicable warranty, different power cord, etc)?
7. Finally, if I don't go for the apple, what alternative would you recommend? I hear dell xps are good (though also max 15"). Also heard good things about HP envy. The equivalent to my Dell, which I've liked, is I think the Dell 17R SE. Any views?
Thank you in advance SO much. I appreciate this is a lot of questions, but any advice you have under any of them would be REALLY appreciated.
Thanks again
David

You are welcome. Just finished a chat session with an Apple support rep and confirmed the matte option no longer available. Seems lots has changed since I bought my 17” 19 months back:). They did say that there were after market screen films available from places like amazon
Have never used anything like that though. My wife has a 2008 MBP 15” with gloss and I can say it is a nice screen finish, you just have to be careful of lighting from behind you. All my iMacs were glossy and I did learn to compensate for the added brilliance the screen brought to the photos. The new soft proofing feature of LR5 seems to better estimate the level of brightness of the printed work, compared to past versions of the s/ware.
In any case, in my opinion you really can’t go wrong with the apple product. I bought my first iMac in mid 1999 and have never looked back. I donated that machine to a pre-school in 2008, it was running OSX version 2 or 3 I think. I did run Photoshop 7.0 on an IBM laptop for a time (windows XP). I think I had one of the very first versions of Adobe Camera Raw on that machine. I digress, sorry.
The chat representative did confirm that the 17” is out of production and I’m guessing Apple found the market for the big laptop just wasn’t there. They did mention that 17” MBP’s show up as “certified refurbished” units from time to time. Suggest you might explore that option with a local Apple store in the UK, assuming Apple has store front operations off this continent of course.
Please feel free to contact me with further questions if you wish.
Take care, Gordy

Lightroom 1.2: XMP-bug still present and some other things

* I just upgraded to 1.2, but the XMP-bug is still present. When I turn on autowrite XMP LR starts using 50% (1 of 2 cores) of my CPU for quite a long time (15+ minutes) after startup. During that time the interface is somewhat sluggish (probably because of the lack of multi threading).
This behavior was also present in LR1.1. Turn off autoxmp and the cpu-usage will drop to 1-2% within a few moments of starting LR. Turn it on, and it will use your cpu for quite a long time (29.000 photos in my DB).
* One other thing I still notice: when using identity plates for printing, the identity plate doesn't rotate with the photo when switch from a landscape to a portrait photo (auto rotate is on to make things a lot easier). The print module is one of the greatest things in LR, but this still annoys me)
* Decent support for multi core CPU's is still lacking it seems. I have to run two export batches simultaneously to get my CPU to 100% cpu usage. Maybe it's an idea to split one export batch into several smaller ones so the can be processed at the same time using both cores.

1.2 fixes a bug in the auto-write mechanism that severely effected the performance of auto-write when files with changes were offline. Unfortunately, we didn't have time in the cycle to drastically enhance performance of the XMP auto-write mechanism for making large batches of changes or toggling the option on and off. The Lightroom team is aware of these issues and is working to resolve them for a later release.
The wording of the download page is pretty obscure. For a more accurate, detailed review of the changes in 1.2, please refer to the blog post at http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/ . For a better understanding of ways to use the auto-write mechanism in the interim, check out my post at
Dustin Bruzenak, "Performance & Auto-write XMP" #, 10 Jul 2007 8:29 am
Dustin Bruzenak
Lightroom Engineering

Lightroom = Overrated, misdesigned and buggy.

So I have been using the V1.0 version of Lightroom, and all I can say is that it is overrated and most of it is just plain junk.
Don't get me wrong, the DEVELOP module is extraordinarily good, really really good, but the DEVELOP module has been surrounded by such copious crap that the overall program itself becomes a burden to use in any productive way.
Let's start with the library... what a joke. You have to import everything, a time consuming process that is utterly unnecessary if you just want to look through your files. It is buggy, slow and utterly network unfriendly. You can't copy, you can only move. It is completely unfriendly to network storage, taking 1.5 hours to do the same batch rename that a piece of shareware does in 7 minutes. The DAM capabilities are second rate at best. All for what? So I can search for keywords????
The Slideshow... useless. What good is a slideshow that doesn't let you do image ranking during a client presentation. I guess that we are expected to use pencil and paper.
Web galleries... the provided versions are amateurish at best... and the whole thing in written in some Klingon variant of XML which requires a PHD in programming just to create (or even change) a simple template.
Printing... nice but useless to me, since I send everything to a commercial printer, and the stupid module won't generate a JPEG that I can upload to the lab. And no, a simple export doesn't do it... tell me how to add a 1/4 inch margin to an 8x10x300 print file using export... can't be done.
Like I said, the DEVELOP module is fabulous. Give the Library a standard file browser capability (using just XMP sidecars), give the HTML generator a token based design so mere mortals can code for it, allow export from the print module, and make the slideshow actually useful for something and then the full program will be worth the effort.

I have been using Adobe Lightroom 1.0 for the last 3 weeks or so. I keep reading rave reviews but Im having difficulty seeing what others see. Here are some observations regarding Lightroom as a photo organizer specifically the Library module from someone (me) who is already familiar with ACDSee as an organization tool
1. Lightroom, like other Adobe products, eats an enormous amount of resources on my PC. Loading the program with even a moderate-sized database is slow especially if I am backing up the database frequently. Navigating around can be very sluggish. (I have 1GB of memory. Maybe more would help...?)
2. Lightroom can only see folders and photos that have already been imported into the Lightroom database. If you temporarily leave the program to process some RAW files somewhere else, for example, the JPEG or TIF files created will be invisible in Lightroom, until you import them. I think this is a stupid concept. In ACDSee, you can see everything from within the program even files that have been added using 3rd party software outside of ACDSee. Simply browsing adds stuff automatically to the database.
3. It is not possible to drag and drop photo files from Lightroom into another program one of the drawbacks of non-destructive file editing, I suppose. I drag & drop all the time with ACDSee and actually, it is a pretty important tool if you make use of a virtual system (categories, ratings, keywords, etc.) to organize your pictures. I print with Qimage, for example, and I have trouble finding photos based on the hard drive folder structure. But if ACDSee is open in category view, I can drag and drop the photos I want to process into Qimage. This is impossible with Lightroom.
4. It seems that Lightroom will only handle 2 external editors and one of them is Photoshop by default! Sometimes I want to send a photo to Qimage (for printing) or to DxO Optics Pro or NX (for RAW processing), or PTGui (for panorama processing). Every time I try to do this, I must change the External Editor preferences and hunt down the EXE file required to launch the program I want to use. Pretty cumbersome, I think. ACDSee allows setting up these programs so they appear as choices in the Edit menu, and it allows full use of drag and drop.
6. I think the Lightroom Loupe view screen is too small unless you close up all the sidebars. But if you are editing, you need to keep at least the develop sidebar (on the right) open. This leaves the full-size view rather inadequate, I think.
7. The small font is not very small. In the Library, I cannot see many of my Folders or Collections on the left without a lot of scrolling. And there is no way to distinguish between the Folder list and the Collection list they look the same and they both scroll in the same list! A different color or font option would help. The headings for these groupings (Folders, Collections, etc.) disappear from view when scrolling, making it even more difficult to figure out where I am! Poor design!
8. What is the point of the filmstrip? There is already a grid view. Isnt the filmstrip a little redundant? Granted you can make it disappear, but whats the point of having it there in the first place? It just eats up valuable real estate on a screen that is already way too cluttered.
8. I like the Lightroom develop module okay, but it is not as good as Photoshop CS2 for photo editing, or Capture NX for raw conversion both of which I can easily access from within ACDSee.
9. I do like the Lightroom renaming template. It facilitates a variety of renaming options and is more flexible than the offering in ACDSee. But right now, this is about the only thing I have found to be more usable in Lightroom.
I have decided that Lightroom is sort of like one of those do everything printer/fax/scanner machines. While it can be handy, it doesnt do any of one those functions particularly well. Better to have 3 separate devices each dedicated to one of those functions exclusively.

Another SLOW Lightroom Thread

Just another thread to document the major issues I'm having with Lightroom 4.
System: Dell Studio XPS running Windows 7 Home Premium, Intel i7-720QM, 8 GB RAM 1333MHz, 500 GB HD, ATI Radeon 4670 1GB with Wacom Intuos 5
Working in the Develop module has been completely unacceptable and is costing me hours of editing time and frustrating, which means its costing me money. Everything from navigating between photos to adjusting slider bars seems to be laggy to put it lightly. After using the Adjustment Brush, making universal changes is taking forever! And if I got back to create an additional adjustment with the Adjustment Brush tool, it's almost not even worth it because it is so slow to respond. Similar to the slow downs after using the Adjustment Brush tool, any changes made after making any adjustments in the Lens Correction tab seem to be super sluggish as well. Oh top of it all, my computer is running extremely hot when running Lightroom, which ever occured in past versions!
I've tried several suggestions that I've seen in forums, such as creating a fresh Catalog and importing the files directly into that new Catalog, hiding the Histogram to free up resources, reducing the size of the Catalog to just the working set I'm currently working on... I've now installed the 4.1 RC and do seem to see some increase in response with the sliders within the develop module, but once I start using the Adjustment Brush and Lens Correction, it seems to be back to it's sluggish self. And after editing a few photos, the entire program is crawling.
I think it's great that Adobe has such a strong following that people seem to be so understanding and patient about these issues, but find it unacceptable that such an unpolished release was issued to the public. If the issues are eventually remedied I will be fully on board with Lightroom, once again, because I do think that the revamped develop module has been a major improvement for editing and workflow, but all those improvements are pretty useless when I'm losing so many hours battling with performance issues.

No changes, nothing at all, in actual fact I don't even have a PC connected to this broadband line it's purely for the games consoles. I have a separate broadband line for my home office etc.
Just had a call from BT India, with out wishing to sound derogatory I might as well talk to my pet cat. Apparently they were ringing to see if the problem had been resolved, I only reported it 2 hrs ago.

Lightroom has a hard time with local adjustments:

Local adjustments: Spotting / Cloning / Healing Brush, Adjustmenst Brush, Graduated filter
I posted the piece below as a response to thaehn’s post “Lightroom freezes on Dust Spot Removal” but I thought the topic is important enough to warrant its own post.
This in advance: I'm running WIN XP SP4 with all available patches; have 4 GB of RAM; have a dual-core processor at 3 GB.
Apart from my drive C, I have two internal hard drives in Raid 0 configuration (thus they show up as one drive). I also have an external hard drive that's in Raid 1 ( "mirroring') and is connected by fire-wire 400.
Yes, LR "freezes" when using the dust spot tool and also when using the adjustment brush or - but to a lesser degree - when using the grad filter.
My observation though is that it's not a true "freezing", because if I wait long enough LR starts working again. So when using these tools, LR gets extremely busy und just doesn't have enough resources left to respond to further commands right away - but it "stores" the comands and acts on them eventually.
If I turn on my task manager I observe the following when using these tools: the CPU gets extremely busy (i.e. the green bar is at 100%) while the RAM usage is high but not to the max. The "freezes" occur when and as long the CPU works at 100%. If the CPU is below 100% LR responds sluggish and the response is normal again when eventually the CPU usage is at 0%.
Also, in my observation, this behaviour of LR is compounding, i.e. the wait-times for my CPU to get back to 0 are increasing, the longer I work with these tools or the more photos I work on. Re-starting LR does not bring change: the behaviour establishes itself when using the tools again. It is as if LR needs to do some work in the background and that this background work piles up the longer I work in LR.
I am not a software or hardware specialist, so the following observations are somewhat subjective and not really quantifiable.
In Photoshop I observed a similar behaviour (although never as bad) when working on files of 500 MB and above. It was particularly bad when working on photos residing on my external RAID 1 hard drive. I had a hunch that it might have to do with the reading and writing from a drive that a) is external and b) is in RAID 1. It is known that RAID 1 has slower writing (and also reading) speeds than RAID 0 (or no RAID at all). So in Photoshop I managed to cut down on the unresponsiveness by moving large files to my internal RAID 0 hard drive and working from there.
From this experience I come to the assumption that some of the "busy-ness" in LR (or of the CPU) is due to reading/writing to/from the hard drive.
To test this assumption for LR, I moved some photos from my external (RAID 1) to my internal (RAID 0) hard drive and did some "intensive" work: first some "fancy" lens correction, then a few grad filters, and a "final touch" with the adjustment brush. I thought that LR could handle these tasks somewhat better when the photos were on the internal drive - so some of the "sluggishness" or " freezing" is due to the reading/writing from/to the hard drive.
Acually I cannot explain why this should be so: In my naivete I thought LR writes everything only into the catalog (?), that - by the way - is on my internal RAID 0 drive.
I think it would be good if Adobe could look into this and maybe give us some recommendations, just as they do for Photoshop by saying that the scratch disk should be on a different drive than Photoshop.
But it seems also that local adjustments - spotting, adj. brush. etc - are a very high "number-crunching" business for LR - independent of where the photo is located on the drive. (Interestingly the grad filter is not as bad as the adjustment brush). The clone-tool in Photoshop hardly registers on my CPU and if at all only with a very short spike, while the clone tool in LR sends the CPU through the roof for 10 to 30 seconds- even when the photo in question is on the internal drive.
I'm sure loots of people will now tell me that this is due to the difference between pixel-based adjustment and non-pixel-based ones. OK, I acknowledge that. But still ...
It seems some guys are still in denial about this (or maybe they have two quad processors and 16 GB of RAM):
But it's a fact: LR has a hard time with localized adjustments. There must be by now 100's of complaints to that respect, and that can't be dismissed by blaming it on the hardware specs alone.
I just hope Adobe is working on that.
LR3 is a fantastic program that I would not want to work without. Often I have to work on a lot of photos with a very tight deadline. Without LR it would be impossible.
Thank you,
ErnstK

You are right Samoreen.
I posted my above message in July 2010 and this topic has been re-opened by Adobe under the thread Lightroom 3.3 Performance Feedback
I think it would be best if everybody would post their concerns only under this thread.
Otherwise we'd have two different threads for the same issue.
So let's close this one here.
WW

Lightroom does NOT make use of new/fast hardwares!

For those who are considering a new computer here's my experience....
Lightroom 4 does NOT make full use of new/fast CPUs / SSDs!
I’ve been frustrated with Lightroom speed since launch and held on to my “old” Xeon work station for two years…. I recently invested in the latest Intel CPU and IO technology and I'm very disappointed how Lightroom 4 does not make use of it. It's most noticeably sluggish from one photo to the next during editing. This may seem small but when I edits hundreds of images everyday it really slow me down.
See my system specs at very bottom of this post. I don't think there's a bottle neck in performance! I love my new setup and it's a pleasure to use the OS. BUT I'm so disapointed everytime I load up Lightroom. (My typical Lightroom edits are 600-900 sRAW images - I edit down my photos in Photo Mechanic 5! It's just too slow in Lightroom)
Lightroom still take time to load each image when advance from one image to the next (During editing). Isn’t smart enough to cache 100 images in advance let say. (1:1 previews as been created!)
Won’t make use of more than 8GB ram. No matter how big the RAW working set is.
Very slow switching from one working module to another
Lightroom Jpeg export won’t make use of more than 25% of new Intel Xeon E5 series dual processors processing power 12 cores. 6-9 cores are literally taking a nap during export!
I’ve tried everything found in Adobe suggestion link below:
http://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/optimize-performance-lightroom.html
* I definately tried 1:1 render preview and all of the other jazz found in link directly above!
* Running all latest firmwares and updates
I hope the next version of Lightroom will actually make use of good hardware instead of adding on more features. We desperately need a snappy/responsive Lightroom for sake of productivity! I'm not here to put down Adobe. I'm a big fan of Adobe and Intel and have been using them for 15 years.
My Setup:
Dell Workstation T7600
Dual Xeon E5-2630 2.5GHz (12 Cores Total)
64GB 1600Mhz RAM
OCZ RevoDrive 3X2 - 1500MB/s (Boot / Camera Raw Cache)
4 Intel 520 Series SSD in RAID0 with dedicated 1GB Cache SAS/SATA PCIe 3.0 controller (Working RAW files)
Nvidia GTX680 - 4GB VRAM (I know this made for 3D but it has PCIe 3.0 connectivity - Quadro 4000 PCIe 2.0 wasn't any better)
Drobo-S 2GBx5 (Strictly Storage)
Windows 7 Ultimate (Bare minimum! Just Adobe CS6 suite and Microsoft Office 2010)

Can you copy this to the Feature Request forum so we can vote on it please? http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family And then post the link here so we can find it. It'll get my vote.
There are a couple of others you might like to vote on too, such as using the embedded preview for editing down. http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lightroom_capability_to_display_embe dded_preview
In terms of workarounds for now, if you haven't tried the 4.2RC yet, you might find the module switching a bit faster. And for better use of your exports processing power, try splitting your export into 3 or 4 and running them concurrently (i.e. set the first going, and immediately set the second going, etc.) as that'll make better use of the extra cores if your hard drives are able to keep up with them.

Lightroom 2.5 very slow

After upgrade to 2.5, LR seems very sluggish. Below is the data from Help/System Info. Any suggestions? I'm not sure why Virtual Memory Used is so high. Is this a setting I need to change somewhere? Thanks for any suggestions.
Lightroom version: 2.5 [605155]
Operating system: Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3 (Build 2600)
Version: 5.1 [2600]
Application architecture: x86
System architecture: x86
Physical processor count: 2
Processor speed: 3.1 GHz
Built-in memory: 2045.4 MB
Real memory available to Lightroom: 716.8 MB
Real memory used by Lightroom: 56.8 MB (7.9%)
Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 667.0 MB
Memory cache size: 15.4 MB
Serial Number: 116040047072344008313625
Application folder: C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2.5
Library Path: C:\Documents and Settings\Tina Blum\Desktop\Tina's Photo Studio\Lightroom Backup\2009-10-31 1824\Road Trip, 2009.lrcat

Some depends on what you're doing, and whether you've recently imported a lot or not. Can you describe more?
Other comments: You are light on RAM in general, but should be able to run LR ok under most circumstances. Are you using the backup catalog for some reason? Also, in general, it is wise to avoid commas or slashes or other such characters in file or folder names. The path to the catalog seems very long, but I don't know if that alone can affect read/write speed on your platform.

Lightroom 2.4 Is Too Slow To Use As A Professional Product

Hello -
I would like to know how to get Lightroom to respond in less than 4-8 seconds for almost any task.
From returning to Grid mode (4.5 seconds) to adjusting a routine crop and angle (5-7 seconds per move, 60-90 seconds total) to simply shift-selecting three to fifty photos (4-9 seconds) no matter what I do in Lightroom, it is worse that Photoshop 1.0 on a Mac Plus. Really.
Returning to Lightroom from another app - 7 seconds.
Getting the menus to drop down - 4 seconds.
My lightroom settings:
standard preview size: 1680
Quality: High
Discard 1:1: Never
write changes to XMP: off
Catalog: 127 mb on F drive (24 gig free)
Catalog: 13.5k photos, 95 gig on F drive
Cache: 6 gig on F drive
NVIDIA settings: performance over quality
My computer:
HP 8730 elitebook
4 gig ram
XP Pro, SP2
Proc: Core 2 Duo T9400, 2666 MHz (10 x 267)
DirectX 4.09.00.0904 (DirectX 9.0c)
Chipset: Cantiga PM45
Video: NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700M (1024 MB)
(2x) 250 gig 7200 rmp HD
Before anyone says to export to a new catalog and re-import, etc, use a smaller catalog, etc, be advised that I have done all of that. I have imported only 250 images to a new catalog, on a newly installed OS, with Lightroom as the ONLY application. Still it acts this sluggish.
I have scoured the boards for solutions, and having tried all the varied fixes to no avail, I really quite strongly feel that a person should not EVER be in the position or running some of the most powerful available hardware and STILL have to wait interminable seconds for Lightroom to respond.
This software, as it stands now on the PC platform (unless I am missing something quite obvous) is absolutely unusable in its present state.
Can someone from Adobe or a board guru please respond in kind to my request for help?

Photo_op8 wrote:
BradKaye wrote:
I'd have to agree with the subject of this 100%, even though I'm not experiencing anywhere near the levels of lag ellsworth is on any of my primary workhorses.
1st-Gen 17" MacBook Pro 2.4Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo with Hi-Rez Screen (about 2 years old)
1st-Gen MacPro (Dual Twin-Core 3Ghz, 3x, 10k-RPM 150GB Raptor RAID-0, partitioned to System/Scratch/Files (in that order) 16GB RAM...blah blah (about 2.2 years old)
3 week old MacPro 2x2.66 Quad-Core MacPro, 16GB RAM, Multiple Partitioned (System/Scratch/Files) Internal 4x-1.5TB RAID-0, 4x 1.5TB eSATA RAID-0, 2x NVIDIA GT 120's, 30" NEC 3090WQXi, 26" LaCie 526, 24" Apple LED Display
OS 10.5.8 on all machines.
Let me repeat-
Partitioning ONE drive to contain system files, application, cache, catalog and photos=SLOW.
It really doesn't matter that the drive is 7200 or 10k rpm if ALL items reside on the same drive. The MacPro has four bays. One drive for system and catalog, second for cache, third for photos=FAST.
Wow, I'm glad you repeated that, and used capitalized text so that I would be sure to understand.
Clearly, the benchmarks I have off of the various evolutions of my last 3, $10k computers must be in error. (single system disk, RAID-0 system disk, 10k RPM system disk, RAID-0 3x -10K rpm system disks, multiple scratch volumes on different drives, singular scratch volumes on RAIDed drives, tested via benchmark programs and application specific batch tests, etc.etc.)
More importantly as an issue of forum protocol, you didn't actually read my post.
Brad Kaye wrote:
I partition about 10% of the outside of a drive as separate and put the information I need to get to most quickly which tends to be the system folder then scratch disk in a another separate partition and then I leave the rest on that drive as gobs of 'B' space for media and other crap files, reserving the first 10%-30% of the outside of a different drive (or RAID-0 sets) for my files and Lightroom catalogs.
I'm throwing 370 mb/sec between two individual sets of 4 drive RAID-0 sets. Single 7200rpm drives sling about 80 mb/sec. My drive arrangement isn't the reason Lightroom IS TOO SLOW TO USE AS A PROFESSIONAL PRODUCT.
Also, since I referenced and linked the former software engineer turned photo FREAK in my post, whose blog I started reading last year corroborating the decisions I've made in my previous system setups with immaculate documentation and testing procedure your response even more seems like the entire reason I rarely bother posting in community forums. You seem to be here to spout, not to contribute and learn.
Take a look at all of the info contained here: (I've already read it, all of it, and more)
Diglloyd Mac Performance Guide
and if you still think I'm wrong, lets have an informed debate about it. Really.
Otherwise, lets please keep this topic moving forward with the issues Adobe needs to address next to make Lightroom a better product for professional photographers, and specifically, help out ellsworth999 who started this topic, who seems to have a big helping of problems on his plate. I can't speak to him directly of his problems since I'm not using the Windows version of the software.

I am purchasing a laptop with a 4k screen (3200x1800) resolution, will Lightroom work at these levels? what is the highest resolution LR will support?

I am purchasing a laptop with a 4k screen (3200x1800) resolution, will Lightroom work at these levels? what is the highest resolution LR will support?

As Rob has pointed out there is no maximum resolution that LR supports, but performance decreases as resolution increases. I'm using an i7-860 quad core system with a 1920 x1080 (2.1 Megapixel) monitor and LR runs well. A 3200 x1800 (5.8 Megapixel) monitor will require ~2.75 x more processing to render the real-time loupe image in the Develop module. Some people have reported sluggish screen updating when making adjustments in the Develop module with even lower resolution monitors such as 2560x1440. Here's a post that discusses the issue:
The Achilles heel of 4k monitors on the Mac Pro?

Sluggish Lightroom 3.6

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for