Lightroom 5 speed issue

Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
1,027
Location
Annandale, VA
I played with it yesterday. I have the MacPro 6 Core 3.33 ghz Intel Zeon with 12 gb ram and it is really slow. Here's a discussion at Adobe. http://forums.adobe.com/message/5425138 It is primarily aimed at PC owners. According to one responder there he was told by an Adobe tech LR5 requires you to have a DirectX 10 capable graphic card. :frown:

More suggestions; author owns a Mac. I'm trying them http://alikgriffin.com/solutions-lightroom-running-slow The last remark, about sharpening and noise may be my problem. I've been doing noise first and sharpening randomly.
Sharpen and Remove Noise Last: This is the most processor intensive thing you'll be doing to your photos in Lightroom. Be sure to do it all last, because if you try to remove noise first, it has to do all those calculations every time you change any color slider. So just flip the switch off and save noise and sharpening for the final step.
 
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
2,492
Location
NC
It seems I recall a number of folks having speed issues when LR 4 was first released, too. My LR 5 copy will stay in the box until I complete a set of customer edits and have time to see how nicely it plays.

Just read the Mac user's link......splitting 500 images into separate folders of 200/300 is definitely something Adobe needs to address in 5.x
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
15,253
Location
Marysville, WA
Doing Noise Removal last is just about the worst thing you can do. Sharpening noise makes the noise much more difficult to deal with.

I will have to compare this with the speed of NX2. When NX2 appeared the big complaint was the speed issue.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
3,902
Location
UK
I played with it yesterday. I have the MacPro 6 Core 3.33 ghz Intel Zeon with 12 gb ram and it is really slow. Here's a discussion at Adobe. http://forums.adobe.com/message/5425138 It is primarily aimed at PC owners. According to one responder there he was told by an Adobe tech LR5 requires you to have a DirectX 10 capable graphic card. :frown:

More suggestions; author owns a Mac. I'm trying them http://alikgriffin.com/solutions-lightroom-running-slow The last remark, about sharpening and noise may be my problem. I've been doing noise first and sharpening randomly.
Your computer spec looks pretty good to me (although I know nothing about Macs!) assume you are using Mac OS X v10.7 or v10.8. Not sure about the DirectX10 capable card comment as I understand that DirectX10 is a Windows thing and while you can have a card capable of supporting the MS software you cannot use it - so it would appear irrelevant for Mac users?

It would be good if Adobe could utilise the graphics processor a little better as in CS6 - perhaps LR6?

Anyway, another potential slow down is if you have enable automatic lens correction turned on - may be worth a look.

Hope you can get the issue resolved
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
9,532
Location
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Apple does not use DirectX, so that is not the issue.
I have a similar computer: Mac Pro, 2.26 GHz-dual quad core, 16GB RAM, ATI 4870 video card. The only difference is that I changed to a SSD for the OS and Programs.
Lightroom5 is very fast, no hesitation at all. Sharpening and Noise reduction early do not slow it at all.
Heal and Clone tools have zero hesitation.

Try starting a new Catalog that's on a drive different than the OS and see if it makes a difference.
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
9,532
Location
Pittsburgh, Pa.
I have OS and Lightroom5 on one internal drive. The photos are on a second internal drive. The Cache is set to 200GB and is on a third internal drive.
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
1,027
Location
Annandale, VA
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
I'm upping my RAM from 12gb to 16gb. I already have OS and images on different drives. I'm increasing the image cache from 100gb to 200gb and moving it to a third drive. I'm considering an SSD for the OS but am leery of the cost-benefit ratio. I normally keep my usual suite of applications fired up all the time so a fast application load speed doesn't seem to buy me much. I'd appreciate your (and others') thoughts on that. Thanks Greg.

Bill I know about the critical nature of the process in NX2 but LR from my understanding is a different sort of beast, the order of processing isn't as critical. I've over 60,000 images and have gone through almost all of them at one time or another with LR 3/4 and I've found no discernible difference in image processing quality with respect to sharpness application. However, when I do it I do color noise first, then luminous and finally sharpening..and I still normally do sharpening last...really out of habit. In any case I do color, then luminous noise first, before sharpening, always..because sharpening will bring out sharpening artifacts. If I'm not happy with the pixeling from the sharpening I'll tweak it or even back off on the luminous noise correction. It's all so easy with Lightroom. When I get it all right from a particular scene or similar shoot I copy all (excluding crops of course) and paste it to all the remaining shots of that group. It's a great time saver.

I would like to be able to 'erase' a particular correction out of the editing list on the left. I recall reading some sort of explanation that that isn't possible but it would still be easier than adding correction on top of correction on top of correction...or resetting and starting over.:actions1:
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
3,902
Location
UK
I normally keep my usual suite of applications fired up all the time
Is it possible that the 'fired up' applications are using far more resources than you think and interfering with LR performance? Any improvements if you close them?

... I'm considering an SSD for the OS but am leery of the cost-benefit ratio. I normally keep my usual suite of applications fired up all the time so a fast application load speed doesn't seem to buy me much. I'd appreciate your (and others') thoughts on that...
It might not buy you as much as you would hope for http://www.computer-darkroom.com/blog/will-an-ssd-improve-adobe-lightroom-performance/ The link is one referenced in Adobes own papers about speed
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
15,253
Location
Marysville, WA
Bill I know about the critical nature of the process in NX2 but LR from my understanding is a different sort of beast, the order of processing isn't as critical. ....
I would like to be able to 'erase' a particular correction out of the editing list on the left. I recall reading some sort of explanation that that isn't possible but it would still be easier than adding correction on top of correction on top of correction...or resetting and starting over.:actions1:
Given that the edits are additive, I don't see how this could be any different between LR and NX2. As you note, you do yours in the "right" order anyway, I was just surprised to see the "wrong" order noted as a speed resolution.

Boy, I sure do agree with you 10,000,000,000 % on your comment regarding "erase" for the edit steps. The "not possible" claim is BS. If the folks at NIK/Nikon could figure out how to do it, then I'm sure the bright folks at Adobe could :wink::wink:
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Messages
1,872
Location
Denver, CO
My desktop is powerful and should have no trouble running LR5. Unfortunately I use Lightroom on my laptop... The good news is that I am on DirectX 11 so it should have no trouble. I ran the beta and did not notice any issues with speed.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
680
Location
USA
LR is essentially processor bound and seems to respond more favorably to increases in MHz than the number of cores. SSD technology is not "the" answer, even for those who keep their cache and catalogs on such a device (as I do).

My thinking is that LR coding is just not very efficient and, barring a ground-up rewrite, we aren't likely to see major speed increases in the near term unless hardware takes a big leap forward.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
3,902
Location
UK
LR is essentially processor bound and seems to respond more favorably to increases in MHz than the number of cores. SSD technology is not "the" answer, even for those who keep their cache and catalogs on such a device (as I do)
+1, seems that SSD is not as you say 'the answer'. A question: when you changed from HDD to SSD and assuming you were using LR? did you notice any real increase in system response at all?
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
1,027
Location
Annandale, VA
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
I should further clarify that the latency I was referring to was a few seconds, not tens of seconds as mentioned in some of the links. After my changes I see less of a latency...but that could be a placebo effect. Time will tell.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Messages
1,872
Location
Denver, CO
I was running LR4 when I changed to an SSD in my laptop. I did notice a significant speed increase when opening a file. It seems that LR is displaying a thumbnail image and when you magnify, it loads the file from the disk. Once the complete file is loaded, of course there is no more speed improvement.
Pete
 

Butlerkid

Cafe Ambassador
Moderator
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
22,136
Location
Rutledge, Tennessee
Real Name
Karen
You can choose what size thumbnail LR loads initially..... Loading larger sizes take longer initially, but save time when processing or viewing at 100%. It's a trade off, and depends on individual preference.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Messages
1,872
Location
Denver, CO
Thank you Karen, I will try to adjust that. I can probably initially load bigger thumbnails now that I have the SSD.
Pete
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
680
Location
USA
A question: when you changed from HDD to SSD and assuming you were using LR? did you notice any real increase in system response at all?
I tested using Photoshop, not LR since I do far more work in the former software. For me, there were no significant differences between having PS installed on SSD vs. Velociraptor (high-end conventional disk). I ended up with my OS and apps on the 'raptor and put all the scratch, cache and catalog type files on SSD.

SSD gives a real boost to boot times and app loads, as has been well documented. For subsequent app loads, these speed-ups are largely canceled out by Windows caching algorithms. If you let your computer sleep, as opposed to shutting down and rebooting, the SSD advantage is not nearly as dramatic because you're not re-loading the OS; apps can remain cached if you have enough RAM.

I read comments by people who claim that it's nearly torture for them to work on a system that uses a conventional drive for the OS because it's so sluggish compared to one with an SSD. I don't see that at all, at least not to any extent that makes me wish I had configured my system differently. Most system tools open instantly with any delay being measured in milliseconds. But, if you absolutely have to have an instant BAM! response at the OS level, then SSD is for you. Note that no matter what disk type you use, apps are loaded in RAM anyway and working within them is not OMG faster with an SSD, at least generally speaking. There may be specific instances where an SSD offers a distinct advantage, but I failed to locate any. Again, I did not test with LR so YMMV.

Finally, LR generates a new 1:1 preview anytime you enter the Develop module regardless of whether you rendered 1:1 previews on Import. I don't know why this is necessary, but that's the way Adobe chose to do things. This render and constant updating of the preview is processor intensive and is only partially ameliorated by having the LR / ACR cache on SSD. Setting your cache size to something bordering on humongous will help a bit. Mine weighs in at 35 GB (the default is 1GB).
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
9,532
Location
Pittsburgh, Pa.
It's hard for me to judge the difference in Lightroom speed between the HDD and SSD. Both have worked without hesitation. Of course Boot and program opening have a significant advantage to the SSD.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
3,902
Location
UK
Lucky Duck, many thanks for your comperhensive reply. Your thoughts on SSD largely correspond to my own, but of course my experience of SSD at this time non existent and am pretty much reliant on others information and experiences.

It is timely as I am thinking about my replacement PC and individual components including storage prior to a camera upgrade. As an example a 500GB SSD (although prices have dropped1) equals approx £300. A similar sized Velociraptor approx third of the cost at £103 and a 1TB coming in at around £180!

I know that OS boot times, app loads and large data loads will see good boosts in speed but while that is attractive I can live with more modest performance and any money saved may be put to better use with other components such as graphics, additional memory, better cooling, etc etc. Still I may consider a smaller SSD for a PS scratch drive although even this may be overkill with enough memory.

Lightroom previews I have experimented with and advice to generate 1:1's seemed sound but as you say new previews need to be generated regardless so I cannot really see how this is really helpful
 

Growltiger

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
12,826
Location
Up in the hills, Gloucestershire, UK
Tony - I would add a couple of comments about SSDs.

Argument for SSD
I would get a 256GB SSD. A lot cheaper than a 512 but more than big enough for OS and software. I have two machines where I installed these and am very happy. The machines are second generation i7s with traditional motherboards. Bootup time is about 40 seconds (from power-on to completely ready). They have 1TB or 2TB 7200 rpm drives for the data.

Arguments against SSD
1. Having plenty of memory means that once a program has run once it loads very quickly anyway (in Win 7 and later).
2. My fairly new very small machine (third gereration i7 and a newer motherboard with UEFI) can only take one drive. It has a 750GB ST750 hybrid drive (i.e. some SSD integrated into it). It actually boots up in about 40 seconds and the machine has remarkably good overall performance, similar to the large machines. See here: https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=354807

Of course SSD is nice and will come to replace conventional disks more and more. But in optimising spend on a new machine I agree it is far from essential.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom