Lightroom Speed - DPChallenge Forums

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

12/25/2012 11:31:13 AM · #1

I am always frustrated when reviewing photos in LR to find the sharpest of a set or to delete technically inferior ones. It seems LR takes much too long to show me the actual (not the preview) full size photo at full sharpness.

I don't have a stopwatch, but I just timed one at 5 seconds! (That's for a 24 mpixel Nikon D600 shot, NEF.

And that's not the slowest I've seen it. It's a long time for each photo when reviewing photos. Yet you certainly don't want to rate/delete/promote photos without looking at pixel level sharpness.

Yet I have 16 GB of RAM, and the fastest Intel I7 processor (extreme edition) that was available two years ago. 3.x Gigaherz. And of course, other programs aren't slow. (Running Windows 7)

I can also use FastPictureViewer, which is more or less instantaneous to show you the details. But it's definitely not as convenient as LR because while you can rate photos, not everything carries over to LR.

How fast do pictures fully load in your LR? I'd like to see some comparison numbers so I can decide if there's something else I should be considering.

Oh, other stats which may be relevant:

LR Library size: 344819
The folders in question running off a pretty fast SATA drive (internal)

(BTW - Merry Christmas to those who observe it!)

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

12/25/2012 11:39:30 AM · #2

When I was helping my BiL over Thanksgiving, I noticed the same thing with his LR, and he runs a ripping Mac machine. It seemed to take 4-5 seconds to render every one of his multitude of images, and he shoots a LOT of frames. It got rather tedious...

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

12/25/2012 11:42:04 AM · #3

I've had some experience with slow Lr response, but that was with Lr 3.6 on a Core2 duo laptop with WinXP 32-bit, LOL. The largest files I'm currently dealing with regularly are 12.7 Mpx 5D files. In the next few days, I will have some 20Mpx 6D RAWs to play with; I have the 6D from work at home with me so I can familiarize myself. I already know that under L4 4.3 on my work laptop (i7, 8GB, Win7 64-bit, hybrid drive) the 6D files load to full resolution in about a second.
Your library size is quite a bit larger than mine, but that really should not have that great an impact on performance. I'll run some tests with the 6D this week and post back to let you know how that comes out.

Tiny

Apple iPad mini 4

12/25/2012 11:43:27 AM · #4

Yep, Its the same here at least 5 up to about 8 seconds on 3 year old Mac its a pain mostly but I have loads of time.

( I am of course guessing I may have very little time ! )

smardaz

12/25/2012 11:49:50 AM · #5

I dont know if its helpful but I am running Win7 64bit with 8gig ram and LR3 ver 3.6 with CR ver 6.6 and I never experience speeds that slow

heavyj

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4

Panasonic Lumix 20mm f1.7 ASPH

12/25/2012 12:53:39 PM · #6

There are a lot of people complaining about LR4 being SLOOWWWWW. There are a bunch of tips/tricks to get more speed out of it. Not sure if this helps, but I removed several of the modules that I don't use (Like Maps, Web etc.) which helps with the actual loading of the program.

Devinder

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/25/2012 01:22:23 PM · #7

The following steps have helped in the process for me.

When importing, please make sure the 1:1 previews selection is turned on.

Generally, the development module is for the editing work - for whatever reason, it takes a full second or two to load the 100% images in this mode so i avoid it for sorting.

I use Library module to do the initial picking out. You can increase the size of the thumbnails. I actually take pictures 2-4 at a time and compare using the Survey view as i go down my filmstrip. I flag all the keepers and move them to a separate folder. More likely than not the non keepers will stay in "raw" folder until they're disposed. The whole sort process is generally quick for me.

Edit: I don't think the catalog size should be relevant to individual file load time, but i m not an authority on the subject. I create a separate catalog for each event i shoot for the sake of making things simple for me.

Message edited by author 2012-12-25 18:11:54.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

12/25/2012 01:24:15 PM · #8

Welcome to the world of Adobe bloatware... I use LR and have since the start and as much as there is to love about the software.... it's a pig with lip stick at best.

The best answer I have found is to move the cache[set to max... I recall something like 200Gb], images and cat files onto different drives and not on C drive. That's not real useful for most people, but I got decent thruput with software & catalog on C with images and cache on different drives.

If you have not yet done this - make sure whatever virus thing you run EXCLUDES anything to do with LR.... exclude the program folder, especially cache and cat and I also exclude the images themselves. I argue that I ONLY create images from an import from camera and there is a regular sweep of the drives with virus checks, so I don't need the interactive "protection".

If you have not done this recently... optimise the catalog and do it often.

You can also start separate catalogues... but I'm with you and want them all in one cat. I did see an elaborate setup on the web with a master cat that has only small images that were imported from multiple cats with real images and if your desperate that might be an option but it looked like a lot of work to maintain.

Brent_S

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II

12/25/2012 01:24:27 PM · #9

Something is definitely not right Neil. I realized LR4 needs some more horse power when I temporarily had to go back to using a five YO MacBook I had previously used LR3 with. It killed me! And performance was on par with what you are describing. I am waiting until the new processors come out next year before I get another MacBook Pro. In the interim I just got the newest Mac Mini with the upgraded 2.6 i7 and I added 16GB or RAM and it really flies through LR4 even without a discreet GPU taking less than a second to generate a 1:1 view. It has an internal SSD that surely helps some, but I have about 1TB in my catalog on a Thunderbolt connected RAID drive (only a little slower I guess) and images there develop very fast too.

Your rig should be as fast as my new Mini (especially if you have dedicated graphics) so something must be out of whack. I would expect you have optimized your catalog when backing it up recently? Is it possible you inadvertently switched the developing to "minimal" on import which would have you starting from a lower rung when going to 1:1 (I usually import with "standard" views). If you can't sort this out quickly, you could at least import to 1:1 views and leave the computer to do its thing for a while so that all images will be optimized for viewing once you sit down with them.

Good luck getting it sorted out!

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/25/2012 01:27:55 PM · #10

i may be mistaken, but to the best of my knowledge the default behavior is to do a quick ingest (then get the full-size the first time you zoom in), but there is an option to get those full-size on ingest. you just have to decide when you want to pay the piper for LR to do its thing.

along these lines, you might want to do some output comparisons to determine at what point you are getting diminishing returns on increased file sizes. put your camera on a tripod and shoot successive frames at different file sizes. prepare each file the same way for the largest print you might print. then take an 8x10 100% crop at 300dpi of each file, save it, and send it to your favorite lab. when you get the result, be serious with yourself as to quality of output. you might find that you absolutely can't live without those freaking huge honking files.

on the other hand, you might find that you could save yourself a ton of time by ratcheting things down a notch or two or three.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

12/25/2012 02:18:27 PM · #11

Thanks! I think the answer is to precalc the 1:1's. And I just increased my cache size from 1GB to 4GB. The 1:1's take a long time to do, but it's better to let it precalc then to make me wait. The Library menu has a preview sub which lets you generate 1:1's for any folder you are working on. But it's SLOOOW.

I could also install the SSD drive I've had for two years and never bothered to install because in general, my computer is very fast and I don't actually have a extra bay for it (I'd have to do a makeshift one--this is one of those micro-ATX cases or whatever they're called and thus is smaller than my usual; it only has two HD bays and two external bays--all full. But there's one internal SATA port left that I can use...so I've always known I can wing it.

I had an SSD on my last machine as an extra data drive and it did give me a 10 fold performance increase in my XML processing, and I did have LR set to cache there. So I'm sure that would help too.

I don't often optimize the database, because it basically takes many hours given the size of mine.

Skip--unfortunately, the Nikons don't give you any smaller capture size options unless you shoot JPEG, and I always shoot RAW. That's one reason I opted not to buy the D800 and went for the D600 instead. It's too bad though!

I just ran the passmark benchmark too (30 day trial) to see if something's up with the machine, and I didn't get a very good score. Part of that could be that I tested it "as is"--my machine's been running for 12 days without a reboot, I have MySQL server running in the BG, Apache, FTP sync software, dropbox, carbonite, and various other support software...I just tested exactly as I would be running Lightroom right now, except I closed lightroom.

Here were my results (2 out of 5 stars):

I'll have to see if something in particular is slowing my machine too. But the 1:1s definitely help! Thanks for suggesting that.

Zeissman

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

12/25/2012 02:25:17 PM · #12

try using something like CCLEANER to delete all of the cached crap on your system. That can help sometimes.

smardaz

12/25/2012 03:12:30 PM · #13

Originally posted by Neil:

I have MySQL server running in the BG, Apache, FTP sync software, dropbox, carbonite, and various other support software...I just tested exactly as I would be running Lightroom right now, except I closed lightroom.

Here were my results (2 out of 5 stars):

I'll have to see if something in particular is slowing my machine too. But the 1:1s definitely help! Thanks for suggesting that.

Wow! Who knew Neil was such a hardcore nerd?!

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/25/2012 03:44:39 PM · #14

Originally posted by Neil:

I don't often optimize the database, because it basically takes many hours given the size of mine.

here's something else to consider: break your catalogs up. it might take some time, but it will definitely speed things up. i start a new catalog each month. i have a handful of "collection" catalogs that contain images from different catalogs, but my primary catalogs are date specific. when i need a particular image, i know exactly where to go and i don't have any undue overhead in getting to it. i'm also at much less risk for losing anything should a catalog become corrupted. ymmv ;-)

MargaretNet

Sony DSC-RX100 VII

12/25/2012 05:15:08 PM · #15

I have gone to a Catalog per year, less problems.

bvy

Sigma DP1x

12/25/2012 05:37:24 PM · #16

About the same for me -- maybe longer. Five to ten seconds to load the photo full size. I gave up on Lightroom for rating photos. I switched to Windows Live Photo Gallery and assign star ratings to the JPG's (I keep them alongside the RAW files). Much faster. It's a actually a good little tool.

Devinder

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM for Nikon

12/25/2012 06:48:39 PM · #17

I go through a ssd per year or so, because i've decided it works as a scratch disk solution for any software that can use it. something like 60 gigs is excellent for the work i do. If it starts to slow i just get a new one - its like 40 bucks on sale

A usb 3.0 disk as a primary external for storage and access works pretty well too. My current setup uses one as a primary and a secondary that reads any changes and updates as a backup drive. Both are incredibly good. The only delay ever is when its turned on the first time.

Edit: some of it might have to do with PC speed as well. i googled and ran passmark on my pc and the results i see are quite different. I built an i7 second gen machine out of second hand parts just a few months ago but, with only a single generation gap, i am seeing a seeing a different of about 3x in terms of score. Not sure what thats supposed to indicate, but maybe you've got one part running slower than the rest? - i made sure to turn off all overclocks before i ran the test.

Message edited by author 2012-12-25 19:43:47.

kgeary

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

12/25/2012 09:26:03 PM · #18

Also -- you don't need to be 1:1 for most images to tell if they're sharp or if focus was hit. And you only need to care if it's a shot you already like for other reasons. I generally can tell if something is OOF and reject it right away. The ones I'm not sure about I leave selected and go 1:1 on them later. And I always reject all the shots I don't like for "other" reasons first as well. Going 1:1 on every image during the initial culling process is a waste of time.

btw -- I've never experienced 5-6 seconds of wait time at 1:1. I'd say it averages around 2 seconds. However, I'm running an iMac with a fusion drive so unless you have some sort of SSD it's probably not comparable. My old machine only had 4 GB of ram but I was running LR3 on it so can't help you much there either.

Message edited by author 2012-12-25 21:27:11.

Brent_S

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II

12/25/2012 09:57:38 PM · #19

Neil, do you have your preferences set to have your 1:1 generated views expire after a period of time? I am just wondering if you have so many of them in your catalog that it is slowing things down? I have mine set to expire after 30 days.

I spoke incorrectly earlier in that it takes my Mac about 1.5 seconds to generate a 1:1 with 21MP files rather than less than a second- but that is still much quicker than your results. I compared images stored on my internal SSD (fusion drive) with those on my Thunderbolt RAID external spinning drive and the external seems virtually as fast.

12/25/2012 10:09:54 PM · #20

Originally posted by Devinder:

Edit: some of it might have to do with PC speed as well. i googled and ran passmark on my pc and the results i see are quite different. I built an i7 second gen machine out of second hand parts just a few months ago but, with only a single generation gap, i am seeing a seeing a different of about 3x in terms of score. Not sure what thats supposed to indicate, but maybe you've got one part running slower than the rest? - i made sure to turn off all overclocks before i ran the test.

I reran after a boot without mySQL and Apache etc running, though still most my usual stuff, and I got a bit higher, 1709.

My CPU gets a pretty good score...8572 (it's a 6 core Extreme processor). But it uses turbo boost tech, so if I watch speed I see it often runs at 1500 MHz and boosts up to 3.5GHz when needed. Perhaps the newer CPU's just do it better.

My disk score doesn't look good but I think that's because they include 2 SSDs in the composite averages...mine is 661, which is the fourth fastest of the standard avg results...but two of those are SSDs and one is a hybrid drive I believe.

My 3d graphics score sucks, but I have an nvidia geForce 420 and I was not buying one for 3D graphics. And looking at the passmark formula, that drags down the total quite a bit.

All in all, subjectively, my computer seems fast (one reason why I didn't install the SSD). But LR seems slow, which seems born out by others without an SSD.

I'm running a Lightroom 1:1 conversion right now as a test. I selected a folder of already imported D7000 NEFs and asked it to generate the 1:1s. It did 66 in the first two minutes (89 now in three minutes). That's pretty slow, considering the folder has 534 files, so it will take almost 20 minutes to generate 1:1 previews for that folder.

12/25/2012 11:31:28 PM · #21

Taking the time to let it first prep the 1:1's makes a WORLD of difference in usability. I can actually afford to go through and pick the sharpest shots!

Devinder

12/26/2012 12:56:08 AM · #22

i donno if thats a long time for LR. Generally, when i run imports on my PC, it likes to take about 10-20 minutes to get all the files in there with the previews and the iso based presets. Usually, i ll set the import, go say hi to mom, grab a sandwich and come back for it. I usually have 400-1500 files to work with. They are all 5dmkiii files so they're not super small, but not massive either.

Nuno

Nikon D700

12/26/2012 06:21:07 AM · #23

How I miss Raw Shooters Premium (the program LR is based on)...

But then at that time I only had to deal with 6MP files...

Giles