Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: Gandalf on March 11, 2012, 06:17:48 PM

Title: LR4 speed
Post by: Gandalf on March 11, 2012, 06:17:48 PM
Does anyone else notice that LR4 is really slow? I noticed it on the beta, and ignored it because it was a beta. The production version doesn't seem to be much of an improvement in speed. Perhaps I need to do a complete uninstall and reinstall since I upgraded from the beta rather than install the production version clean.
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: Walter Schulz on March 11, 2012, 06:31:40 PM
You may do so but I doubt it will do you any good.
Check system performance instead as done in http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=62696.0

Ciao, Walter
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: Ellis Vener on March 11, 2012, 08:43:39 PM
I see the reverse -things generally seem faster- but some adjustments do seem to have a little lag to them.
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: Gandalf on March 12, 2012, 12:51:25 AM
Ellis, are you on 10.6 or 10.7? I'm running Snow Leopard and wonder if that is the problem. I have 16 GB RAM and a SSD on a Macbook Pro.
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: Schewe on March 12, 2012, 01:11:43 AM
Does anyone else notice that LR4 is really slow?

When and where? Just to warn you, PV 2012 is much more processor intensive than PV 2010 because all of the Basic panel adjustments are image adaptive...so it LR has to run a lot of computing to make the image adaptive decisions. Also note that lens corrections can really slow down screen display. I tend to do lens corrections last after global and local corrections. Also the local corrections if you make a lot if pins (separate masks) can slow down.

AS for overall performance between the beta and final release...not much change. It would help to specify where you are seeing the slowdowns and what you are doing.
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: hjulenissen on March 12, 2012, 04:32:34 AM
When and where? Just to warn you, PV 2012 is much more processor intensive than PV 2010 because all of the Basic panel adjustments are image adaptive...so it LR has to run a lot of computing to make the image adaptive decisions. Also note that lens corrections can really slow down screen display. I tend to do lens corrections last after global and local corrections. Also the local corrections if you make a lot if pins (separate masks) can slow down.

AS for overall performance between the beta and final release...not much change. It would help to specify where you are seeing the slowdowns and what you are doing.
Using:
*Windows 7-64
*Intel i7 2600
*12 GB of ram
*Intel SSD drive (OS, applications and 20GB of Lightroom cache)
*ATI 5570 with recent drivers

I experience Lightroom 4 as significantly slower than LR3 in the edit module. Simple things like white-balance that was perceived as instant before, now slows down to the point where I am doing editing mistakes (if nothing happens, I tend to push the slider some more, but then those edits adds up at some point).

I am also seeing some "unpretty" drawing of gui elements, where stuff is painted out of place before catching up. Nothing of practical consequence, but detracts from the experience.

Improvements in IQ may or may not be worth this slowdown, I have to spend some more time with it before judging that.

-h
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: Rhossydd on March 12, 2012, 07:04:55 AM
Yes, I'm finding there's been little performance improvement since the beta.

Primarily this is in the develop module with slow response to moving the sliders with process 2012. Even still in process 2010 LR4 is slightly less responsive than LR3.6.
As -h says in the last post, colour temperature seems a particular example where a wait of  a couple of seconds for the screen to update is just unacceptably slow.

I think I'm going to create a preset that imports into process 2010, then only move to 2012 if absolutely necessary until this is sorted.

Win 7 64bt, Q6600 @ 3ghz, 8gb ram, 10k system drive with 127gb free, LR catalogue and previews on SSD, Nvidia GTX470, 3840x1440 spanned desktop. Files from 1DsII, 5DII and others.

Lightroom version: 4.0 [814577]
Operating system: Windows 7 Business Edition
Version: 6.1 [7601]
Application architecture: x64
System architecture: x64
Physical processor count: 4
Processor speed: 3.0 GHz
Built-in memory: 8191.1 MB
Real memory available to Lightroom: 8191.1 MB
Real memory used by Lightroom: 705.0 MB (8.6%)
Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 899.1 MB
Memory cache size: 0.0 MB
System DPI setting: 120 DPI
Desktop composition enabled: Yes
Displays: 1) 2560x1440, 2) 1280x1024

Application folder: C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4
Library Path: F:\Lightroom Paul\Lightroom 2 Catalog-2-2.lrcat
Settings Folder: C:\Users\Paul\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\Lightroom

Adapter #1: Vendor : 10de
   Device : 6cd
   Subsystem : 83471043
   Revision : a3
   Video Memory : 1248
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: Gandalf on March 12, 2012, 10:57:52 PM
When and where? Just to warn you, PV 2012 is much more processor intensive than PV 2010 because all of the Basic panel adjustments are image adaptive...so it LR has to run a lot of computing to make the image adaptive decisions. Also note that lens corrections can really slow down screen display. I tend to do lens corrections last after global and local corrections. Also the local corrections if you make a lot if pins (separate masks) can slow down.

AS for overall performance between the beta and final release...not much change. It would help to specify where you are seeing the slowdowns and what you are doing.

Thanks Jeff,

My speed issues are in the develop module, mostly white point and exposure/whites/blacks/shadows/highlights adjustments. I am doing a catalog for each shoot, so there are only a few hundred images in the catalog while I'm editing. It is definitely working the cores, but none are saturated.
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: John Cothron on March 13, 2012, 12:02:10 AM
If anything I've noticed it being faster than lr3.6, significantly faster in fact.  I'm not sure what the difference could be because it seems some of you are running more capable systems than I am.  I'm running a i7-930 at 4ghz, with 12gb DDR3 memory.  I do have the images on an internal Raid 10 array, while the operating system/software is on a separate disk.

The only "slow" thing I've noted thusfar is with the spot healing tool.  It seemed to be a little sluggish at times in v3.6 as well however so I can't really lay that at Lr4's feet.
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: Kirk Gittings on March 13, 2012, 01:20:04 AM
Runs fine on my machine-no noticeable increase or decrease of speed between LR3 or 4. No hangs. W7 Xenon 6 core processor 24 GB ram.
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: Rendezvous on March 13, 2012, 01:48:45 AM
I'm running LR4 on a 15"MBP with 8GB of RAM. For me the performance is pretty similar to LR3.
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 13, 2012, 01:15:44 PM
Ah, sweet memories:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=44395.0
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: JGColeman on March 13, 2012, 01:30:50 PM
Quote
Ah, sweet memories:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=44395.0

Ha ha!  I've been thinking about the exact same thing ever since everyone started to complain about LR4's speed.



After release of LR3

Person X:  "OMG, why is LR3 so slow!  I can't even use this sloth for my work."

After the release of LR4

Same Person X:  "OMG, LR3 was so fast... why is LR4 so slow!  I can't even use this sloth for my work."

After the release of LR5 in the future

Same Person X:  "OMG, LR4 was so fast... why is LR5 so slow!  I can't even use this sloth for my work."



And so on and so on, ad infinitum...
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 13, 2012, 01:38:03 PM
Not so fast, JG.

If you read the thread I linked to through the end, you will notice that, on page 3, Adobe admitted a bug and released a fix. Besides, there were several releases between launching Lr 3 and its final version, thus comparing Lr 3.7 vs. Lr 4 in terms of speed makes sense, whereas comparing Lr 3.0 vs. Lr 4.0 the way you did does not.
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: JGColeman on March 13, 2012, 02:15:38 PM
Not so fast, JG.

If you read the thread I linked to through the end, you will notice that, on page 3, Adobe admitted a bug and released a fix. Besides, there were several releases between launching Lr 3 and its final version, thus comparing Lr 3.7 vs. Lr 4 in terms of speed makes sense, whereas comparing Lr 3.0 vs. Lr 4.0 the way you did does not.

Regardless, the cycle of complaining continues -and will continue well into the future, just as I have outlined- for every successive version of LR.  Really... I'm not even clairvoyant, either... I'm just good at observing the obvious.

For example, take the folks that lament how LR4 won't run on decade-old Windows XP.  I truly would not be surprised if many of them ranted endlessly when XP came out, complaining about how "good old Win 3.1" was so much faster than the new, bloated, bulky, buggy Windows XP.  Funny how people's viewpoints change over time, isn't it?

Every new version release of any software is routinely met with vehement complaints that "oh me oh my, its sooo sloooow".  Yet, a few years later when another new version comes out, the same people are going on and on about how the old version "sooo much faster" and the new version is "soooo slooow".  The predictability of the whole thing is enough to make me yawn wide enough to swallow my own head.

Bugs really have nothing to do with it... though it can be rationalized that that's the case.  All but the most rudimentary and simple applications have bugs: it's an inevitability.
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 13, 2012, 02:41:55 PM
... Every new version release of any software is routinely met with vehement complaints that "oh me oh my, its sooo sloooow".  Yet, a few years later when another new version comes out, the same people are going on and on about how the old version "sooo much faster" and the new version is "soooo slooow"...

And I offered a perfectly logical explanation why it is so and why it makes sense, but you would rather stick to your theory how people are just whining.
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: Rhossydd on March 13, 2012, 02:44:36 PM
Regardless, the cycle of complaining continues
It will until Adobe understand that optimisation of code and responsiveness of the user experience is important to people and get it right in version .0

Just think how blown away we'd all be if future versions of LR were just as responsive and fast to use as previous version. Then you wouldn't need to spend lots of money getting it to work acceptably well and could spend the money on better things. I'd prefer less frequent upgrades and be prepared to pay a lot more for them if they didn't have to involve big extra expenditure.

Quote
I truly would not be surprised if many of them ranted endlessly when XP came out, complaining about how "good old Win 3.1" was so much faster than the new, bloated, bulky, buggy Windows XP.
Actually XP was excellent from day 1, blowing away 3.1/95/ME/98 in just about every respect. It was in many ways the first mature consumer OS and remains the corner stone of many company's IT systems.




Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: JGColeman on March 13, 2012, 03:16:17 PM
And I offered a perfectly logical explanation why it is so and why it makes sense, but you would rather stick to your theory how people are just whining.

Hey, I'm just saying... when everybody thinks the same, nobody thinks.  And I, for one, think it's 90% whining and about 10% legitimate complaints.  I chuckle to myself when I see posts by users who are intently staring at their core activity, practically jumping out of their chair to accuse Adobe of "not using all their cores to maximum capacity".  C'mon guys... since when did you all become computer engineers?  Or software engineers, for that matter?

Quote
It will until Adobe understand that optimisation of code and responsiveness of the user experience is important to people and get it right in version .0

What you want is unreasonable... as much as you seem to feel horribly violated by anything less.  There are virtually infinite combinations of scenarios to potentially test for the release of a piece of software: operating systems, hardware, potentially conflicting software, the health and/or state of each individual operating system, the wide range of functions and the equally numerous ways in which the functions can be used in combination, etc, etc.  If software developers held themselves to a standard of "getting it right in .0", then nothing would ever improve and nothing new would ever be released!  By the time they homed in on every conceivable bug in a piece of software like LR4, for example, the underlying algorithms and processes would already be dated and behind the times. 

Quote
Actually XP was excellent from day 1...

Yep... I bet it was.  I don't remember too well, really, since I left that dinosaur in the dust a LONG time ago.  But if XP users want to dial up Adobe (with their crank-operated telephone, no less... those always were the best phones... no bloat, y'know... no annoying numbers to dial... just talk to the operator) to complain that they are making a big mistake with LR4, that's certainly their prerogative.  Just don't be surprised if Adobe isn't interested.
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: Farmer on March 13, 2012, 06:20:10 PM
It will until Adobe understand that optimisation of code and responsiveness of the user experience is important to people and get it right in version .0

I think they completely understand this.  But even with a large public beta, it's a big difference to actual release and issues that never even hinted at existing during testing and development can pop up.  It's not affecting everyone, so I doubt it's a generic "optimisation" issue, but rather a specific bug of some sort.  As they've had a good track record of resolving these things (see the recently linked thread), I'm confident they'll do so again.
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: Rhossydd on March 13, 2012, 07:04:21 PM
I think they completely understand this.  But even with a large public beta, it's a big difference to actual release and issues that never even hinted at existing during testing and development can pop up. 
The lack of responsiveness of the develop module has been very well reported since the release of the public beta. The standard reply was 'it's slow because it's a beta and has debugging code added', but that issue is still here. It's interesting to see some speculation that the debug code might still be in place and will get removed in a point release later.

I think what makes these sort of issues so annoying for those us who've used LR since the very first version 1 beta is remembering just how great version 1 was.
As a version 1 program it was almost perfect, great usability, no dreadful bugs and a fantastic feature set. We know the LR software engineers can deliver the goods, but it seems now they're locked into Adobe corp's roundabout of needing new features and an upgrade on a regular basis. Some of that original touch of thoroughness seems to have been lost.
People get annoyed because they care so much about it. We've spent huge amounts of time learning how to get the absolute best out of it and have invested a lot effort into importing, cataloguing, processing and finishing our images in LR. We get this schizophrenic update with some great new potential features, that fail to fully deliver by not being complete or the most important module being so unresponsive it's really difficult to use the new features in it, it's very frustrating.
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: Walter Schulz on March 13, 2012, 08:03:11 PM
I would be pleased if someone might reproduce my steps and report his/her performance issues.

Took a PV 2010 image and created a virtual copy.
Settings: No lens correction, linear tone curve, noise reduction to zero. No brushes.

Converted it to PV 2010 and "played" only with the colour temperature slider in both PVs: No remarkable difference, follows quite pleasing.
Manipulated tone curve and "played" with colour temperature as above: No remarkable difference, follows quite pleasing.
Tried one of Jeff Schewe's "Don't do it or it will slow down" settings: Added lens correction and doing the same as above: No remarkable difference, still pleasing.
Added luminance noise reduction (about 35): Now the picture changes (sorry for the pun)! PV 2010 slows down a bit, but now there is a remarkable gap in PV 2012! Set noise reduction to zero and performance levels were quite equal again.

System description:
Intel mainboard DZ68DB, i5-2500k (no overclocking), 16 GB RAM
Graphic: Internal HD 3000. Monitor: 1280x1024 + 2560x1440. LR running on the small display, single display configuration, switched big one on and off.
Windows 7 Ultimate, 64 bit.
Image by Canon 7D, RAW in about 23 MByte.

Ciao, Walter
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: Schewe on March 13, 2012, 09:07:18 PM
Added luminance noise reduction (about 35): Now the picture changes (sorry for the pun)! PV 2010 slows down a bit, but now there is a remarkable gap in PV 2012! Set noise reduction to zero and performance levels were quite equal again.

Yes, that's not unexpected. LR4 with PV 2012 is doing something different with previewing the applied noise reduction...I'm pretty sure it's doing it with all screen previews regardless of size-which before it only rendered the noise reduction at certain sizes.That and it has to re-render the whole image including the noise reduction each time you change any adjustment slider.

One thing to try is when you are working on other adjustments, turn off the button on the far left of the Detail panel and see if that speeds things back up while working on other adjustments...
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: kaelaria on March 13, 2012, 11:39:27 PM
I just completed a new build http://phototipobsession.com/2012/03/05/photo-editing-computer-build-and-tips/ (http://phototipobsession.com/2012/03/05/photo-editing-computer-build-and-tips/) and LR4 FLIES.  You simply have to take the whole system in to consideration and make sure everything is optimized.  I benchmarked it after this video and the CPU during PS tests never got above 15%.  The speed is simply from the configuration and setup.

Making sure your ram is setup correctly is a big point.  If you are running 12 GB of ram on a dual channel board for example, you are shooting yourself in the foot.

Using fast disc systems is critical.  LR and PS love SSDs and RAID0 arrays, it is the biggest bottleneck to everything.  The latest chipsets are leaps and bounds above the last overall.  My last system was a quad core overclocked to just 3GHz, this new one even at a stock 3.4 and not using more than a few percent is much faster simply due tot he increased memory rates and architecture.

Yes new software can bring out new bottlenecks, but you have to keep current with your hardware too if you expect current software to shine.  Just like buying new cameras every few years and updating PS to read the files.
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: Walter Schulz on March 14, 2012, 01:56:13 AM
One thing to try is when you are working on other adjustments, turn off the button on the far left of the Detail panel and see if that speeds things back up while working on other adjustments...

Funny thing happens after I turn off "Detail": Performance ignores this switch!
1) I add luminance noise reduction (35) and change temperature with "Detail = ON": PV 2012 performs with a gap between changing slider and changing image.
2) Left luminance noise reduction at 35 and set "Detail = Off": Same performance as above. *No* influence.
3) Set "Detail = On", luminance noise slider set to zero: Performance remarkable faster.
4) Left luminance NR slider at zero and switched "Detail = Off": Performance as above in 3.)

-> On my system a performance gap will occur after pushing "Luminance" noise reduction and it doesn't matter if "Detail" panel is activated or not.

Anyone else here able to reproduce this?

Ciao, Walter
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: David Eichler on March 14, 2012, 03:44:49 AM
I just completed a new build http://phototipobsession.com/2012/03/05/photo-editing-computer-build-and-tips/ (http://phototipobsession.com/2012/03/05/photo-editing-computer-build-and-tips/) and LR4 FLIES.  You simply have to take the whole system in to consideration and make sure everything is optimized.  I benchmarked it after this video and the CPU during PS tests never got above 15%.  The speed is simply from the configuration and setup.

Making sure your ram is setup correctly is a big point.  If you are running 12 GB of ram on a dual channel board for example, you are shooting yourself in the foot.

Using fast disc systems is critical.  LR and PS love SSDs and RAID0 arrays, it is the biggest bottleneck to everything.  The latest chipsets are leaps and bounds above the last overall.  My last system was a quad core overclocked to just 3GHz, this new one even at a stock 3.4 and not using more than a few percent is much faster simply due tot he increased memory rates and architecture.

Yes new software can bring out new bottlenecks, but you have to keep current with your hardware too if you expect current software to shine.  Just like buying new cameras every few years and updating PS to read the files.

I miss Tri-X and D-76.
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: John R Smith on March 14, 2012, 08:24:38 AM
I miss Tri-X and D-76.

 ;) I think that there are quite a few of us who feel the same, David, but feel too inadequate to mention it . . .

John
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: John Cothron on March 14, 2012, 08:29:59 AM
;) I think that there are quite a few of us who feel the same, David, but feel too inadequate to mention it . . .

John

I actually started shooting film again (along with digital) and it's quite a nice change.  On the other hand, it opens up another can of worms with scanning...and you end up back in Lightroom for final adjustments and printing :)  I don't have an enlarger..lol
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: Pete_G on March 14, 2012, 11:59:27 AM
Funny thing happens after I turn off "Detail": Performance ignores this switch!
1) I add luminance noise reduction (35) and change temperature with "Detail = ON": PV 2012 performs with a gap between changing slider and changing image.
2) Left luminance noise reduction at 35 and set "Detail = Off": Same performance as above. *No* influence.
3) Set "Detail = On", luminance noise slider set to zero: Performance remarkable faster.
4) Left luminance NR slider at zero and switched "Detail = Off": Performance as above in 3.)

-> On my system a performance gap will occur after pushing "Luminance" noise reduction and it doesn't matter if "Detail" panel is activated or not.

Anyone else here able to reproduce this?

Ciao, Walter

I can't confirm this. When I switch off the Detail Panel, the exposure sliders are more responsive. If I set Detail sliders to zero, then the exposure sliders are even more responsive.

From my experience, Detail settings DO definitely affect the exposure sliders, so Detail adjustments should be left to last.

Having a secondary monitor switched on also makes a very big difference to sluggishness in exposure sliders

On installing LR4 (after the beta, which I only had a "test" catalogue in use) I converted my LR3 catalogue as normal. I have since gone into LR3 and written all the adjustments to xmp. I then created a NEW catalogue in LR4 and imported all my files. This seems to have made quite a difference to performance, I can use the exposure sliders fairly well with the Detail Panel switched on AND the secondary monitor active. I shall continue with this new catalogue and hope there is no downside.

**EDIT** I've discovered that simply importing causes the all the images to be converted to process 2012. Digital Dogs method ( see later post) is better.
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: dreed on March 14, 2012, 12:41:21 PM
If you read the thread I linked to through the end, you will notice that, on page 3, Adobe admitted a bug and released a fix. Besides, there were several releases between launching Lr 3 and its final version, thus comparing Lr 3.7 vs. Lr 4 in terms of speed makes sense, whereas comparing Lr 3.0 vs. Lr 4.0 the way you did does not.

It may make about as much sense to compare 3.7 with 4.0 as 3.0 with 4.0.

There's no guarantee that 4.0 is a continuation of the work that made up 3.7. Specific bits may be copied (lens, camera, etc, data) but beyond that it's hard to know without knowing how the engineering inside Adobe is managed.
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: digitaldog on March 14, 2012, 12:50:11 PM
I have since gone into LR3 and written all the adjustments to xmp. I then created a NEW catalogue in LR4 and imported all my files. This seems to have made quite a difference to performance, I can use the exposure sliders fairly well with the Detail Panel switched on AND the secondary monitor active. I shall continue with this new catalogue and hope there is no downside.

Same on this end. Exporting and importing seems to really help, at least in terms of moving sliders in Develop.

The process I used was to select all the images and Export as Catalog. Then just open that new catalog which keeps everything (collections, presets, VCs etc) as it was in the previous catalog.
I did NOT keep the previews (lrdata)!
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 14, 2012, 01:12:59 PM
It may make about as much sense to compare 3.7 with 4.0 as 3.0 with 4.0...

Perhaps... Especially if you didn't read carefully what I said. I said clearly the comparison is "in terms of speed". Whether it is "continuation" or not is totally irrelevant, you can always compare the speed, just as you can compare it between two totally different programs, doing the same or similar thing, say Aperture vs. Lightroom.
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: Pete_G on March 14, 2012, 01:27:06 PM
Same on this end. Exporting and importing seems to really help, at least in terms of moving sliders in Develop.

The process I used was to select all the images and Export as Catalog. Then just open that new catalog which keeps everything (collections, presets, VCs etc) as it was in the previous catalog.
I did NOT keep the previews (lrdata)!

Andrew,

Your method is better since the images come in as process 2010. My way they came in as 2012 and I don't know if there's a way to batch change them back to 2010.
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: digitaldog on March 14, 2012, 01:52:47 PM
Some came in as PV2003, some 2010, some 2012; the process I used honors the originals.

Is it too late to go back to your original catalog and export again?
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: Walter Schulz on March 14, 2012, 07:17:53 PM
I can't confirm this.

Thank you! I have found another issue within my installation not working as indended (some sliders greyed out in PV 2010). I will uninstall LR 4 and try a second run.

Ciao, Walter
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: Pete_G on March 15, 2012, 09:17:45 AM
Some came in as PV2003, some 2010, some 2012; the process I used honors the originals.

Is it too late to go back to your original catalog and export again?

Absolutely, that's what I have done, so thanks for the tip.
Title: Re: LR4 speed
Post by: David Eichler on March 21, 2012, 12:57:09 AM
When and where? Just to warn you, PV 2012 is much more processor intensive than PV 2010 because all of the Basic panel adjustments are image adaptive...so it LR has to run a lot of computing to make the image adaptive decisions. Also note that lens corrections can really slow down screen display. I tend to do lens corrections last after global and local corrections. Also the local corrections if you make a lot if pins (separate masks) can slow down.

AS for overall performance between the beta and final release...not much change. It would help to specify where you are seeing the slowdowns and what you are doing.

Is this a memory usage issue similar to what happened with LR3, and might Adobe be able to improve the situation as they did with LR3? While not as bad as I got with the earlier versions of LR3, the lag I am getting with LR4 is enough to be frustrating, and will keep me from moving to LR4 entirely (at least until I update my hardware, which I hope to not have to do for another year or so). Right now, using LR4 is kind of like trying to use LR2 on a G5 iMac. :(