Import speed test of various programmes - Spoiler LR is embarrassingly slow.

[jjj]

Someone decided to see how quickly various programmes took to import and preview a bunch of images.
LR was not just slower than the other software, but dismally so. 
Sadly , I can't say my own experiences do anything to contradict this informal test re LR's lack of speed.

[jarnoh]

Lightroom is pitifully slow with Fuji's RAF files.  I usually don't format the card until it's 75% full (I like to keep few extra backups! , and somehow Lightroom gets slower and slower when the amount of photos increases on the card.  Even if I select only few images on the card, the import dialog seems to go through all the photos, presumably trying to render the thumbnails(?)

I could also replicate this on SSD, so it's not really about card speed or anything.  And it does not happen with other types of files.

[ButchM]

The fact that Lr importation speed is slow has never been a secret.

[Damon Lynch]

This comparison is like asking who is faster over 50m: a typical house cat or Usain Bolt (answer - the cat, of course). I use Photo Mechanic and it's good at what it does. But it doesn't do a tenth of what LR does, which is why it's so much faster. It has no database to update. It has no previews to render (it just extracts the embedded jpegs). 

And as an aside, given all the praise Photo Mechanic has received in these forums recently, I don't recall anyone criticising Camera Bits for utterly failing to launch their next big project, or the times when Photo Mechanic has been crash prone.

[jjj]

This comparison is like asking who is faster over 50m: a typical house cat or Usain Bolt (answer - the cat, of course). I use Photo Mechanic and it's good at what it does. But it doesn't do a tenth of what LR does, which is why it's so much faster. It has no database to update. It has no previews to render (it just extracts the embedded jpegs). 

The fact that the other programmes do different things is not really relevant. The basic import speed of LR is simply very slow [as are many other things about LR], not just the previews and kind of points to the fact that LR is failing where it really shouldn't.
It's so bad I'm finding that I simply don't enjoy using it anymore. 

And as an aside, given all the praise Photo Mechanic has received in these forums recently, I don't recall anyone criticising Camera Bits for utterly failing to launch their next big project, or the times when Photo Mechanic has been crash prone.

I used to use PM years back. Never looked at it again after LR appeared and don't think it's changed very much since then either. It's good for jpeg shooters or those who have large numbers of shoots to cull and a very tight deadline, so news/sports photographers.

[jjj]

The fact that Lr importation speed is slow has never been a secret.

Showing how painfully slow it is in comparison to others is illuminating though.

[ButchM]

I use Photo Mechanic and it's good at what it does. But it doesn't do a tenth of what LR does, which is why it's so much faster. It has no database to update. It has no previews to render (it just extracts the embedded jpegs). 

That too is not a secret. It is the same way Aperture could handle imports as well.

In fact, way back about version the v2 public beta, more than a few sports, photojournalists and even a few wedding shooters, requested the option be added to turn of the building of previews until a later point in the process so as to allow those of us who must work with larger volumes of images to temporarily delay that speed bump just to get to the relatively fewer images we need our further attention when working on critical deadline. Working with the in-camera jpeg is quite efficient to pare down the selection.

We also asked that the feature be added for a setting to import only those images tagged in-camera selects so as to avoid the all-or-nothing approach.

Unfortunately, both requests fell on deaf ears ... though PM and Aperture could both handle those situations with ease if the user so desired.

[jjj]

Adobe's Bridge got the option to use the inbuilt JPEG previews a long time back after getting requests for the same reasons.
Why LR held out...

[jjj]

Another observation on Bridge. When it generated previews [as jpegs] which it then cached, it would also build previews for jpeg files which could actually be bigger than the original files. Plus there were several sized variations of each file too for speed. 

[ButchM]

Adobe's Bridge got the option to use the inbuilt JPEG previews a long time back after getting requests for the same reasons.
Why LR held out...

That's only a consolation if the Lr user happens to also use another Adobe App like Ps, ID or Il ... what about those folks who only use Lr?

Also ... Bridge is one of the few areas where I almost completely agree with Kelby ... There's a reason Bridge is free (or included at no additional cost) ... 

[john beardsworth]

Adobe's Bridge got the option to use the inbuilt JPEG previews a long time back after getting requests for the same reasons.
Why LR held out...

I had hopes when they added GPU acceleration. Still, I suspect it'll arrive a lot sooner than Camera Bits finish the catalogue version that's supposedly under "active development" - for the last few years.

[Damon Lynch]

The fact that the other programmes do different things is not really relevant.

Except if you want features like being able to render from RAW or store the files in a database, then it is highly relevant, and you have no choice but to accept it will inevitably be slower. Even if Adobe do things like leverage the GPU to speed up the preview rendering, it will always be slower. Such is life.

I also note that no one talks about Aftershot/Bibble. It's always been much faster than LR/ACR on preview generation and image export. Their coders did a really fantastic job utilising multi-core systems, and they had GPU support earlier too.  Of course no one here talks about it because the image quality is rubbish in comparison with LR/ACR!

[jjj]

That's only a consolation if the Lr user happens to also use another Adobe App like Ps, ID or Il ... what about those folks who only use Lr?

Also ... Bridge is one of the few areas where I almost completely agree with Kelby ... There's a reason Bridge is free (or included at no additional cost) ... 

Kelby can be a complete doofus on occasions and his smug attitude to Bridge is one of them. Bridge is actually a very good and capable programme as basically it's a file browser programme that does most things that people use LR for. Yes it could be made a lot better, but heck so could LR.
Adobe seem to have given up on it and never marketed it properly or took advantage of what they could have done with it.

It's also not crippled like LR is with regard to file types. LR would a truly great DAM, if it could view all files you needed/used. A digital asset manager that can't manage all your files files is not so much of an asset as it could be. It doesn't have to be able to edit all files just know where they are and allow you to open them in the appropriate editor. Just as you do with PSDs currently. Having to use other software to manage your files makes LR seem pointless [as a DAM] at times

[jjj]

Except if you want features like being able to render from RAW or store the files in a database, then it is highly relevant, and you have no choice but to accept it will inevitably be slower. Even if Adobe do things like leverage the GPU to speed up the preview rendering, it will always be slower. Such is life.

The basic import itself is slow see times in bold below. Nothing to do with rendering of anything.
I recall testing Bridge's ability to copy/move files years back to using the OS instead. Bridge like LR was glacial in comparison. Not sure what Adobe do to files when moving stuff.


Apple Photos was by far the fastest: the full import took just 9 seconds.
Photo Mechanic wasn’t far behind, clocking in at 12 seconds.
Capture One was slower, taking 27 seconds to bring in the photos and 114 seconds to build full previews.
Finally, Lightroom took 190 seconds just to bring in the photos, and a whopping 685 seconds to build full previews.

[ButchM]

Kelby can be a complete doofus on occasions and his smug attitude to Bridge is one of them. Bridge is actually a very good and capable programme as basically it's a file browser programme that does most things that people use LR for. Yes it could be made a lot better, but heck so could LR.
Adobe seem to have given up on it and never marketed it properly or took advantage of what they could have done with it.

It's also not crippled like LR is with regard to file types. LR would a truly great DAM, if it could view all files you needed/used. A digital asset manager that can't manage all your files files is not so much of an asset as it could be. It doesn't have to be able to edit all files just know where they are and allow you to open them in the appropriate editor. Just as you do with PSDs currently. Having to use other software to manage your files makes LR seem pointless [as a DAM] at times

Sure, Bridge may not be 'crippled' like Lr is  ... as I pointed out, not all Lr users have Bridge available. Bridge is a poor substitute for browsing images on deadline when it is not installed on your computer. I think the point is, so many folks should not have to employ multiple apps for such a simple task.

The sad fact is, these are minor features that have existed in other options for years that Adobe could have implemented long ago. If they were available, the suggested tools would likely garner wide use. Though, I'm quite sure Camerabits appreciates all the sales of PM to Lr users that need a faster front end performance boost. Too bad Adobe doesn't recognize that value.

[Denis de Gannes]

Quote "That's only a consolation if the Lr user happens to also use another Adobe App like Ps, ID or Il ... what about those folks who only use Lr?

Lightroom is a stand alone application and does not require the use of PS and /or Bridge. To wit Lightroom is not Photoshop and does not function like Photoshop.

[ButchM]

Quote "That's only a consolation if the Lr user happens to also use another Adobe App like Ps, ID or Il ... what about those folks who only use Lr?

Lightroom is a stand alone application and does not require the use of PS and /or Bridge. To wit Lightroom is not Photoshop and does not function like Photoshop.

When did I ever state otherwise? .... I know exactly what Lr, Ps and Bridge are .... been using Ps since 1992, been using Bridge since it's inception (thinking that was CS?) been using Lr since the very first day of the very first public beta for pre-v1 in 2006 ...

I have no confusion between the apps.

I was responding to jjj's suggestion that Bridge would be an option that allows for quicker viewing/culling of images ... I was merely pointing out Bridges is not an option for users who don't have Bridge available ...

[Denis de Gannes]

I was only focusing on "what about those folks who use only Lr" ignore the other applications.

[Ann JS]

The only efficient and speedy way to use Lightroom, in my experience, is to download the files to whichever HD you choose through Bridge and then do all Star Rating and RAW Processing in ACR 9.2 itself. I also do all key-wording in ACR instead of Lr and that stays in the metadata when I import into Lr.

Only after doing that, would I Import files into Lr if I have need for one of its special features.
If you use the same Camera Profile that you used to edit in ACR as a Preset when you import into Lr.
your Lr Files can be made to open with Smart Previews already in place.

Frankly, I have no use for Lightroom's very limited ability to catalogue files of different kinds; and I prefer to print from either Photoshop or from Indesign so would never use Lr for that purpose.

I don't store files on DVDs but use multiple multi-TB external HDs (labelled by the Year of creation or by the name of the Client).

I just pop the required HD into a USB or Firewire-connected HD Dock as I need them and find that Bridge and Apple's Spotlight Search can immediately find anything either by file-number or if my search-word is embedded in the metadata as a description or a Keyword.

I can also find files through Bridge's Collections (which, contrary to what Lr protagonists would have you believe, DOES remember which HD and Directory holds the saved file (even when that HD is off-line!) when a particular file was added to the Collection).

I normally add ALL the files (of all kinds and formats) which I might need for a particular project into a Bridge Collection. Lr cannot do that.

Everyone who has a Photographers' subscription to the CC can install Bridge as part of their package.

[ButchM]

The only efficient and speedy way to use Lightroom, in my experience, is to download the files to whichever HD you choose through Bridge and then do all Star Rating and RAW Processing in ACR 9.2 itself. I also do all key-wording in ACR instead of Lr and that stays in the metadata when I import into Lr.

Actually, the main hurdle to speedy imports into Lr is the time the app takes to build previews. Remove that task from the calculations and the rest of the work to process an assignment is a draw. Copying the files from card to HD, star rating, color labeling, keywording, captioning etc. moves just as quickly in Lightroom as in any other app I have ever used that is capable of those tasks ... including Bridge, PM, C1, Aperture, Media Pro, etc. It's the preview creation that is the bottle neck.