Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Lightroom performance improvements...  (Read 8763 times)

alifatemi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 246
Re: Lightroom performance improvements...
« Reply #20 on: July 24, 2017, 06:57:37 AM »

How about allowing zoom while cropping?

YES!
Logged
Ali

graeme

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1123
Re: Lightroom performance improvements...
« Reply #21 on: July 24, 2017, 09:06:31 AM »

How about allowing zoom while cropping?

+1.

It would be particularly useful while levelling images.
Logged

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2609
Re: Lightroom performance improvements...
« Reply #22 on: July 24, 2017, 02:04:45 PM »

Yes, Photo Mechanic is a great application for very speedy mounting and viewing of large numbers of photos. But don't you think LR does an adequately fast job of displaying the photos to be imported before one starts the import process?

Not really.  This is related to the question but adds Import to the mix.

Let me give you my use case. 

I go on week long photo trips several times a year.  Each day I'm taking hundreds of photos.  When I come back to where I'm staying I load the photos into Lightroom from my SD card.  The first time through this process is acceptable but it seems like it could be faster.  The next day I'm using the same SD card and taking hundreds of photos.  I return to where I'm staying and ask Lightroom to import my photos but to ignore those already imported.  This is where things get kind of slow.  Usually a cold drink or a warm chai helps me pass the time until it figures out which photos I can then import.  Once that's done then the import is at its normal speed which still seems like it could be faster.

All this happens on a MBP with internal SSD and putting the photos on an external SSD over USB 3.

Yes, all I have to do it buy a week's worth of UHS-II SD cards and use only 1 card/day but that seems like a waste of money to overcome something that feels like Lightroom could be doing a faster job. 
« Last Edit: July 24, 2017, 02:10:43 PM by rdonson »
Logged
Regards,
Ron

ButchM

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 676
Re: Lightroom performance improvements...
« Reply #23 on: July 24, 2017, 02:36:05 PM »


Yes, all I have to do it buy a week's worth of UHS-II SD cards and use only 1 card/day but that seems like a waste of money [b[to overcome something that feels like Lightroom could be doing a faster job.[/b]

Yes ... Anyone who has the experience and can recall how much faster and more efficient the import process was when using multiple cards over multiple sessions for Aperture is/was, as compared to Lightroom can attest what we are requesting/seeking is indeed possible because it existed years ago in competing products. It's not a matter of if it can be done. It's a matter of choosing to do it. Though I don't hold out much hope as many have been complaining about overall performance issues with Lr for nearly a decade and only now in mid-2017 has it become a 'priority' for Adobe.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10387
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Lightroom performance improvements...
« Reply #24 on: July 24, 2017, 02:57:55 PM »

Maybe the acceptability of the experience depends on one's downloading and cataloguing habits. At the end of each day of a photoshoot I download my card(s) to specially created folders on my hard-drive structured as subject main folder, then daily date/place per nested folder. Once they are downloaded in their correct permanent folder structure, which happens quickly, then I open Lr and import them folder by folder, creating separate similarly named collections per folder along the way. In this manner, there is no confusion between adding or not adding. The import process happens quickly; building Standard Previews take a bit longer, but that's OK. Once the photos are thereby sorted into their collections, I can then leisurely move through them collection by collection prune what gets removed from the collection, or removed from the catalog or trashed, and do my selects. This sequence allows for closer inspection as needed to make these decisions, rather than what one gets at the pre-import stage, and so far, the speed of each process is acceptable - at least to me.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

ButchM

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 676
Re: Lightroom performance improvements...
« Reply #25 on: July 24, 2017, 04:40:59 PM »

Maybe the acceptability of the experience depends on one's downloading and cataloguing habits. At the end of each day of a photoshoot I download my card(s) to specially created folders on my hard-drive structured as subject main folder, then daily date/place per nested folder. Once they are downloaded in their correct permanent folder structure, which happens quickly, then I open Lr and import them folder by folder, creating separate similarly named collections per folder along the way. In this manner, there is no confusion between adding or not adding. The import process happens quickly; building Standard Previews take a bit longer, but that's OK. Once the photos are thereby sorted into their collections, I can then leisurely move through them collection by collection prune what gets removed from the collection, or removed from the catalog or trashed, and do my selects. This sequence allows for closer inspection as needed to make these decisions, rather than what one gets at the pre-import stage, and so far, the speed of each process is acceptable - at least to me.

Your workflow only appears to offer one flaw ... time. You seem to have ample time to allow Lightroom as much time as it needs to accomplish the task. Not all Lightroom users have that luxury.

Imagine if you will that you are shooting a high school or college football game doesn't kickoff until 7:30 or 8 p.m. Presses roll at 9:30 p.m. for your publication's sports section early edition and you have 20 minutes or during halftime  to peruse the 300-500 images shot during the first half, properly keyword, label and accurately caption to AP style 4-6 images for print and another dozen or more for an online gallery ... and ... be back on the sideline to capture as much of the second half as possible then repeat the process for the late edition or other publications at game's end.

Folder structure and leisurely pace aside ... for some Lightroom users ... time IS money ... or the difference of who these publications may call to cover the next game.

I've been paying for Adobe licensing fees for over 25 years ... I don't think it is unfair or unreasonable to request features or workflow enhancements to Lightroom that can benefit my interests. If it were me, I wouldn't want my long time customers seeking options elsewhere. That's how you lose customers.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10387
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Lightroom performance improvements...
« Reply #26 on: July 24, 2017, 05:20:10 PM »

Your workflow only appears to offer one flaw ... time. You seem to have ample time to allow Lightroom as much time as it needs to accomplish the task. Not all Lightroom users have that luxury.

Imagine if you will that you are shooting a high school or college football game doesn't kickoff until 7:30 or 8 p.m. Presses roll at 9:30 p.m. for your publication's sports section early edition and you have 20 minutes or during halftime  to peruse the 300-500 images shot during the first half, properly keyword, label and accurately caption to AP style 4-6 images for print and another dozen or more for an online gallery ... and ... be back on the sideline to capture as much of the second half as possible then repeat the process for the late edition or other publications at game's end.

Folder structure and leisurely pace aside ... for some Lightroom users ... time IS money ... or the difference of who these publications may call to cover the next game.

I've been paying for Adobe licensing fees for over 25 years ... I don't think it is unfair or unreasonable to request features or workflow enhancements to Lightroom that can benefit my interests. If it were me, I wouldn't want my long time customers seeking options elsewhere. That's how you lose customers.
[/quote

Sure, I'm not saying what's good for me is good for everybody. Everyone has different constraints so whatever timing of application performance is relatively immaterial for me may be a deal-breaker for some one else. I was just making the point that how one views the acceptability of an application's performance depends on one's workflow and requirements, giving myself as an example, definitely at the more leisurely end of the spectrum - but I have no illusions about the reality of time sensitivity for others.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2609
Re: Lightroom performance improvements...
« Reply #27 on: July 24, 2017, 05:51:09 PM »

Maybe the acceptability of the experience depends on one's downloading and cataloguing habits. At the end of each day of a photoshoot I download my card(s) to specially created folders on my hard-drive structured as subject main folder, then daily date/place per nested folder. Once they are downloaded in their correct permanent folder structure, which happens quickly, then I open Lr and import them folder by folder, creating separate similarly named collections per folder along the way. In this manner, there is no confusion between adding or not adding. The import process happens quickly; building Standard Previews take a bit longer, but that's OK. Once the photos are thereby sorted into their collections, I can then leisurely move through them collection by collection prune what gets removed from the collection, or removed from the catalog or trashed, and do my selects. This sequence allows for closer inspection as needed to make these decisions, rather than what one gets at the pre-import stage, and so far, the speed of each process is acceptable - at least to me.

Mark, my catalog and file structures are similar.  For my week long photo trip the hierarchy is named after the trip.  In my most recent example that would be 2017-07 Amherst VA. Underneath that folder is daily folders.  For example, 2017-07-07, 2017-07-08, etc.  It's really a simple structure.   I want Lightroom to simply perform its tasks efficiently and quickly.  This is easily done through the IMPORT menu items on the right hand side of the screen.   Loading the files into structures outside of Lightroom seems like you're doing Lightroom's job for it unless I misunderstand your workflow. 

One of the backbones of Lightroom is Digital Asset Management.  In the corporate IT world we called it Enterprise Content Management.  In banking we had all your documents ingested and could display them to your browser in subsecond response times.  Just like Lightroom the files themselves resided on a file system and a relational database kept track of those documents.  This wasn't rocket science although the magnitude of the work in large banks dwarfs what we do with Lightroom room by unimaginable magnitudes.  Imagine a large bank with tens of millions of customers and all the documents associated with those customers.

From my perspective Lightroom simply isn't taking full advantage of the processors and faster storage devices we have these days.  Perhaps it's their code base but honestly I don't know that much about Lightroom.  I just feel that it should be performing better in 2017 for a number of tasks. 
Logged
Regards,
Ron

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10387
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Lightroom performance improvements...
« Reply #28 on: July 24, 2017, 06:34:36 PM »

Loading the files into structures outside of Lightroom seems like you're doing Lightroom's job for it unless I misunderstand your workflow.   

Hi Ron, no you probably didn't misunderstand. I know my procedure may have an element of redundancy. I just like to make sure I packed away all the raw files properly on my hard drive and its back-up drive before I start involving any other application with its attendant failure risks. It's just breaking down the tasks and doing each one the most direct, uninvolved way possible. Maybe a bit archaic and pedestrian but within my comfort zone  :)
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

pero

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
Re: Lightroom performance improvements...
« Reply #29 on: July 25, 2017, 03:50:23 PM »

I also would like faster import/preview generation. The graphics card should have been used for preview generation years ago. Better use of all the cores in our CPUs would also make a difference.

I travel a lot and it is a pain to waste so much time for import every evening. To free up my cards faster I now use PhotoMechanic for import with backup to a separate drive, then I start import of the imported files via lightroom. If I need something fast I tag images in PM and only generates LR previews for those images in the field.

Another LR feature that annoys me is the dependency on internet.
When out traveling I would like a way to sync images to LR mobile on my iphone og ipad via cable. Today LR Mobile is totally useless in places without internet access (and there is no internet on a boat in the arctic or a safari camp in Masai Mara). I know i can export files and transfer with itunes to ipad but I would like to keep the adobe workflow.
Logged

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
Re: Lightroom performance improvements...
« Reply #30 on: July 25, 2017, 08:13:06 PM »

For my preferences, I'd rather have Adobe work on performance of operations in the Develop module than any improvements during import. I typically copy my files from the cards to my disks, then perform a backup of these files and finally launch LR to import the files. While the import is in progress, I'll do other things like eat dinner, go out to a movie or even sleep. I'm in no rush getting the images into Lightroom, but once there and am working on the images, I'd like those operators to be more snappier than they are today. Import is a one time thing...working on the images is much more time consuming fornme...and I can't do anything else than wait for an operator to finish.
Logged

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6699
Re: Lightroom performance improvements...
« Reply #31 on: July 25, 2017, 08:30:18 PM »

For my preferences, I'd rather have Adobe work on performance of operations in the Develop module than any improvements during import. I typically copy my files from the cards to my disks, then perform a backup of these files and finally launch LR to import the files. While the import is in progress, I'll do other things like eat dinner, go out to a movie or even sleep. I'm in no rush getting the images into Lightroom, but once there and am working on the images, I'd like those operators to be more snappier than they are today. Import is a one time thing...working on the images is much more time consuming fornme...and I can't do anything else than wait for an operator to finish.

+1

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

graeme

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1123
Re: Lightroom performance improvements...
« Reply #32 on: July 25, 2017, 08:48:56 PM »

For my preferences, I'd rather have Adobe work on performance of operations in the Develop module than any improvements during import. I typically copy my files from the cards to my disks, then perform a backup of these files and finally launch LR to import the files. While the import is in progress, I'll do other things like eat dinner, go out to a movie or even sleep. I'm in no rush getting the images into Lightroom, but once there and am working on the images, I'd like those operators to be more snappier than they are today. Import is a one time thing...working on the images is much more time consuming fornme...and I can't do anything else than wait for an operator to finish.

+2
Logged

ButchM

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 676
Re: Lightroom performance improvements...
« Reply #33 on: July 25, 2017, 09:21:50 PM »

For my preferences, I'd rather have Adobe work on performance of operations in the Develop module than any improvements during import. I typically copy my files from the cards to my disks, then perform a backup of these files and finally launch LR to import the files. While the import is in progress, I'll do other things like eat dinner, go out to a movie or even sleep. I'm in no rush getting the images into Lightroom, but once there and am working on the images, I'd like those operators to be more snappier than they are today. Import is a one time thing...working on the images is much more time consuming fornme...and I can't do anything else than wait for an operator to finish.

Once again, it would be so awesome to have the luxury of expending all the time necessary for the ingest/importation process ... if I could only go take a nap while Lightroom churns out the the previews and adds the metadata to the catalog.

Conversely, I have not experienced any detrimental slowness or performance hits once I get images in the Develop module. So the reality of the performance issues is that it isn't a one-size-fits-all situation. Our individual workflows are diverse and Adobe's efforts in providing solutions should reflect that diversity. Otherwise, why offer Lightroom as anything more than a Develop module?
Logged

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2609
Re: Lightroom performance improvements...
« Reply #34 on: July 25, 2017, 09:36:26 PM »

From my perspective everything mentioned for performance improvements should be addressed.  We shouldn't have to prioritize the importance of any of these weak points.   They are all important.  The fact that anyone has developed workarounds for bad performance in IMPORT doesn't mean we should dismiss the need to get it straightened out so they can focus on another module in Lightroom.  Let's not lose sight that Lightroom has 7 modules.  I'm pretty sure I've heard gripes about each of them.

- Library
- Develop
- Map
- Book
- Slideshow
- Print
- Web

 
Logged
Regards,
Ron

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
Re: Lightroom performance improvements...
« Reply #35 on: July 25, 2017, 09:39:11 PM »

Once again, it would be so awesome to have the luxury of expending all the time necessary for the ingest/importation process ... if I could only go take a nap while Lightroom churns out the the previews and adds the metadata to the catalog.

Conversely, I have not experienced any detrimental slowness or performance hits once I get images in the Develop module. So the reality of the performance issues is that it isn't a one-size-fits-all situation. Our individual workflows are diverse and Adobe's efforts in providing solutions should reflect that diversity. Otherwise, why offer Lightroom as anything more than a Develop module?

That's exactly right Butch, we all have our different priorities and all should be heard...
Logged

ButchM

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 676
Re: Lightroom performance improvements...
« Reply #36 on: July 25, 2017, 10:01:49 PM »

That's exactly right Butch, we all have our different priorities and all should be heard...

Of course we all should be heard, but Adobe or our fellow users need not relegate addressing such issues to a zero sum gain.

Seeking performance enhancements in various aspects of Lightroom need not be a competition.

I seriously doubt you would be dismayed if the import/ingest process and the Library module would be more efficient as I would not be disappointed with improvements in the Develop module. There can be and should be room for both aspects as both are intrinsic to one another and utilized by every Lr user.
Logged

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
Re: Lightroom performance improvements...
« Reply #37 on: July 25, 2017, 10:27:40 PM »

Of course we all should be heard, but Adobe or our fellow users need not relegate addressing such issues to a zero sum gain.

Seeking performance enhancements in various aspects of Lightroom need not be a competition.

I seriously doubt you would be dismayed if the import/ingest process and the Library module would be more efficient as I would not be disappointed with improvements in the Develop module. There can be and should be room for both aspects as both are intrinsic to one another and utilized by every Lr user.

Sure in an ideal world...magically everything about LR will become lightening fast, but unfortunately we live in the real world where priorities need to be applied. I vote to focus on the develop module as a first priority. You can vote whatever you desire. Adobe will need to take all the votes in and determine their priorities and where to focus their development dollars.
Logged

ButchM

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 676
Re: Lightroom performance improvements...
« Reply #38 on: July 25, 2017, 11:19:54 PM »

Sure in an ideal world...magically everything about LR will become lightening fast, but unfortunately we live in the real world where priorities need to be applied. I vote to focus on the develop module as a first priority. You can vote whatever you desire. Adobe will need to take all the votes in and determine their priorities and where to focus their development dollars.

Also in the real world, a vote for one improvement need not automatically translate into a vote against another aspect. While I don't think any business has infinite resources, I also think a multinational corporation that measures their revenues ... and profits in factors of billions of dollars have the means to address most concerns all users have in the area of performance improvements.

After all, if you have time to sleep while importing your images, I doubt you'd be impacted negatively, regardless of which area Adobe should focus their development dollars.
Logged

pero

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
Re: Lightroom performance improvements...
« Reply #39 on: July 26, 2017, 08:32:34 AM »

For my preferences, I'd rather have Adobe work on performance of operations in the Develop module than any improvements during import. I typically copy my files from the cards to my disks, then perform a backup of these files and finally launch LR to import the files. While the import is in progress, I'll do other things like eat dinner, go out to a movie or even sleep. I'm in no rush getting the images into Lightroom, but once there and am working on the images, I'd like those operators to be more snappier than they are today. Import is a one time thing...working on the images is much more time consuming fornme...and I can't do anything else than wait for an operator to finish.

Do you use a machine with graphics card acceleration?
On my laptop the develop module is flying, even with files from D810.
My problem is that preview generation and showing these previews when I open in develop is slow. Those features are as far as I know not hardware accelerated yet.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up