Lightroom Classic new behavior

[Mark D Segal]

Mark, I guess it depends on the word “optimal”.  I can’t speak to Windows machine but it’s fairly straightforward for a programmer to query the graphics hardware on a Mac. If Lr requires certain attributes such as amount of VRAM or graphic card models they shouldn’t enable the graphics card for performance in Lr.  That might save a lot of grief for users.

We don't know what else may be involved. Anyhow, it is beginning to sound as if there are some performance issues with this version. Perhaps best to wait longer before installing.

[Alan Goldhammer]

That may be the issue. Custom-built computers are one-of-a-kind and however standard intel/Windows systems are there are differences from component to component. Adobe tests with well known computer lines, but cannot guarantee that there is not an issue on some custom combination of hardware/firmware systems. Custom computers are bleeding edge - been there, done that.

Windows recognizes and registers all video drivers.  Unless one is using on board CPU video (unlikely for a photographer) there are only two games in town NVIDA and AMD.  LR should be able to detect this and adjust appropriately.  I might be incorrect but I think LR uses the Open GL standard.  I build my own workstations from commercially available components and high end builders such as Puget Systems do the same.  This is an issue that falls square on the engineers at Adobe.

[Mark D Segal]

Windows recognizes and registers all video drivers.  Unless one is using on board CPU video (unlikely for a photographer) there are only two games in town NVIDA and AMD.  LR should be able to detect this and adjust appropriately.  I might be incorrect but I think LR uses the Open GL standard.  I build my own workstations from commercially available components and high end builders such as Puget Systems do the same.  This is an issue that falls square on the engineers at Adobe.

I would be reluctant to blame anyone till knowing what's really going on. There may be causes that haven't been determined.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I would be reluctant to blame anyone till knowing what's really going on. There may be causes that haven't been determined.

I know you want to be sympathetic to Adobe but there are common standards for graphics processor implementation.  It's also easy to detect which unit is employed on a particular computer.  Macs are probably easier to deal with as they have standardized components.  However, as I noted in my earlier post, WindowsOS registers all hardware and it is all recognizable.  One can argue that Adobe releases software far to early and should do more of an outreach to the beta testers to identify issues.  We have had the promise of GPU acceleration for several years now and have yet to see a smooth implementation.  If computer game companies can exploit every performance advantage of GPUs in a market that is massive, Adobe ought to be able to do the same in a more limited marketplace.

[Mark D Segal]

I know you want to be sympathetic to Adobe but there are common standards for graphics processor implementation.  It's also easy to detect which unit is employed on a particular computer.  Macs are probably easier to deal with as they have standardized components.  However, as I noted in my earlier post, WindowsOS registers all hardware and it is all recognizable.  One can argue that Adobe releases software far to early and should do more of an outreach to the beta testers to identify issues.  We have had the promise of GPU acceleration for several years now and have yet to see a smooth implementation.  If computer game companies can exploit every performance advantage of GPUs in a market that is massive, Adobe ought to be able to do the same in a more limited marketplace.

Actually you don't "know" because I have no interest in being "sympathetic" to any software provider for anything. The issue has nothing to do with personal feelings - it is purely a technical matter and NOBODY participating in this discussion obviously knows for sure what's going on under the hood or why.

[pearlstreet]

I had it built by Ava direct. It's all pretty standard parts so it should be all right.It's been great with lightroom until this last update.

[Rory]

Actually you don't "know" because I have no interest in being "sympathetic" to any software provider for anything. The issue has nothing to do with personal feelings - it is purely a technical matter and NOBODY participating in this discussion obviously knows for sure what's going on under the hood or why.

I think we're just wondering how long you are going to continue to give Adobe the benefit of the doubt Mark.  My gut tells me LR Classic is short on competent resources, otherwise we would not be seeing the ongoing issues release after release after release.

[jrsforums]

Actually you don't "know" because I have no interest in being "sympathetic" to any software provider for anything. The issue has nothing to do with personal feelings - it is purely a technical matter and NOBODY participating in this discussion obviously knows for sure what's going on under the hood or why.

What is “under the hood” of anyone’s computer is usually unique, which is the problem any builder of complex software has to deal with in their test bucket and beta program.

Whether “standard” system or custom built, each board is different, different mix of components, even within ‘same’ board, but slightly different level or because of mix of components from different suppliers.  Good board design tries to allow for these differences, but timing and signals can vary.

Then add the level of drivers for each of these board components.  These change over time...are they at original level, updated some, at current level?  Is the board timing different for different supported processors?  What cards have been added, with what drivers and levels?  What software, with or without their own drivers?

When you think of the number of different permutations and combinations of hardware and software you realize quickly that there is NO “standard” to test to.  There are only a most probables.  You try to cover most of them while knowing there is no way you could ever cover all of them....not enough time, money, or people.

[Mark D Segal]

I think we're just wondering how long you are going to continue to give Adobe the benefit of the doubt Mark.  My gut tells me .....   

You shouldn't waste your time wondering about such nonsense, because when I' ve KNOWN that Adobe was responsible for an issue I've said so loud and clear on this website. I don't trust my gut. I know of one politician who said he trusts his and it's gotten him into lots of trouble but if you want to trust yours it's your call - each to his/her own (gut) 😀. It's late at night for me now; over and out.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Comparison data is HERE courtesy of Puget Systems.  As others have noted already HDR and Pano actions are slower than the older version of LR.  Regarding GPU acceleration, they don't comment on that.  System requirements are HERE as published by Adobe.  The GPU standards are clear and it's up to Adobe to craft their software in accordance with the standards in the same way as they would compile the program under MacOS or WinOS.  I don't have a dog in the fight as I'm waiting for the dust to settle with both Affinity Photo and MacPhun to see if they come up with a DAM model comparable to LR before deciding whether and what to upgrade to from LR6.

[jrsforums]

Comparison data is HERE courtesy of Puget Systems.  As others have noted already HDR and Pano actions are slower than the older version of LR.  Regarding GPU acceleration, they don't comment on that.  System requirements are HERE as published by Adobe.  The GPU standards are clear and it's up to Adobe to craft their software in accordance with the standards in the same way as they would compile the program under MacOS or WinOS.  I don't have a dog in the fight as I'm waiting for the dust to settle with both Affinity Photo and MacPhun to see if they come up with a DAM model comparable to LR before deciding whether and what to upgrade to from LR6.

I don’t know, but the things I want faster are.  The few times I do an hdr or pano I could stand the change, but I may or may not use LR for them. DNG creation I NEVER use.


Puget Conclusion:
So is Lightroom Classic CC actually faster than Lightroom CC 2015.12? In most cases, yes, it is significantly faster! There are a few times it stumbled, but the fact that generating previews was up to four times faster is very impressive. On average, we saw the following performance changes with Lightroom Classic CC:

Import 100 images                   15-90% faster
Convert 100 images to DNG   20% slower to 6% faster
Export 100 images                   Up to 28% faster
Generate 100 Smart Previews   230% to 370% faster!!!
Generate 100 1:1 Previews           240% to 420% faster!!!
Develop Scroll 50 photos
(No Smart Previews)                   30% to 75% faster
Develop Scroll 50 photos
(With Smart Previews)           14% slower to 2% faster
HDR Creation Total                   15% to 25% slower
Panorama Creation Total           Up to 20% slower

[John Hollenberg]

I have a custom computer from Puget (Win 10/64, SSD for primary drive, NVidia graphics, plenty of memory) which is a couple of years old.  Everything works fine for me, but haven't tested pano/HDR yet as I don't use those very often.

[pearlstreet]

That's pretty much my setup John. My machine has been super dependable but this new Lightroom is not as stable on it. Adobe support said they are working on bug fixes now so I guess I'm not the only one.

[Mark D Segal]

I don’t know, but the things I want faster are.  The few times I do an hdr or pano I could stand the change, but I may or may not use LR for them. DNG creation I NEVER use.


Puget Conclusion:
So is Lightroom Classic CC actually faster than Lightroom CC 2015.12? In most cases, yes, it is significantly faster! There are a few times it stumbled, but the fact that generating previews was up to four times faster is very impressive. On average, we saw the following performance changes with Lightroom Classic CC:

Import 100 images                   15-90% faster
Convert 100 images to DNG   20% slower to 6% faster
Export 100 images                   Up to 28% faster
Generate 100 Smart Previews   230% to 370% faster!!!
Generate 100 1:1 Previews           240% to 420% faster!!!
Develop Scroll 50 photos
(No Smart Previews)                   30% to 75% faster
Develop Scroll 50 photos
(With Smart Previews)           14% slower to 2% faster
HDR Creation Total                   15% to 25% slower
Panorama Creation Total           Up to 20% slower

This and your previous post are factual and make a lot of sense to me. The evidence indicates it's a mixed bag with some things working better, some things working less well and yet, from what Sharon learned, other things just needing to be fixed. One real dilemma is to know when to launch - what is "prime time" - or in other words - how much "beta testing" will happen amongst the customers versus how much before then. The other real dilemma is that changing software features and algorithms often involves (I've learned from discussions with some developers) compromises, so there are judgment calls about which compromises are worthwhile on the whole. The value of a forum like this one (and even more so the Adobe forums) is to bring out the issues, so both Adobe and other users can be made aware of them as they think of upgrading. Personally, I'm not chafing at the bit to upgrade, but I respect the early adopters for what they bring to the table. Very helpful.

[florisvaneck]

It is a public secret that Adobe software is very buggy and that is mainly due feature bloat in all of their products. Using non-standard hardware is very common on Windows and most of my software runs fine regarding of the hardware it is on. Furthermore, self-built computers are using components based on standards, and in general also the same kind of components that you will find in a Mac or Linux computer. I am an avid gamer and almost all gaming rigs are custom built and this doesn't hamper performance (although one system might perform better than the other for a certain game). Gaming happens to be one of the applications that pushes systems most, so if game developers manage to optimize, why doesn't Adobe?

Furthermore, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that Adobe is essentially forking Lightroom into two branches: Lightroom Classic and Lightroom CC. This essentially means that their resources, including engineering and testing, are now split. This makes me believe, regardless of what Adobe says (they are not known for keeping their word), that Classic (and the name is a clear indicator) is now in maintenance mode with a much smaller team. I wouldn't say it won't get any new features or updates, but the code base isn't going to chance significantly, major UI update full revision. That full revision has already arrived: it's called Lightroom CC. And I believe their strategy is similar to what Apple did with Final Cut Pro > Final Cut Pro X and Aperture > Photos (although it can be contested to what extend they succeeded with Photos, unlike Final Cut Pro X which is now a very solid feature rich application). This means that over the next few years, Lightroom CC will involve into a more feature-rich product in line with Adobe's vision on modern image management and development. Ultimately, the product will be better for it and Adobe will reach a bigger audience (if their value proposition is good enough vs Apple Photos / Google Photos). 

This blog by Peter Krogh is an interesting read http://thedambook.com/lightroom-innovators-dilemma/ and I believe he nailed it in his analysis. I believe Adobe is doing the right thing but I also think they have been milking existing customers for far too long. And I also think you can correlate the drop in big updates to Lightroom with the start of the development of Lightroom Mobile (what is now CC).

TLDR: I still think that overall Lightroom Classic is still the most holistic and complete DAM/Developer with some great features, an open plug-in infrastructure and overall good image quality (but both Capture One and DxO get more out my images, so I use Lightroom mainly as DAM and DxO as developer). Essentially you're paying Adobe $100-$120 a year for Camera updates, unless you make good use of Photoshop in the package.

[jrsforums]

This and your previous post are factual and make a lot of sense to me. The evidence indicates it's a mixed bag with some things working better, some things working less well and yet, from what Sharon learned, other things just needing to be fixed. One real dilemma is to know when to launch - what is "prime time" - or in other words - how much "beta testing" will happen amongst the customers versus how much before then. The other real dilemma is that changing software features and algorithms often involves (I've learned from discussions with some developers) compromises, so there are judgment calls about which compromises are worthwhile on the whole. The value of a forum like this one (and even more so the Adobe forums) is to bring out the issues, so both Adobe and other users can be made aware of them as they think of upgrading. Personally, I'm not chafing at the bit to upgrade, but I respect the early adopters for what they bring to the table. Very helpful.

I might have also waited, but had just done a clear build of my photo system due to a old faulty MB, so was pretty sure I’d have no “twisted, mixed up, driver conflicts, etc”.  Classic came up clean.  Only ‘glitch’ was it recognized new Nvidia 1080 as DirectX, not OpenGL.  Not sure I should have, but I changed it and has been working clean, no crashes or blackout, and speeded....though with new board and cpu I cannot say which caused speed up....guessing both.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I might have also waited, but had just done a clear build of my photo system due to a old faulty MB, so was pretty sure I’d have no “twisted, mixed up, driver conflicts, etc”.  Classic came up clean.  Only ‘glitch’ was it recognized new Nvidia 1080 as DirectX, not OpenGL. Not sure I should have, but I changed it and has been working clean, no crashes or blackout, and speeded....though with new board and cpu I cannot say which caused speed up....guessing both.

Pretty sure that DirectX is correct.  This is the standard most games are written for and why folks purchase NVIDIA GPUs.

[Alan Goldhammer]

It is a public secret that Adobe software is very buggy and that is mainly due feature bloat in all of their products. Using non-standard hardware is very common on Windows and most of my software runs fine regarding of the hardware it is on. Furthermore, self-built computers are using components based on standards, and in general also the same kind of components that you will find in a Mac or Linux computer. I am an avid gamer and almost all gaming rigs are custom built and this doesn't hamper performance (although one system might perform better than the other for a certain game). Gaming happens to be one of the applications that pushes systems most, so if game developers manage to optimize, why doesn't Adobe?

I'm just curious as a WinOS user and builder of computers what is a good example of "non-standard" hardware.

[jrsforums]

Pretty sure that DirectX is correct.  This is the standard most games are written for and why folks purchase NVIDIA GPUs.

Understand what you say about games.  Adobe, however, of the need for OpenGL in their spec requirements for LR.

I have not gotten a good answer on leaving it at DirectX or forcing to OpenGL.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Understand what you say about games.  Adobe, however, of the need for OpenGL in their spec requirements for LR.

I have not gotten a good answer on leaving it at DirectX or forcing to OpenGL.

NVIDIA probably set the default to DirectX as most buyers are gamers and that's what they need.  NVIDIA support OperGL as shown:  https://developer.nvidia.com/opengl  I'm sure that the Adobe prompt you mentioned was a message to switch the GPU over manually (I don't know if it can be done automatically by LR; it sounds like no).