Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Adobe's Performance Hints for Lightroom  (Read 13168 times)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9271
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Adobe's Performance Hints for Lightroom
« on: December 08, 2012, 08:37:19 PM »

Adobe released tips for improving the performance of Lightroom 4:

http://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/performance-hints.html

Hope this helps. My apologies if this is old news.

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Adobe's Performance Hints for Lightroom
« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2012, 11:07:01 PM »

Well... it should be old news, but it wasn't that long ago (a few months) where some threads became more than a bit snarky at my claims SSD's and RAM in excess of 8gb could significantly improve performance certain parts of our work flow..    I also mentioned a few other areas for improvement..   This is all just common sense stuff, if you know what equipment your work flow task and how certain equipment works the conclusions should be a a no-brainer.
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

kencameron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 824
    • Recent Photographs
Re: Adobe's Performance Hints for Lightroom
« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2012, 02:08:02 AM »

I'm looking forward to adding the ssd when I spot the right sale.  ;D
I went for an SSD when the price per GB (for 240gb) got closer to 50c than $1, and don't regret it.
Logged
Ken Cameron

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: Adobe's Performance Hints for Lightroom
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2012, 07:40:23 PM »

Interesting to read their recommendations for "Order of Develop operations "

It's rather different to the recommendation of working 'top to bottom in the panels' that's been given here by some folk in the past.
Logged

kaelaria

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2223
    • http://www.bgpictures.com
Re: Adobe's Performance Hints for Lightroom
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2012, 11:33:13 PM »

Some of those suggestions including the order of operations, only make a difference on the slowest of outdated systems.  A modern build negates any such editing order 'need'.  Top down is still the best solution for image quality, which is what was referred to, not 'speed'.

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: Adobe's Performance Hints for Lightroom
« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2012, 04:26:00 AM »

..  Top down is still the best solution for image quality, which is what was referred to, not 'speed'.
Er no. Have you read the page ?
Specifically:-"performing spot healing first improves the accuracy of the spot healing, and ensures the boundaries of the healed areas match the the spot location."

That's a quality issue, not just speed.
Logged

Vistographer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
  • Anne van Houwelingen
    • Vistography
Re: Adobe's Performance Hints for Lightroom
« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2012, 04:44:49 AM »

Let me pick this subject to have a first post here. This might have been mentioned before, but it took me a long time figuring it out. That might be just me, but I doubt it:
When changing from LR3.x to LR4 my catalog size increased considerably. This coincided with a long photographic trip to the US Southwest and many images in dusty places. Long story short, my catalog exploded from 350K to over 6GB. For 35K images in total. This not only slows down performance when working, but also slows down and fills up the backup chain. I tried everything from optimizing the catalog to rebuilding it from scratch and doing some fancy stuff on the database directly with SQlite commands. Nothing helped. But deleting the history did help. A lot. The catalog went from 6GB to 700MB. That is a massive reduction in size, much more than I had expected from the information I was able to find on this subject.
Why did the catalog grow out of proportion? Probably because I do a lot of local adjustments and I had to deal with thousands of dust spots in my SW images. And when you are working on multirow, multi exposure panoramas, that all adds up. I print some images really big, so every spot has to go.
So, if you do not need all that history, it might be a good idea to delete it once in a while.

Anne  

Logged
Anne van Houwelingen | www.vistography.com

kaelaria

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2223
    • http://www.bgpictures.com
Re: Adobe's Performance Hints for Lightroom
« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2012, 05:00:43 AM »

Er no. Have you read the page ?
Specifically:-"performing spot healing first improves the accuracy of the spot healing, and ensures the boundaries of the healed areas match the the spot location."

That's a quality issue, not just speed.

Agreed. And if you didn't notice, spot healing is at the top.

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: Adobe's Performance Hints for Lightroom
« Reply #8 on: December 11, 2012, 05:47:29 AM »

Agreed. And if you didn't notice, spot healing is at the top.
Indeed spot healing IS at the top, but the other geometric corrections are at the bottom. You have looked at the page ?
Logged

kaelaria

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2223
    • http://www.bgpictures.com
Re: Adobe's Performance Hints for Lightroom
« Reply #9 on: December 11, 2012, 06:56:57 AM »

Yes I did. As I said the effects are only seen on slow outdated systems.

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: Adobe's Performance Hints for Lightroom
« Reply #10 on: December 11, 2012, 07:51:32 AM »

... the effects are only seen on slow outdated systems.
That's not actually what it says.You've missed a potentially important point here.
This isn't just about speed, but it specifically says "improves the accuracy" and "ensures the boundaries of the healed areas match the the spot location"

This differs to the 'it doesn't matter what order you do things in, LR just does it all together regardless of what order you do things in' advice that has been proffered by some here in the past.

"slow outdated systems" well yes, that's what most people use. Not everyone can afford to stay at the bleeding edge of technology which is why LR4's demands on hardware aren't well received by a lot of users.
Logged

JRSmit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 548
    • Jan R. Smit Fine Art Printing Specialist
Re: Adobe's Performance Hints for Lightroom
« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2012, 01:29:41 PM »

Some of those suggestions including the order of operations, only make a difference on the slowest of outdated systems.  A modern build negates any such editing order 'need'.  Top down is still the best solution for image quality, which is what was referred to, not 'speed'.
Would you call a ivybridge platform with an i7 3770 and 16gb and ssd outdated? Yet comes to an almost complete standstill with spothealing!
Logged
Fine art photography: janrsmit.com
Fine Art Printing Specialist: www.fineartprintingspecialist.nl


Jan R. Smit

David Eichler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
    • San Francisco Architectural and Interior Photographer
Re: Adobe's Performance Hints for Lightroom
« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2012, 02:06:57 PM »


Why did the catalog grow out of proportion? Probably because I do a lot of local adjustments and I had to deal with thousands of dust spots in my SW images. And when you are working on multirow, multi exposure....  I print some images really big, so every spot has to go.
So, if you do not need all that history, it might be a good idea to delete it once in a while.

Anne  



I don't know why anyone would do heavy spotting with Lightroom. Photoshop seems much better suited to that.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9271
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Adobe's Performance Hints for Lightroom
« Reply #13 on: December 11, 2012, 02:49:54 PM »

I don't know why anyone would do heavy spotting with Lightroom. Photoshop seems much better suited to that.

Because it is easier, faster, and simpler?

kikashi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5310
Re: Adobe's Performance Hints for Lightroom
« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2012, 02:56:14 PM »

I don't know why anyone would do heavy spotting with Lightroom. Photoshop seems much better suited to that.

Because it is easier, faster, and simpler?

And because it can be synchronised almost automatically to other shots taken around the same time.

Jeremy
Logged

David Eichler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
    • San Francisco Architectural and Interior Photographer
Re: Adobe's Performance Hints for Lightroom
« Reply #15 on: December 11, 2012, 03:06:27 PM »

And because it can be synchronised almost automatically to other shots taken around the same time.

Jeremy

The synchronization is great with the appropriate subject matter, which is pretty much only shots that have the same composition. Depending on where the spots are, variations in the composition and subject matter can make synching useless.
Logged

David Eichler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
    • San Francisco Architectural and Interior Photographer
Re: Adobe's Performance Hints for Lightroom
« Reply #16 on: December 11, 2012, 03:10:59 PM »

Because it is easier, faster, and simpler?

I don't find it so, except for a few easy to find spots against a relatively even background.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9271
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Adobe's Performance Hints for Lightroom
« Reply #17 on: December 11, 2012, 03:21:54 PM »

Doing it in LR does not require a round trip to PS, is parametric, i.e., can be corrected at later time if necessary, and does not create another, and huge, file, as would be the case when round-tripping to PS.

kencameron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 824
    • Recent Photographs
Re: Adobe's Performance Hints for Lightroom
« Reply #18 on: December 11, 2012, 03:22:51 PM »

It's rather different to the recommendation of working 'top to bottom in the panels' that's been given here by some folk in the past.
I don't see any inconsistency. at least which the advice I have read in the past, which has been to work top to bottom within the panels, particularly the "Basic" panel to optimize tonal corrections, rather than to work the panels top to bottom. Eg, I have never seen any advice to do, eg,  local corrections before general, or Camera Calibrations last, which would be the order of the panels.
Logged
Ken Cameron

Vistographer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
  • Anne van Houwelingen
    • Vistography
Re: Adobe's Performance Hints for Lightroom
« Reply #19 on: December 11, 2012, 05:44:28 PM »

I don't know why anyone would do heavy spotting with Lightroom. Photoshop seems much better suited to that.
Well, now you do.
But having said that, it is more of a workflow preference, really. I like the combination of power and ease in lightroom and, for reasons already mentioned by others, try to avoid going round trip to PS if I don't have to.
Anyway, it was the history I was pointing at. Even if you don't do heavy spotting, it will be growing forever if one does not clean it.

Anne
Logged
Anne van Houwelingen | www.vistography.com
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up