Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Lightroom performance ( Again)  (Read 3162 times)

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3583
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: Lightroom performance ( Again)
« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2013, 06:26:16 AM »

Why would it upset anyone? It's just one of those things that makes superficial sense, but modules don't eat significant resources until you activate them (someone did measure this but I can't find the post). You may as well just hide modules you don't use.

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3583
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: Lightroom performance ( Again)
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2013, 07:55:32 AM »

Yeah, yeah, though there was a serious point. Maybe start a Viz-style top tips column? "Keep Lightroom lean and mean by removing pictures from your catalogue after you've processed them." "Pay $150 for a set of presets and make all your friends think you haven't gone digital".

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10614
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Lightroom performance ( Again)
« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2013, 10:14:21 AM »

Yeah, yeah, though there was a serious point. Maybe start a Viz-style top tips column? "Keep Lightroom lean and mean by removing pictures from your catalogue after you've processed them." "Pay $150 for a set of presets and make all your friends think you haven't gone digital".
Even better: "Keep Lightroom lean and mean by removing pictures from your catalogue before you've processed them." Saves lots of PP time!  :D
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4399
Re: Lightroom performance ( Again)
« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2013, 04:52:44 AM »

Eric you have hit the nail on the head! Too many photographers load all of their images into a catalogue before making a cull, especially the ones who do tethered camera to computer transfer. I use Faststone image viewer to cull and choose the keepers and load them into LR. Some might argue that you can load directly into LR and cull but the "art" - I believe it is an art - of culling shouldn't be done at once but over a period of time. If someone likes to leave them for a period and cull from LR then the catalogue can become unnecessarily bloated and you can lose track of the images. Import from folders what you want and only what you want.  :)

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3583
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: Lightroom performance ( Again)
« Reply #6 on: January 29, 2013, 05:14:10 AM »

I wouldn't agree with that, Stamper, but it's hard to make any kind of witticism about culling being pre-ingestion and LR's role in keeping track of images. I won't even try!

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2349
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: Lightroom performance ( Again)
« Reply #8 on: January 29, 2013, 05:50:36 AM »

give it a good think then you might see an advantage?
No, that takes you back to the old days of having a separate RAW converter and DAM application. I can see no advantage at all.
Logged

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3583
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: Lightroom performance ( Again)
« Reply #9 on: January 29, 2013, 05:52:14 AM »

I see pros and cons, and I do use Photo Mechanic if I've just shot many hundreds of frames. But once something is worth keeping I'll manage it in LR. Why bother using LR if you have to remember where stuff is? ;)

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4399
Re: Lightroom performance ( Again)
« Reply #10 on: January 29, 2013, 06:58:50 AM »

I see pros and cons, and I do use Photo Mechanic if I've just shot many hundreds of frames. But once something is worth keeping I'll manage it in LR. Why bother using LR if you have to remember where stuff is? ;)

John, we are now more in agreement? To explain it a little better. If somebody shoots 500 images, or more, in a day's shooting and believes that ALL culling shouldn't be done straight after ingestion into a catalogue what should be done? The wisdom is to have one catalogue instead of many. Personally I cull obvious duds straight away but more gets culled days and weeks after. If I ingest 500 into a catalogue I wouldn't rate and keyword all of them because I know some will be culled therefore I have wasted time. I therefore look at the 500 in Faststone viewer and import the "best" and rate and keyword them. I may add others later when I have had a fresh look days better. The ingestion is done in stages.

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3583
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: Lightroom performance ( Again)
« Reply #12 on: January 29, 2013, 07:23:48 AM »

Where we agree is there's a problem when you have lots of images, but I don't want stuff lying around in expectation of doing more than one ingestion. I cull the 500+ as far as possible, then get them into LR and maybe apply keywords etc  - in batches so little wasted time. If I then think it'll be faster to use PM for more culling, then I'll do so and update LR with Folder > Sync.

Rory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 378
Re: Lightroom performance ( Again)
« Reply #13 on: January 30, 2013, 01:31:56 PM »

I use PhotoMechanic on large shoots as well before Lightroom import, but only because the Lightroom import module is not so good at rapidly reviewing images and tagging for inclusion/exclusion.
Logged

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3583
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: Lightroom performance ( Again)
« Reply #15 on: January 31, 2013, 06:23:37 AM »

And if it were to become so I trust you'd be screaming "bloat"? ;)

Import's the wrong place to make pick/trash decisions or to do a series of ingestions to put images from the same card into different folders, for example. How many more Library features should be duplicated to help folk do such things? We'd all be better off if Library had a PM-style preview browsing mode.

John

Rendezvous

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 66
    • Daniel Talbot Photo Blog
Re: Lightroom performance ( Again)
« Reply #16 on: February 04, 2013, 10:32:17 PM »

I'm using a mac and I've found that when Lightroom slows right down it's generally because there isn't much free RAM, however there is plenty of "inactive" RAM. A simple way to clear this is to open terminal and type "purge". Wait a few seconds and the inactive RAM is now free.

Philmar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 367
    • http://www.fluidr.com/photos/phil_marion/sets
Re: Lightroom performance ( Again)
« Reply #17 on: February 19, 2013, 12:44:09 PM »

A simple way to clear this is to open terminal and type "purge". Wait a few seconds and the inactive RAM is now free.
Anyone know of a Windoze equivalent of this? Does in active RAM get released if you close and then reopen LR?
Logged
An office drone pension administrator by day and a photo-enthusiast by night, week-end and on vacation who carries his camera when traveling the world:
Please have a chew on my photos:
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/phil_marion/sets

sm906

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
    • thomas hintze fotografie
Re: Lightroom performance ( Again)
« Reply #18 on: February 25, 2013, 02:03:36 AM »

Anyone know of a Windoze equivalent of this? Does in active RAM get released if you close and then reopen LR?

Philmar,

have a look at Preferences --> File Handling --> Camera Cache Settings, there you have the "Purge Cache" option. That might help.

Thomas
Logged
nature - architecture - panorama - fine art
photo workshops and photo coaching
http://hintze-photo.com

mac_paolo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 428
Re: Lightroom performance ( Again)
« Reply #19 on: February 25, 2013, 02:21:55 AM »

Philmar,

have a look at Preferences --> File Handling --> Camera Cache Settings, there you have the "Purge Cache" option. That might help.

Thomas
That's another thing. It's the ACR cache which is stored phisically on the SSD/HDD.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up