Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Lightroom really DOES suck  (Read 42029 times)

nemophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1021
    • Nemo Niemann Photography
Lightroom really DOES suck
« on: October 30, 2015, 04:45:19 pm »

I posted how LR 2015 has been regularly crashing my system. But it's really worse than that. It constantly uses about 13-14% of CPU time just sitting there. I experimented. I opened an LR database and left my computer. Two hours later, it's still cranking through CPU cycles. You try to do ANYTHING and it's lagging by a couple of seconds. What a turd. How could Adobe release something this crapped up?

Nemo
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2015, 05:24:25 pm »

Hi,

You have my sympathy, but I have no such problems.

Best regards
Erik
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2015, 05:32:16 pm »

I've had stand-alone LR 6.00 running on my system (Win7 64) for several days now, sporadically doing little bits of work with it in between using a half dozen other programs. So I just checked Windows Task Manager and LR is using 0% of my CPU time.

So maybe LR 2015 (CC) is as evil as you say, but stand-alone LR 6.0 certainly isn't.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3369
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #3 on: October 30, 2015, 06:23:47 pm »

I've had stand-alone LR 6.00 running on my system (Win7 64) for several days now, sporadically doing little bits of work with it in between using a half dozen other programs. So I just checked Windows Task Manager and LR is using 0% of my CPU time.
Same here.
Logged

Brett Luna

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2015, 06:47:32 pm »

I'm also running v6 stand-alone with no problems.  I built my system going on 2 years ago:

Intel i7 4770, 3.4 GHz
nVidia GTX 970
16 GB RAM
500 GB SSD
Win10 x64
Logged
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska

Simon Garrett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 742
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2015, 07:23:50 pm »

No problem for me either.

You haven't got facial indexing on, have you?  If you hit the wrong option when first offered facial recognition, that puts you in a very bad place.  Mouse over the logo, top left of the screen, there's a drop down on that, make sure Face Detection is paused. 
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2501
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2015, 08:52:23 pm »

No problems here either. LR CC
Logged

Rory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 528
    • Recent images
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #7 on: October 31, 2015, 01:28:44 am »

Even though I have a love/hate relationship with LR there is way more love.  LR 2015 CC runs fine on both my PC and Mac.  I know, little satisfaction to hear if you are having problems.
Logged
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/roryhi

Josh-H

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2079
    • Wild Nature Photo Travel
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #8 on: October 31, 2015, 03:10:29 am »

Quote
Even though I have a love/hate relationship with LR

Likewise.. although of late its starting to lean toward hate quite a bit more. LR at its core foundation is a great product. But its full of bloat in my view that makes it less than optimal (even though it remains my no.1 choice for working with images because of its cataloguing capability).

Photo Mechanic at the end of a shoot is much better (light years faster) for editing and selects. And I am finding this a better initial solution to LR. Sad, but true.

Im not seeing the CPU issues of the OP - but I am seeing occasional crashes requiring a force quit. Thats frustrating and annoying. And we all know what an abortion the new import dialogue is. But.. hopefully this gets resolved very shortly in the next update.

If Adobe can go back to the core idea of LR and focus on cataloguing, speed, rendering quality and ditch fluffy ideas like MAP, BOOK, SLIDESHOW, WEB (leave those to dedicated programs that do them just A LOT better) I think the program would be a much better user experience.
Logged
Wild Nature Photo Travel

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5882
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #9 on: October 31, 2015, 05:02:42 am »

Some people like the bloat and are constantly wanting even more of it. You can't please all of the people all of the time. I agree with Josh.

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3369
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #10 on: October 31, 2015, 05:19:43 am »

ditch fluffy ideas like MAP, BOOK, SLIDESHOW, WEB (leave those to dedicated programs that do them just A LOT better) I think the program would be a much better user experience.
I don't know why some people are so against these modules. They don't have to impact on the 'user experience' or performance at all, you just ignore them.

For one I think the map module is a useful addition to the DAM capabilities of LR and haven't come across any other program that does it as well, but more importantly it's integration makes it easy and useful to use.

Both book and web work well enough for 'quick and simple' applications, but ought to be more fully specified as we've requested since their introduction. By integrating them they should deliver a better result in theory as LR ought to be able to deliver correctly optimised images for the specific sizes at end use. Trying to do this with external applications becomes a complex workflow that could be avoided by using a fully integrated package.

Slideshow ? Looked at it once and never bothered since, but some folk think it's useful. It has no impact on my use of LR by being there.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #11 on: October 31, 2015, 05:29:38 am »

Hi,

I agreeā€¦

I would add that it makes a lot of sense to integrate functions like those in LR and I don't think they have a negative impact on performance.

On the other hand I think Adobe should focus it efforts on quality of raw conversion and performance.

I would suggest that the basic concept of Lightroom is an issue when culling pictures. The processing pipeline is quite complex. That means that it takes a lot of calculations to present an image. A simplified pipeline would be needed for efficient culling, I guess.


Best regards
Erik

I don't know why some people are so against these modules. They don't have to impact on the 'user experience' or performance at all, you just ignore them.

For one I think the map module is a useful addition to the DAM capabilities of LR and haven't come across any other program that does it as well, but more importantly it's integration makes it easy and useful to use.

Both book and web work well enough for 'quick and simple' applications, but ought to be more fully specified as we've requested since their introduction. By integrating them they should deliver a better result in theory as LR ought to be able to deliver correctly optimised images for the specific sizes at end use. Trying to do this with external applications becomes a complex workflow that could be avoided by using a fully integrated package.

Slideshow ? Looked at it once and never bothered since, but some folk think it's useful. It has no impact on my use of LR by being there.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #12 on: October 31, 2015, 05:34:13 am »

I don't know why some people are so against these modules. They don't have to impact on the 'user experience' or performance at all, you just ignore them.

Exactly. Calling features you don't use "bloat" is just lazy.
Logged

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3369
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #13 on: October 31, 2015, 05:47:46 am »

On the other hand I think Adobe should focus it efforts on quality of raw conversion and performance.
I realise that you have a particular interest in this aspect of LR, but I think for most people LR does just fine on demosaicing. It's really pixel peeping territory that makes almost no difference to the end picture for the vast majority of users.
Yes, we'd all like it to run faster, but a lot of users really won't push it anywhere near the limits anyway.
Logged

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4559
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #14 on: October 31, 2015, 07:29:38 am »

I realise that you have a particular interest in this aspect of LR, but I think for most people LR does just fine on demosaicing. It's really pixel peeping territory that makes almost no difference to the end picture for the vast majority of users.
Yes, we'd all like it to run faster, but a lot of users really won't push it anywhere near the limits anyway.

I agree about the raw conversion. Just because two things are subtly different does not always mean that one is better than the other, although there is a human tendency to try to make such judgements. As for speed, I have no issues with LR - but then again I take a relaxed and contemplative approach to my photography and if I needed to rush thru it I'd be very unhappy.
Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #15 on: October 31, 2015, 08:18:42 am »

I posted how LR 2015 has been regularly crashing my system. But it's really worse than that. It constantly uses about 13-14% of CPU time just sitting there. I experimented. I opened an LR database and left my computer. Two hours later, it's still cranking through CPU cycles. You try to do ANYTHING and it's lagging by a couple of seconds. What a turd. How could Adobe release something this crapped up?

Nemo

The problem could be with your computer rather than with Lightroom itself. I am using Lightroom CC 2015.2.1 on both my Macbook Pro Laptop and my Windows 10 desktop with absolutely no problems. Check to be sure your video card is compatible with LR and your video driver is up to date. Other device drivers could also be the culprit. Perhaps you have some bad memory. If you want help rather than merely complaining, you could post the LR system info similar to what Erik Kaffer did.

Regards,

Bill
Logged

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #16 on: October 31, 2015, 11:01:57 am »

Exactly. Calling features you don't use "bloat" is just lazy.
I think that this discussion has been on and off for some time.

I politely disagree to the idea that software is "free": adding complexity to a product makes it more... complex. More complex products needs more maintenance, takes longer time to develop, needs more tests, more documentation, more user support, more disk space, more network bandwidth. Sort of like how adding one more kg to a space probe is "only 1 kg" but once you add the weight of the rocket fuel needed to lift that kg (and itself) into orbit, it will increase by orders of magnitude. So while a given programmer within a large software project might be able to do a cool side-project given some amount of time, including this project in the larger one and targeting a broad customer base will have a snowball effect.

Or (more realistically), adding functions at one spot (e.g. "Web") means that (fixed total) resources will be diverted away from other spots in order to keep shipment on time and on budget. Meaning that other modules will be more buggy or improve less. Some software people claim (only partly in jest) that programmers should be paid per line of code that they _remove_.

Now, obviously, functionality is what makes a customer buy software in the first place. Adding high-quality functions that your target customers wants and are willing to pay for is a good thing. If you have a "product-owner" with vision and stamina, you might even be able to produce a nicely rounded package of features that makes sense to a large group of buyers, doing things that naturally belongs together*), things the users might not even know that they wanted before the product was released. The question then is what functions to focus on. Overall I think that Adobe did some (subjectively) "good" trade-offs compared with e.g. DXO here.

-h
*)Some customers inevitably will want their lawn mover to also produce coffee and scratch their backs. I'd argue that such seemingly random collection of features more often comes from the developers based on "I can do it, so why not", and tends to be bad products. I have a "smart tv" and "smart surround receiver" and "smart Bluray player", introducing complexity and security holes that I hate by heart and disable at first possibility. I would love to be able to buy unsmart tvs with high-end image quality.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2015, 11:19:15 am by hjulenissen »
Logged

Some Guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 729
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #17 on: October 31, 2015, 12:19:57 pm »

For the OP, mine (LR6.2.1, Windows 8.1 OS) shows 0% as well.

Could it be that one of your files is screwed up, it doesn't like it, while trying to get it into the library leading to the high usage?  DxO Optics Pro 10 on mine crashes and/or freezes whenever it sees a RAW/DNG file it doesn't like (Usually off the Samsung).  Sometimes I need to go into Task Manager and shut it down as it doesn't fully crash out of running on the drive and bits and pieces are left behind running.  The first few versions crashed it, but the later ones freeze it on the DNG with an eventual crash in a few minutes working with it and reporting to DxO.  DxO seems a version behind on getting their plugins to work it LR, but that's their issue.

But I will agree there are parts of LR that really do suck (i.e. Catalog/Collections/Liibray, etc. when used with hot-swappable USB drives.).  If I plug in an external drive with images, it will not see it in its explorer/folders window which it should do automatically (Windows 'File Manager' sees it.).  Instead, it shows me something leftover from the prior drive that is not longer there and it can't access (Leftover drive bloat from LR's incessant cataloging no doubt.) which is a pointless cache bloating feature . 

So I import the new drive and images (What a load of tedious stuff that it should have done automatically when it saw the new drive go in!), and I import the images off the new drive, then I see them in the Library pane, and it tells me they are already imported (??) and yet I cannot open them - just dim gray images.  No histogram.  No develop.  Nothing.  New catalog and program exits.  Residual hot-swap drive thumbnail stuff remains left behind that it cannot work with.  Ugh!

Then I watch an Adobe training expert explain and run it, and then it stumbles and confuses him too.  Yet it is getting better with each version?  No wonder they apologized on the latest version as it seems it is getting 'overthunked' (sic).  :o

SG
Logged

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #18 on: October 31, 2015, 12:59:52 pm »

But I will agree there are parts of LR that really do suck (i.e. Catalog/Collections/Liibray, etc. when used with hot-swappable USB drives.).  If I plug in an external drive with images, it will not see it in its explorer/folders window which it should do automatically (Windows 'File Manager' sees it.).  Instead, it shows me something leftover from the prior drive that is not longer there and it can't access (Leftover drive bloat from LR's incessant cataloging no doubt.) which is a pointless cache bloating feature . 

It catalogues files. It's not Windows File Manager, Explorer, or Finder....
Logged

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #19 on: October 31, 2015, 02:18:00 pm »

Exactly. Calling features you don't use "bloat" is just lazy.

Selfish, too.

Jeremy
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10   Go Up