Lightroom - How to Improve Speed/Performance

[appletree]

Hi all,
I did a bit of research here (https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/optimize-performance-lightroom.html) and it seems like a lot could be done. The thing is I am not sure if the issue is with something on my computer or could be due to my hardware itself needing upgrades.

When editing, specifically LF scans, my system seems to bog down. Takes a few seconds to zoom in, for edits to appear, it is choppy, etc etc. I have yet to (in my 5+ years of developing) been able to fully solve drying my negatives without any streaks or crystallized residue drying on the edges, thus I make extensive use of the spot/clone tool. Even when using 2-3 drops of photoflo and distilled water.

Example file:
-803mb file size
-TIF file
-18263 x 23055 resolution

Computer has:
-Intel Core i7 2600k CPU @ 3.4 GHz
-8.00 GB Ram
-Nvidia GeForce GTX 550Ti
-Latest version of LR (purchased Adobe CC ~1 month ago)
-2 Harddrives (1 Solid State 60GB, only has operating system on it; then 1 750GB HD, pretty sure it is 7200 RPM)

Thanks for any advice.

[Kirk Gittings]

8Gb of ram is tiny these days.

[appletree]

That was my thought. For <$100 I can easily add 16GB of additional ram, same type and brand as currently installed.

[Corran]

You should beef up your RAM for sure. 16GB minimum, 32GB even better.

Edit: sniped!

[appletree]

Ok thanks. If it seems like that could help then I will pick some up on Amazon. I had some in my cart, just wasn't sure if that would do the trick. Or if LR would detect it and could utilize more than the 8GB. Know a decent amount about computers, but not a ton. Ironic that I asked on the LF forum haha. Don't ever post on APUG or any others though.

Advice is appreciated. Thank you both.

[Corran]

This may be an obvious question, but, you are running a 64-bit operating system, right?

[TXFZ1]

Replace the 7200 rpm hard drive with a SSD.

David

[Corran]

SSD drives aren't really meant for storage. I assume the OP is using his standard 750GB drive for that. Lightroom's cataloging is done on the OS drive that it's installed on.

A second SSD drive for a scratch disk is an option for enhancing performance for Photoshop but I don't think would affect Lightroom much, if at all.

[Preston]

More RAM is a great idea. If your system can handle 32GB, that's what I suggest. I have 16 on this machine, and image editing is pretty snappy, but 32GB would certainly be better.

Be careful if you allow LR to use too much RAM. Doing so could cause OS errors, or slow downs due to Windows hitting it's page file.

Also, how much free space do you have on the SSD? SSD's need 10-25% fee space to operate at maximum efficiency. If the drive is getting full, that could slow things down.

--P

[appletree]

Yes I am running Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit.
I can check the available space on the SSD, but it is not a huge amount. I mean it was only a 60GB to start with.

I considered an additional SSD, but I have yet to use PS (don't really know how, even though I have it now with CC), and was unsure if it was worth the cost of a 250GB SSD is about ~$100, but at 800mb files don't think it will last a ton of time. In 5 years of shooting and ~3500-5000 photos scanned I think I have about 350GB left on my 750GB hard drive.



Plus.....my computer has a ghost in it for about 1 1/2 years that randomly shuts it off...suspect power supply shorting out or something...have had countless people help and run diagnostics to no avail. I sort of just live with it, happens like once a week.

PS: I have this (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009M0TCK8?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=ox_sc_sfl_title_2&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER) installed already, but 2x4GB sticks. Will it act weird or mess up if I add 8GB sticks (x2) for a total of 24GB? Like it is uneven or something or does it (computer, LR, etc) care?

[mijosc]

Are you using the spot tool in Lightroom to close out dust and drying marks? I think the Lightroom spot/clone tool works fine for a few edits but really bogs down if you have a lot of spots/dust. I do 99% of my spot removal in Photoshop and only use Lightroom for the last 1% I notice after doing my other edits. I have a system with 16GB of RAM.

[appletree]

Yes. Up until a month ago I never owned PS. Always used the spot tool to remove dust and drying marks.
Perhaps my workflow needs to rotate to importing the scan to PS then to LR. Idk.

It is nice to have saved settings and apply it to an under/over-exposed image as a basic starting point. I mainly just adjust levels, contrast, exposure, and tiny bit of sharpness. Then spot tool an image. Then it is done.
All editing is very basic and always just did it in LR.

[Corran]

Personally I would suggest trying PS instead of LR for editing. I don't use LR for anything but digital images (RAW editing). PS is fast and easy for basic film scan editing. But everyone has their own workflow.

As for your RAM question, it doesn't really matter, just stick more in there. There may be a marginal improvement with a matched quad-channel setup but not enough to worry about. I would just match the speed to what you have now.

[TXFZ1]

SSD drives aren't really meant for storage. I assume the OP is using his standard 750GB drive for that. Lightroom's cataloging is done on the OS drive that it's installed on.

A second SSD drive for a scratch disk is an option for enhancing performance for Photoshop but I don't think would affect Lightroom much, if at all.

Yes a SSD has a limited read/write life of 15 to 20 years but you will upgrade your computer in 5 years. Why not use the 100x speed increase? Lightroom uses a scratch disk.

David

[Corran]

I meant in terms of space. Especially space vs. cost. You mentioned replacing the large standard HDD, which would be a strange move (as opposed to adding).

There is still a fundamental difference between the LR "catalog" and the PS "scratch disk." Everything I am reading says LR doesn't have a scratch disk. I seem to remember looking around for any kind of setting to redirect a scratch disk for improved performance and not seeing it myself, on LR5. I haven't used anything newer. I could be wrong here, but if you know otherwise, please point the OP to the proper setting box for scratch disk setting, as setting it to the larger drive will certainly help if the 60GB drive is filling up (very likely).

Myself, I have a 128GB drive and it is also filling up. I'm planning on mirroring my drive onto a fresh 256GB SSD soon and using the 128GB SSD for nothing but a PS scratch disk. I won't be getting rid of my 4TB work drive or 10TB server though!

[Preston]

Here's a suggestion, or three...

**As already mentioned, install more RAM.
**Purchase a 256 GB SSD and then clone your current C:/ main drive to it. (Compared to what I paid for mine 4 years ago, they're cheap)
**Next, format the old 68GB drive and use it as a PS scratch disk. (Do this after testing the new main drive to be sure everything works)
***You could even partition it into two logical drives: Use one for 'PS scratch', and the other to store non-image documents.

As others have mentioned, Photo Shop is the best application for editing. It's masking capabilities alone are worth price of admission, and since you already have it, you're golden. Yep, there's a learning curve, but it will be time well spent, I think.

--P

[TXFZ1]

Preferences...file handling....cache

Make sure you have atleast 25% of your operating drive free.

David

[djdister]

The computer related suggestions are right on, but I was wondering why you are creating files which would print about 50x64 inches in size? You may be working with unnecessarily large files...

[appletree]

The computer related suggestions are right on, but I was wondering why you are creating files which would print about 50x64 inches in size? You may be working with unnecessarily large files...

This, without a doubt. Someone private messaged me asking the same thing. And wonderful advice to boot. I will just quote my message.


Ahhhh well stated. And good points all around. Yes, I only print in the darkroom from my negatives. Scans are done for website, sharing online, instagram, flickr, etc. I mean I have made cheap digital prints (for Christmas presents, proofs, etc), but it is like 1 in 500 photos. And then I would never sell any of them or use them for anything official. Only time I plan to make "real" digital prints is for color work. Which I do need to figure out at some point. But my color scans were always so rough anyway, that I have not scanned color in over a year. I have a pile of probably 20 rolls ready to scan once I purchase vuescan (which I plan to soon).

And points well taken that when/if I do decide to make a digital print I can pull the negative back out and go to town.

I think I always just went with the flow and it became part of my work habit. Always thought, I hate duplicating work. So I'll do it "right, the first time" meaning I'll scan higher than I need so I always have it. Although in honesty it seems to slow down my scanning as that takes forever! And same with editing.

I mean it took me 2-3 years to finally learn to STOP scanning every single negative and weed em out before even making it to the scanner. I was wasting time and resources scanning and loading into lightroom, only to click the x and reject em.

Thanks for the practical advice. I still think I will toss in some more ram for cheap, but nothing beyond that. And perhaps cut my resolution for scanning to half of what it currently is at.

Regards,
Austin

[Light Guru]

I don't think light room is built to handle editing of large format scans well. That's why I strictly use photoshop to edit my large format scans.

[fishbulb]

Are you using the spot tool in Lightroom to close out dust and drying marks? I think the Lightroom spot/clone tool works fine for a few edits but really bogs down if you have a lot of spots/dust. I do 99% of my spot removal in Photoshop and only use Lightroom for the last 1% I notice after doing my other edits. I have a system with 16GB of RAM.

My experience as well. 24GB of ram here. I use photoshop for editing large format scans, not lightroom. Lightroom is great for digital capture files though.

[Ari]

While I don't ever scan as high as the OP, I do scan my 8x10 film at 1200 dpi, which yields an 8-bit file of around 320Mb.
Thus far, I've had no trouble editing these in LR.
Have a look at this article: http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2012/03/turbocharge-your-photoshop/

[Christopher Campbell]

Adobe has several pages on optimizing all aspects of Lightroom:

https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/optimize-performance-lightroom.html

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

I found these documents quite helpful, especially the recommendation to use Photoshop for large numbers of spot-healing corrections. In addition, I was able to substantially decrease the size of my Lightroom Previews file by actually measuring the size of a preview (in pixels) with my normal working configuration of panes. Even with a 27-inch NEC display, it was smaller than I realized, and so I deleted the previews, and was able to choose a smaller standard size (1440 pixels) in the catalog settings for subsequent preview building.

http://cbcampbell.com
@cbcampbell707