Overcoming Sluggish Behaviour in LR

[Glenn NK]

I frequently do fairly extensive editing of macro files in LR. I found a method of eliminating (some) of the frustration without resorting to an eight core processor:


After extensive use of the spot removal, brush or gradient tools, LR can become very sluggish. Closing and re-opening the file for further edits does not help.

A workaround is to perform edits until the computer is no longer responsive, then export the file as a TIFF, and then import the TIFF back into LR. The previous edits on the RAW file remain (and can’t be undone) but when working on additional edits, the (TIFF) file is no longer sluggish (unless the second set of edits become ponderous). The obvious drawback is that the previous edits embedded into the TIFF cannot be undone.

On occasion, spot removal circles of editing cover the area being worked on, and more editing can't be done. When exported/imported in the TIFF format, the file behaves like a new RAW/JPEG file - previously edited areas can now be worked on with the any of the tools (spot removal, gradient, adjustment brush).

Notes:

1) DNG files don't behave this way - the previous edits show up, and the file will be sluggish.

2) The original RAW/JPEG file is not destroyed, and can be used to start over if desired.

[davidedric]

Thanks for posting this, Glenn (and I noticed something similar on LuLa )

Hopefully, it will help others stop fretting about whether their cache is the right size or in the right place, if they have enough cores, whether they have found a "bug", or whatever, and give them a practical workaround.

It nicely illustrates that clever as the boys and girls at Adobe may be, "they canna change the laws of physics" as Donald sometimes reminds us. There have to be some trade-offs with a parametric editor, and for me it's good deal.

Might also be worth posting in Lightroom Forums, if you have the time?

Dave

[Glenn NK]

Thanks for posting this, Glenn (and I noticed something similar on LuLa )

Yes David, I did some heavy editing since I posted on LuLa - it needed more background as a standalone post.

BTW, I priced out an eight core 3.5Gh processor at my dealer - it also requires a new MOBO and new RAM, so the total would come to about $1200 here plus taxes. Ouch.

Glenn

Some interesting debates over there aren't there? Sometimes a bit rancourous (and please forgive my spelling of words with "our" in them ).

[davidedric]

Yes, indeed, the debates can be robust. I do have a log-on, but rarely post anything. Still, when the likes of Jeff Schewe drop in, it's definitely worth listening. Enjoy your Christmas when it arrives in an hour or two

Dave

[Mike Buckley]

If it makes anyone feel any better, Nikon Capture NX2 has the same issues though I have no idea if the same workaround will be successful.

[DanK]

Interesting thread. Glenn, thanks for posting. I had never thought about this, but it makes perfect sense--as you go along, Lightroom is just building an ever more complex set of mathematical operations that have to be performed each time. AFAIK, it does not treat anything as "done" as you go along. Exporting as a TIFF bakes the earlier changes into the file so that LR no longer has to perform them in real time.

The other option in some cases would be to export the incomplete image into Photoshop or another pixel editor for additional changes, in particular, the ones that are likely to be really complex for LR, such as complex local adjustments. I do export a small number of mine to PS, but I always bring them back to LR, since I both export to the web and print from LR.

[Glenn NK]

Good points Dan, although I essentially use only LR.

One of the limitations of LR is that if some complex spot removal is required, subsequent "circles" can't be added over existing ones - this limits the usefulness of the spot removal tool. I can now do multiple edits/repairs if required.

When I was replying to someone else on LuLa, it suddenly occurred to me that "freezing" prior changes might reduce some of the work the CPU had to do (it was obviously being taxed). So quite literally in the midst of posting, I tried it, first with a DNG (which didn't work), then with a TIFF, which did work.

I often find that after I get home, a flower has some blemishes I didn't notice in the field, so the spot removal tool is frequently used. Then to soften the BG, I use the brush - this really taxes the CPU, and the result can be very frustrating.

It was a case of necessity being the mother of invention.

Glenn

PS - oddly enough, not one person on LULA has replied to my post about this trick, not even the OP.

[dan marchant]

I addition to using lots of adjustment brushes/spot healing Adobe have stated that performance may be further impacted by use of the lens correction tools. Due to the way that LRs adjustments are applied in real time and combined with the fact that LC affects all the other adjustments, it greatly increases the processing work load required for all those other adjustments. They recommend that you turn LC off until you have finished processing the image and then apply it.

[davidedric]

They recommend that you turn LC off until you have finished processing the image and then apply it.

That sounds an odd suggestion to me. I can see that you might want to go that way if you are experiencing severe performance issues, or if you are just using the LR4 basic correction profiles. However, if I need to use some of the fancy new perspective corrections in LR5, it would seem strange to be making all the development edits before applying LC. Just my thought.

[Richard Lundberg]

Doing LC last is just nuts.

[Mike Buckley]

Doing LC last is just nuts.

I have never used lens correction when it mattered where in the workflow it is done.

[Glenn NK]

Doing LC last is just nuts.

Why?

[Richard Lundberg]

Why why? It's obvious that it's a distraction to have a distorted image.

[Glenn NK]

Why why? It's obvious that it's a distraction to have a distorted image.

Shouldn't really be a problem during PP unless OCD sets in.

Aren't you the guy that doesn't like LR?

[dan marchant]

...it would seem strange to be making all the development edits before applying LC. Just my thought.

You are right. From a creative/workflow POV it is strange but Adobe were only talking from a performance POV.

[davidedric]

I have never used lens correction when it mattered where in the workflow it is done.

I'd like to qualify this. Enabling profile correction also "corrects" any vignetting from the lens. This can cause a significant shift in the tonal values (you can see the histogram jump), and I prefer to do it before pp'ing the image. Of course, I could also invest in better lenses

[Mike Buckley]

Good point, Dave. When I was referring to lens correction, I was not referring to vignetting.

[GrahamS]

Great thread.

[Downrigger]

1) DNG files don't behave this way - the previous edits show up, and the file will be sluggish. [/I]

Not sure I understand this... I import as DNG from RAW in camera and work on the DNGs. Can I not employ this maneuver (export as TIFF and import back for further work)?

[Colin Southern]

I'd suggest seeing where the bottleneck is - it may be CPU limited, RAM limited, or HDD limited.

For CPU, bring up task manager (Ctrl+shift+esc), and look under the performance tab - if it's maxed out at 100% most of the time whilst editing then that's the problem.

For RAM, look on the same tab; if it's close to or over 1/2 way then that's the problem.

For disk, just observe what it's doing -- if it's working overtime then an upgrade to a solid state drive will transform the machine overnight.

Hope this helps.

PS: We're up to 12 core CPUs now (well technically 6 + hyper-threading).