 |
Yeah, there are a lot of great new features as far as organization goes.....but the adjustment brushes are so slow, that I'd rather continue blending in Photoshop.
A lot of people are having problems with the development sliders and tools being terribly slow. Mac and PC alike. I've tried it on my PC at home, and my Mac Pro at work......the sliders run way to slow on both for me to deal with that program unfortunately, so I'm not upgrading just yet.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Chris Hodney edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
 |
I agree. I've alleviated the issue a little by turning off multiple monitor settings with my nvidia card, removing all old LR files from my pc and optimizing the catalog.
It is still unacceptable, imo.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
hbdigimg edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
 |
I haven't had issues particularly with the sliders but general slowdown has been a problem (when switching modules for example). Also the adjustment brush is so slow its not worth using, and this is on a pc thats only about a year old.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Yep, sticky sliders not good. Brush slow and sticky.
This on 2 x 2.266 dual core intel Mac 9gb ram, NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT graphics. The latter was put in to make Aperture, which had very sticky sliders with the stock card, run better.
Now Aperture isn't as sticky as LR2, which is a strange turnaround. (I expect LR 2.x releases will improve speed - hope so). Meantime it is a great DAM with very useful editing. Photoshop integration with the likes of smart objects and not having to duplicate files is not only very welcome but also seems to me to position it more than before as a front-end to a PS workflow, which is why, I think, we'll never see a fully-fledged clone tool.
Until LR gets snappier I'll carry on using it primarily for cataloguing and web output (not print due to missing soft proofing).
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Finding LR2 GM significantly slower than 1.4.1 sluggish sliders, module transition, exporting, the list goes on. On a dual-core Vista laptop with 4GB of ram LR2 is almost useable but there are a number of times when it becomes unresposive. On a high-end 64 bit desktop with 8GB of RAM LR2 is nearly as quick as 1.4.1 was on the laptop.
Surprisingly the library is still acceptably quick. However this x.0.0 with some major new features so it is almost expected speed will be addressed by 2.1/2.2.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I was really surprised at how sluggish 2.0 is...it actually is so bad that it reminds me of the days of Aperture 1.0.
I downloaded the trial to give it a go and it just drags on my 2.8 iMac with 4 GB ram...totally unacceptable. Nothing but spinning balls and delays especially with the adjustment brush. I have to wonder why Adobe would release it in this state.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I don't have any noticeable performance issues. This is on a P4 XP box with 1GB of RAM (I grabbed that one from the museum, it is one of those who still work with IDE harddrives...) and a small library with approx. 10k of images!
On my Powerbook G4 867MHz it is a pain (but LR1 doesn't do any better).
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Clearing the history often helps a lot with speed when working and especially when painting.
IMO the history shouldnt record every single paint stroke.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Yes definitely much slower and stickier with the sliders... harder to make fine adjustments. I thought LR 1.4 was a little slow and sticky and not as responsive as I would have liked, and LR2 is 4x as bad. Definitely a bit disappointed in it's performance so far. That's how I process all of my cycling photos... go in and adjust about 4 or 5 sliders for each pic, and this makes it slow and tedious now.
I still don't see much difference from LR 1.x as far as functionality, so maybe I just don't use the features that are in LR2? I don't use DNG, etc. The app pretty much looks the same but now is slow, sluggish and a resource hog. Why does it take so much from a resource standpoint when it pretty much seems like the same product LR1.x was?
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
"I still don't see much difference from LR 1.x as far as functionality"
The localised editing in the Develop module is a big leap forward from 1.x, and just about makes the sluggishness and flakiness worth living with in my book.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Gary Jones edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
 |
I was really surprised at how sluggish 2.0 is
It's still faster than 1.4, but still sluggish. I dread the day their developers begin using Quad Core machines. Us mortals with only one measly core running at 2.7 GHz and a lowly 2 GB of memory will be going back to the days when Excel spreadsheet calculations took all day on those 286 boxes.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
did somebody find some tip to speed up the program
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Yeah, this problem really sucks. I should have tried it before I bought the upgrade. The sliders in 1.4 worked perfectly for me, and now they're totally sticky. And the Lightroom discussion forums I've found have been completely unhelpful. I did a few things that helped *a little*:
1. cleaned up my computer performance (defrag hard drive, run spyware program, turn off *everything* else while running LR, etc.).
2. Shrink the window size of LR, and maximize only when I need to see detail (seems to help, maybe)
3. Use keyboard to adjust sliders instead of mouse, although LR doesn't seem to have adequate keyboard shortcuts to allow working entirely by keyboard.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Adobe Lightroom /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Adobe Lightroom discussion threads
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
