Can I Return to Lightroom 3?

[travismcgee]

<p>I have a fast computer but Lightroom 4.1 RC2 is so brutally slow that I'm considering returning to Lightroom 3. Unfortunately, I converted all my images to Process 2012. Am I stuck with Lr 4 or will Lr 3 be able to read the catalog and recover to Process 2010? Many thanks. </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>If you still have the legacy folders in your Lightroom Library section then yes I believe you can, just reinstall LR3 and point to your old folders. By default LR4 does not delete your old LR3 catalog and associated files.</p>

<p>When I went from 3 to 4 I ended up with this selection of folders (image below), I have used LR3 since installing LR4 and it works fine. Obviously the LR3 Catalog doesn't have any images or adjustments you have made since the move up to LR4, but it does still have all the adjusments you made prior to the move.</p><div></div>

[travismcgee]

<p>Thanks, Scott. Unfortunately, I don't have any of the old Lr 3 stuff. I converted everything.</p>

[phule]

<p>Have you read through:</p>

<p><a href="http://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/optimize-performance-lightroom.html">http://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/optimize-performance-lightroom.html</a> ?</p>

<p>As hardware isn't an issue, how have you configured or how do you use Lightroom compared to the recommended practices noted in the article?</p>

[eric_brody]

<p>"Brutally" slow sounds awful.What operations are a problem? No disrespect, but how "fast" is your computer, and what size files are you trying to process, and have you reviewed all the preferences? I use an "old" Mac Pro tower, early 2008, with 14G of RAM and except for slower rendering of my huge D800E files when enlarging to 100%, it seems to run similarly to the older versions. When I use a D700 file it seems totally unchanged.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>There have been several complaints in Adobe and LR forums about LR 4 being slow, acknowledged by Adobe (sort of). Apparently it was better with 4.2 but the trial version I tried recently was unusably slow. I'm running a Win7 PC with 3.1 GHz AMD quad core, which doesn't even breathe hard with anything I've tried yet. It's possible the 4 GB RAM I have isn't enough, but if it takes more than that just to access LR 4 for my smallish 15 MB raw files, it's not worth the hassles for me.</p>

<p>On the other hand, the trial version of LR 3.3 runs just fine in this machine. It's not zippy but not sluggish either. And with the help of folks in this forum I'm adjusting to the LR workflow, which wasn't intuitive to me.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I don't use Lightroom, but I know that the Adobe products I do run are all demanding -- usually use all the RAM you have and want more. I'm wondering if you just don't have enough physical RAM and things are swapping stuff in and out of a hard drive. That would bring things to a snail's pace for sure.<br>

I'd think it couldn't hurt to add more RAM before resorting to doing a painful "downgrade".</p>

<p>More info on your computer, processor, memory, etc. would help people narrow in on what problem(s) you have.</p>

[EricM]

<p>It's not Dave and his computer, folks. This 12 page thread on Adobe forum is one of many angry threads out there<br>

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/971581?start=0&tstart=0</p>

<p><strong>"Obviously the LR3 Catalog doesn't have any images or adjustments you have made since the move up to LR4, but it does still have all the adjusments you made prior to the move."</strong></p>

<p>A decent piece of software would be backwards compatible, imo. </p>

<p> </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Eric,</p>

<p>Do you use LightRoom? That is a farcical viewpoint, why should a new piece of software write to old legacy catalogs and files? Particularly when the new processing is substantially better than the old one. Find me one example of new software that updates new imports to old libraries and catalogs.</p>

<p>LR 4 does allow for you to not over write any of your old files or catalogs, it allows for all previous versions of processing, it won't change anything you have done previously unless you specifically ask it to. You are barking up the wrong tree complaining about that aspect, especially when there are genuine concerns like performance issues, program bloat etc. Many performance "issues" have been sorted out with simple things like reasonable amounts of RAM and HDD space.</p>

[travismcgee]

<p>Hi Guys,</p>

<p>The lack of old Lr 3 files is my own fault. It never occurred to me that Lr 4 would be worse than Lr 3, so I deleted them. Learned my lesson there. I'm just wondering if anyone has tried accessing an Lr 4 catalog with Lr 3 and, if so, what happened. I can always reload Lr 3 and try it myself, but was hoping to avoid the aggravation if it's a no-go.</p>

<p>My computer isn't the problem. I have trouble with artistic concepts in photography, but computer technology holds no mystery for me. I have a few ideas of things to try and I'll read that article on optimizing, but there's no question in my mind that Lr 4 is glacially slow compared to Lr 3, especially in the Develop module. </p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Dave</p>

<p> </p>

[EricM]

<p><strong>"Do you use LightRoom? That is a farcical viewpoint, why should a new piece of software write to old legacy catalogs and files?"</strong></p>

<p>Farcical viewpoint? I guess I'll bite. Yes I use LR. I was 1.1 beta tester and bought 1.3 or whatever it was. The better question is, how does my LR time/experience validate or qualify anything the known fact that LR4 is slower than 3.6 for many?</p>

<p>The LR catalog is a database running SQLite , the industry standard based on MySQL. I'm not that much of a geek but I'm sure there is plenty software that is backwards compatible out there. If I was a business, and I am, and there were a few pieces of software from various vendors for me to chose from that all did the same thing, it would be a strong selling point for the software to be backwards compatible. One example is that my accountant uses older software than I do yet has no problem opening my Quickbooks database files that I make on a newer version of Quickbooks. Call me crazy as I go out on a limb here and suggest its absurd that I can't send a graphic designer or editor my LR4 catalog and images from a shoot and have her NOT be able to view them because she owns 3.6. What else is acceptable? Maybe it will be okay to save a psd file in CS6 and not being able to open them in CS5? </p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>My computer isn't the problem.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess we just have to take your word for that. Good luck to you.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Eric,</p>

<p>Holding Intuit software up as an example of backwards compatible software is so comical it just proves you haven't got the foggiest idea what you are talking about. Your accountants Quickbooks 2010 can't read your QB 2012 database, I know because my sister and I run both. He can read files that you export. Oh, and you can't change your 2012 version back to a 2010 version either.</p>

<p>Lightroom only uses the catalog to talk to itself, everything it does, prior to export, is totally non destructive to the image files and any and all adjusted images you make can be exported to any other version of Lightroom. But even then it never touches you originals. Further, when you move to a newer version it will leave a complete catalog for your older version to use should you want to go back, this will only be deleted if you delete it. You would never send your catalog to a graphic designer, you would send image files, no version of Lightroom will ever make these images unreadable by any other version, or indeed any other image editing program, that isn't how it adjusts files.</p>

<p>What you are saying is QB 2012 should keep writing input and updates to your QB2010 database, well it doesn't, and Lightroom 4 doesn't keep writing to LR3 catalogs, software just doesn't work like that. As I said, <em>"Find me one example of new software that updates new imports to old libraries and catalogs."</em></p>

[EricM]

<p>"Holding Intuit software up as an example of backwards compatible software is so comical it just proves you haven't got the foggiest idea what you are talking about."</p>

<p>Why the hostility, Scott?</p>

<p>Sorry your thread turned into the gutter, Dave. Have peace knowing you're not alone. I'm in the camp that Adobe has no competition and now makes marginal products. Telling your customers to throw more ram at poor coding isn't really cool, imo</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>I am not hostile Eric, I am just trying to point out you are not making sense. Look at the Intuit forums for the utter despair many small buisness users have over Intuit's software and licensing compatibility and policies. Complaining about a complete non issue, that is much better than most common software practices, detracts from the real issues.</p>

<p>Saying LR4 is not the trimmed down product LR3 was is very on point, but I have pointed that out several times before, it went from an 80mb program (LR3) to a 600mb program (LR4). I am not a fan or a user of several of the new features, but for many, myself included, the new process is worth the 50% reduction in price by itself, if it runs right.</p>

<p>Does it run more RAM, sure it does, but what doesn't, Safari consistently uses more RAM than Lightroom 4 does on my system with a 30,000 image catalog of 490 GB, with Firefox not far behind. A real issue is that some people are getting very slow running even with plenty of available RAM, there is a bug; that the general public are exposed to little more than advanced Beta grade software is a real issue. Lets make noises about real issues not take misguided cheap shots about irrelevancies that make us look like whining children that don't know what we are talking about.</p>

[brunogallant]

<p>I've been using LR for a few years, and I bought LR4 when it became available. It is running pretty much at the same speed for me as the other versions, which is fast enough that I do not notice it, ever.<br>

I use the Windows version, and in the Help/System Info menu, you can get an hardware list that you can copy. Maybe the problem is not the computer, but it would maybe help to share what hardware you have.<br>

I bough my machine from Dell in July 2010, to use it for video editing and photo work. Here's the specs from Lightroom's view:</p>

<p>Lightroom version: 4.0 [814577]<br />Operating system: Windows 7 Home Premium Edition<br />Version: 6.1 [7601]<br />Application architecture: x64<br />System architecture: x64<br />Physical processor count: 8<br />Processor speed: 2.6 GHz<br />Built-in memory: 8182.9 MB<br />Real memory available to Lightroom: 8182.9 MB<br />Real memory used by Lightroom: 297.6 MB (3.6%)<br />Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 292.0 MB<br />Memory cache size: 182.0 MB<br />System DPI setting: 96 DPI<br />Desktop composition enabled: Yes<br />Displays: 1) 1920x1080, 2) 1366x768<br>

Application folder: C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4<br />Library Path: C:\Users\bgallant\Pictures\LT4\Main_Catalog\Main_Catalog.lrcat<br />Settings Folder: C:\Users\bgallant\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\Lightroom<br>

Adapter #1: Vendor : 1002<br /> Device : 6898<br /> Subsystem : b001002<br /> Revision : 0<br /> Video Memory : 1010<br />AudioDeviceIOBlockSize: 1024<br />AudioDeviceName: Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio)<br />AudioDeviceNumberOfChannels: 2<br />AudioDeviceSampleRate: 44100<br />Build: Uninitialized<br />Direct2DEnabled: false<br />GL_ALPHA_BITS: 8<br />GL_BLUE_BITS: 8<br />GL_GREEN_BITS: 8<br />GL_MAX_3D_TEXTURE_SIZE: 8192<br />GL_MAX_TEXTURE_SIZE: 16384<br />GL_MAX_TEXTURE_UNITS: 8<br />GL_MAX_VIEWPORT_DIMS: 16384,16384<br />GL_RED_BITS: 8<br />GL_RENDERER: ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series<br />GL_SHADING_LANGUAGE_VERSION: 4.10<br />GL_VENDOR: ATI Technologies Inc.<br />GL_VERSION: 4.1.10750 Compatibility Profile Context<br />OGLEnabled: true<br />OGLPresent: true<br />GL_EXTENSIONS: GL_AMDX_debug_output GL_AMDX_vertex_shader_tessellator GL_AMD_conservative_depth GL_AMD_debug_output GL_AMD_depth_clamp_separate GL_AMD_draw_buffers_blend GL_AMD_multi_draw_indirect GL_AMD_name_gen_delete GL_AMD_performance_monitor GL_AMD_sample_positions GL_AMD_seamless_cubemap_per_texture GL_AMD_shader_stencil_export GL_AMD_shader_trace GL_AMD_texture_cube_map_array GL_AMD_texture_texture4 GL_AMD_transform_feedback3_lines_triangles GL_AMD_vertex_shader_tessellator GL_ARB_ES2_compatibility GL_ARB_blend_func_extended GL_ARB_color_buffer_float GL_ARB_copy_buffer GL_ARB_depth_buffer_float GL_ARB_depth_clamp GL_ARB_depth_texture GL_ARB_draw_buffers GL_ARB_draw_buffers_blend GL_ARB_draw_elements_base_vertex GL_ARB_draw_indirect GL_ARB_draw_instanced GL_ARB_explicit_attrib_location GL_ARB_fragment_coord_conventions GL_ARB_fragment_program GL_ARB_fragment_program_shadow GL_ARB_fragment_shader GL_ARB_framebuffer_object GL_ARB_framebuffer_sRGB GL_ARB_geometry_shader4 GL_ARB_get_program_binary GL_ARB_gpu_shader5 GL_ARB_gpu_shader_fp64 GL_ARB_half_float_pixel GL_ARB_half_float_vertex GL_ARB_imaging GL_ARB_instanced_arrays GL_ARB_map_buffer_range GL_ARB_multisample GL_ARB_multitexture GL_ARB_occlusion_query GL_ARB_occlusion_query2 GL_ARB_pixel_buffer_object GL_ARB_point_parameters GL_ARB_point_sprite GL_ARB_provoking_vertex GL_ARB_sample_shading GL_ARB_sampler_objects GL_ARB_seamless_cube_map GL_ARB_separate_shader_objects GL_ARB_shader_bit_encoding GL_ARB_shader_objects GL_ARB_shader_precision GL_ARB_shader_stencil_export GL_ARB_shader_subroutine GL_ARB_shader_texture_lod GL_ARB_shading_language_100 GL_ARB_shadow GL_ARB_shadow_ambient GL_ARB_sync GL_ARB_tessellation_shader GL_ARB_texture_border_clamp GL_ARB_texture_buffer_object GL_ARB_texture_buffer_object_rgb32 GL_ARB_texture_compression GL_ARB_texture_compression_bptc GL_ARB_texture_compression_rgtc GL_ARB_texture_cube_map GL_ARB_texture_cube_map_array GL_ARB_texture_env_add GL_ARB_texture_env_combine GL_ARB_texture_env_crossbar GL_ARB_texture_env_dot3 GL_ARB_texture_float GL_ARB_texture_gather GL_ARB_texture_mirrored_repeat GL_ARB_texture_multisample GL_ARB_texture_non_power_of_two GL_ARB_texture_query_lod GL_ARB_texture_rectangle GL_ARB_texture_rg GL_ARB_texture_rgb10_a2ui GL_ARB_texture_snorm GL_ARB_timer_query GL_ARB_transform_feedback2 GL_ARB_transform_feedback3 GL_ARB_transpose_matrix GL_ARB_uniform_buffer_object GL_ARB_vertex_array_bgra GL_ARB_vertex_array_object GL_ARB_vertex_attrib_64bit GL_ARB_vertex_buffer_object GL_ARB_vertex_program GL_ARB_vertex_shader GL_ARB_vertex_type_2_10_10_10_rev GL_ARB_viewport_array GL_ARB_window_pos GL_ATI_draw_buffers GL_ATI_envmap_bumpmap GL_ATI_fragment_shader GL_ATI_meminfo GL_ATI_separate_stencil GL_ATI_texture_compression_3dc GL_ATI_texture_env_combine3 GL_ATI_texture_float GL_ATI_texture_mirror_once GL_EXT_abgr GL_EXT_bgra GL_EXT_bindable_uniform GL_EXT_blend_color GL_EXT_blend_equation_separate GL_EXT_blend_func_separate GL_EXT_blend_minmax GL_EXT_blend_subtract GL_EXT_compiled_vertex_array GL_EXT_copy_buffer GL_EXT_copy_texture GL_EXT_direct_state_access GL_EXT_draw_buffers2 GL_EXT_draw_instanced GL_EXT_draw_range_elements GL_EXT_fog_coord GL_EXT_framebuffer_blit GL_EXT_framebuffer_multisample GL_EXT_framebuffer_object GL_EXT_framebuffer_sRGB GL_EXT_geometry_shader4 GL_EXT_gpu_program_parameters GL_EXT_gpu_shader4 GL_EXT_histogram GL_EXT_multi_draw_arrays GL_EXT_packed_depth_stencil GL_EXT_packed_float GL_EXT_packed_pixels GL_EXT_pixel_buffer_object GL_EXT_point_parameters GL_EXT_provoking_vertex GL_EXT_rescale_normal GL_EXT_secondary_color GL_EXT_separate_specular_color GL_EXT_shader_image_load_store GL_EXT_shadow_funcs GL_EXT_stencil_wrap GL_EXT_subtexture GL_EXT_texgen_reflection GL_EXT_texture3D GL_EXT_texture_array GL_EXT_texture_buffer_object GL_EXT_texture_compression_bptc GL_EXT_texture_compression_latc GL_EXT_texture_compression_rgtc GL_EXT_texture_compression_s3tc GL_EXT_texture_cube_map GL_EXT_texture_edge_clamp GL_EXT_texture_env_add GL_EXT_texture_env_combine GL_EXT_texture_env_dot3 GL_EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic GL_EXT_texture_integer GL_EXT_texture_lod GL_EXT_texture_lod_bias GL_EXT_texture_mirror_clamp GL_EXT_texture_object GL_EXT_texture_rectangle GL_EXT_texture_sRGB GL_EXT_texture_shared_exponent GL_EXT_texture_snorm GL_EXT_texture_swizzle GL_EXT_timer_query GL_EXT_transform_feedback GL_EXT_vertex_array GL_EXT_vertex_array_bgra GL_EXT_vertex_attrib_64bit GL_IBM_texture_mirrored_repeat GL_KTX_buffer_region GL_NV_blend_square GL_NV_conditional_render GL_NV_copy_depth_to_color GL_NV_explicit_multisample GL_NV_float_buffer GL_NV_half_float GL_NV_primitive_restart GL_NV_texgen_reflection GL_NV_texture_barrier GL_SGIS_generate_mipmap GL_SGIS_texture_edge_clamp GL_SGIS_texture_lod GL_SUN_multi_draw_arrays GL_WIN_swap_hint WGL_EXT_swap_control</p>

[travismcgee]

<p><em></em> <br>

<em>I guess we just have to take your word for that. Good luck to you.</em></p>

<p>Well, okay. I build my own computers and my current machine is a little old, but it should be able to handle Lightroom and design nuclear weapons at the same time:</p>

<p>Intel Quad core Q6600 2.4 GHz CPU, slightly overclocked<br>

8 GB of fast RAM and 24 GB of fixed virtual memory on an SSD drive<br>

Windows 7 64-bit Professional and Lightroom 64-bit on an SSD drive<br>

Lightroom catalog and all photos on a 10,000 rpm Raptor with 95 GB free space<br>

30 GB Camera RAW on the SSD drive<br>

All drive defragged and/or optimized</p>

<p>I may purchase another SSD to replace the Raptor and upgrading to an i5 or i7 would undoubtedly help too.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

[kyleweems]

<p>Not sure why the issue of LR4 being faster/slower is in debate, since that wasn't really the original question.. but I can attest to it being significantly slower as well.</p>

<p>I have a 27" iMac, 2.8GHz i7, 12 GB 1067 MHz DDR3, running OSX 10.7.2.. the difference between LR3 and LR4 is extremely notable and I've considered reverting myself. I'm holding out currently in the hopes that they fix the problem but that may not last long.</p>

[brunogallant]

<p>@Kyle: impressive machine. Is this a Mac-only issue? Is there other Windows users having the same problems, or am I just really lucky?</p>

[brunogallant]

<p>oops, scratch that, just saw Dave's last post.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>My main computer is a 17" MacBook Pro, 3.06 Intel Core 2 Duo, 8GB of 1067 MHz DDR3. I have my system running on an internal 120GB SSD that is formatted to 95GB for the system and 25GB for a scratch disc , I have my files on an internal 1TB HDD mounted in the CD player space. My main LR catalog is, this morning, for 39,382 images and an image folder size of 490GB.</p>

<p>When I first used LR4 I was one of the first to see through the very real processing upgrades and state that my system was running slow here on Photo.net, pointing out that we now had program bloat. I went back to LR3 but was unhappy with the older processing, so returned to LR4, on my second attempt I followed a few tutorials, I made sure I was getting 1:1 previews on import so LR is not trying to create them on the fly constantly, and whilst I didn't do empirical speed testing, LR4 certainly then ran fast enough for me to not be concerned.</p>

<p>I hope this helps because as I said earlier, the new Develop Module with the 2012 process version really is a very good improvement, I have reworked old files of mine with the newer Develop module and it is a vast improvement.</p>

[travismcgee]

<p>Do you keep your 1:1 previews forever or have Lr delete them after 30 days or so? Just for fun, how large is the file for a 1:1 preview of, say, an 18 megapixel image? </p>

[EricM]

<p><strong>"Lets make noises about real issues not take misguided cheap shots about irrelevancies that make us look like whining children that don't know what we are talking about."</strong></p>

<p>Dropping the ad hominem attacks and leading by example are the best virtues for a healthy community, imo</p>

<p><strong>"@Kyle: impressive machine. Is this a Mac-only issue? Is there other Windows users having the same problems, or am I just really lucky?"</strong></p>

<p>Bruno, there's 12 pages of an adobe user thread I linked to earlier were people list their powerful hardware on both platforms while haveing a problem with LR4. Or, one just has to google lightroom 4 slow.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Dave,</p>

<p>Yes it deletes after 30 days. In Catalog Settings I have Standard Preview Size set to 2048 pixels as I use a high resolution screen, Preview Quality set to High, this does create a performance knock but I prefer the increased image quality in the Library module, and Discard 1:1 previews after 30 days.</p>

<p>I don't know how big an individual preview is, my LR4 Catalog Preview folder is 24GB but there is no way, that I know of, of knowing how many 1:1 previews it is holding at any one time.</p>

<p>Eric,</p>

<p>Whatever. I am an actual user giving detailed ideas on how to improve Dave's experience with the program.</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Couple things you can try to see if you can speed up LR4.X:<br>

Rename (or move) the LR preferences, relaunch and see if it is faster. <br>

Remove all presets to another location, relanuch and see if it is faster. <br>

If not, well just put the old stuff back into place. </p>