lightroom 4.1 slowness

[msadat]

is there any hope adobe can fix the slow working 4.1, i love the output but it kills me to use it. my machine is a 12 core ssd 48 gig ram and every time a new image is loaded, takes a while for the loading.... to go away and give me access to the image.


i really can not understand why adobe thinks it is ok to release a product like that. i did a quick chk on the web and there r a lot of complains about 4.1

 

[Diane B]

is there any hope adobe can fix the slow working 4.1, i love the output but it kills me to use it. my machine is a 12 core ssd 48 gig ram and every time a new image is loaded, takes a while for the loading.... to go away and give me access to the image.


i really can not understand why adobe thinks it is ok to release a product like that. i did a quick chk on the web and there r a lot of complains about 4.1

There are also quite a few sites telling how to speed 4.1 and many who are happy with 4.1. Here's one site
Optimize performance

 

[msadat]

i have done most of these adjustments but the fact is it is very slow, i thought my video card was not good enough and started a search on google and found many many people like me and also saved 600usd not buying a new card.

There are also quite a few sites telling how to speed 4.1 and many who are happy with 4.1. Here's one site
Optimize performance

 

[Diane B]

There are quite a number of unhappy users but there must also be a lot of users that are not unhappy. Wish those here that use it and find it good would give some info. I've used a lot of converters w/database, printing apps since 2000 and started with LR with beta 1. It did a great job with all those needs and even now, with a slow as molasses 4.1 (but my custom built Win machine is now underpowered, past upgrading one more time and I'm getting ready to buy a new Imac or have a new Win machine built for me) the results are terrific. But--I'm trying to decide what specs are working best with it since that's primary purpose for PC these days.

Diane

 

[jonoslack]

The answer is perfectly simple (if you're using a Mac). Move to Aperture - the only reason for using LR was that it was faster, now that's gone there's nothing.

I had to use LR for 6 months, and I assumed that at the end of that time I'd just forget Aperture and settle for it . . quite the contrary - it's been such a breath of fresh air to move back again.

Reasons?
faster
edge definition on brushes
clone tool is actually useful
print output is a different range better
syncing photos with IOS devices
colour
gentle default settings.
you can do everything everywhere (none of the 'module' stuff)
fluid and delightful interface

as far as I can see there are only two things going for Lightroom
1. they get new cameras covered faster (but not so well)
2. Noise reduction (but if you're serious about this you won't use either).

 

[Diane B]

Lightroom 4.2RC is available for download. Lots of fixes. They are asking for input about whether this improves performance for those having issues.

Diane

 

[msadat]

i will take a look on tuesday without much hope

 

[Godfrey]

The answer is perfectly simple (if you're using a Mac). Move to Aperture - the only reason for using LR was that it was faster, now that's gone there's nothing.

I had to use LR for 6 months, and I assumed that at the end of that time I'd just forget Aperture and settle for it . . quite the contrary - it's been such a breath of fresh air to move back again.

Reasons?
faster
edge definition on brushes
clone tool is actually useful
print output is a different range better
syncing photos with IOS devices
colour
gentle default settings.
you can do everything everywhere (none of the 'module' stuff)
fluid and delightful interface

as far as I can see there are only two things going for Lightroom
1. they get new cameras covered faster (but not so well)
2. Noise reduction (but if you're serious about this you won't use either).

Jono,

The LR 4 raw converter is, IMO, worlds ahead of Aperture 3.3.2. And the printing is better. And the ability to easily create presets and templates for just about everything is far superior. AND I still find the Aperture UI to be just plain awful. I could care less about the brushes and clone tools...

Since Lightroom 4 incorporated the Blurb book module, I have little to no further real use for Aperture. But I keep it on my system and keep updating it to see if there's something I need it for. So far, nada... There is nothing I can do with Aperture that I can't do more easily and to a better quality spec with Lightroom 4. And on my systems (certainly not state of the art), LR4.1 is faster too.

So we'll continue to disagree on that score. ;-)

Godfrey

 

[ustein]

>Reasons?
>faster

I always found the import in Aperture so slow.

>print output is a different range better

How that? I get as good results as from Photoshop out of LR.

>syncing photos with IOS devices

The Photos app on iOS is really bad (not even nested folders). I use an app called Photo Manager Pro on iOS and QuickPic on Nexus 7

>colour

Subjective. Means here we cannot argue.

>gentle default settings.

Means?

>you can do everything everywhere (none of the 'module' stuff)

Switching between Library and Develop is not so elegant I say but I live with it.

Did you ever try to drag&drop a raw file from Aperture to a different app. If not recently changed it gives you rendered JPEG and not the raw file.

 

[Mike Downs]

I have loaded 4.2 RC and do notice some improvements.
Visit the site listed below:
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.2 Release Candidate | photo management software prerelease - Adobe Labs

Mike