Lightroom 5 is out.....

I noticed the same thing Bakewell... not even brushing, just moving my mouse. It's being noticed. http://forums.adobe.co​m/message/5423606

Bakewell wrote in post #16058544
I've just experienced an extreme slow down with an extended use of the adjustment brush on two different powerful computers. Totally different configurations that functioned fine with LR 4.4. Wow....the two totally different systems are just crawling!

BobbyMartin wrote in post #16058873
I noticed the same thing Bakewell... not even brushing, just moving my mouse. It's being noticed. http://forums.adobe.co​m/message/5423606

The new Spot Removal Tool brush that your link points to a discussion about is really slow. It's also not that great a tool if you are used to using the content aware spot healing brush in PS. I honestly feel it's only good for very minor edits and I'm betting that there isn't much Adobe can do to make it any faster.

I haven't seen any slowness with the Adjustment Brush tool though. It seems identical to LR4.

hollis_f wrote in post #16056880
Sounds like you agreee with each other.

Huh?

Bob_A wrote in post #16059000
The new Spot Removal Tool brush that your link points to a discussion about is really slow. It's also not that great a tool if you are used to using the content aware spot healing brush in PS. I honestly feel it's only good for very minor edits and I'm betting that there isn't much Adobe can do to make it any faster.

I haven't seen any slowness with the Adjustment Brush tool though. It seems identical to LR4.

Why do you say that?

Bob_A wrote in post #16059000
The new Spot Removal Tool brush that your link points to a discussion about is really slow. It's also not that great a tool if you are used to using the content aware spot healing brush in PS. I honestly feel it's only good for very minor edits and I'm betting that there isn't much Adobe can do to make it any faster.

I haven't seen any slowness with the Adjustment Brush tool though. It seems identical to LR4.

I'm talking about the adjustment brush not the spot removal tool. Bluring background, adjusting exposure, etc. Had zero issues in LR 4.4. The actual brush use is crawling in LR 5.

Bakewell wrote in post #16059889
I'm talking about the adjustment brush not the spot removal tool. Bluring background, adjusting exposure, etc. Had zero issues in LR 4.4. The actual brush use is crawling in LR 5.

Thanks Bakewell. I've used the adjustment brush for exposure and saturation and haven't seen any difference in response from LR4. I'll try blur to see if it's sluggish.

lsquare wrote in post #16059541
Why do you say that?

My guess is that it's a large amount of data that has to be written and re-written to a record in a database, which in my opinion is going to be pretty slow. It's also probably why it isn't a content aware type of healing brush since that would likely require even more horsepower.

Adobe would have been better off not implementing the feature.

Bob_A wrote in post #16061609
My guess is that it's a large amount of data that has to be written and re-written to a record in a database, which in my opinion is going to be pretty slow. It's also probably why it isn't a content aware type of healing brush since that would likely require even more horsepower.

Adobe would have been better off not implementing the feature.

What makes you think that faster SSDs in the future (PCI-E base) and more computing power and address those issues?

lsquare wrote in post #16062018
What makes you think that faster SSDs in the future (PCI-E base) and more computing power and address those issues?

Nope, I don't think they will, not in the short term anyway and not at a reasonable hardware cost for most users. (really, it's just my opinion) Give it several years and certainly hardware could be available to use LR5's spot healing brush tool ... but I'm hoping by that time there will be significant code and technology improvements to deal with those kind of speed issues anyway. Maybe some sort of hybrid database/pixel editor approach. Fortunately right now the spot healing brush tool isn't that great anyway, even if it were fast, so for that kind of editing I'll stick to CS6.

The rest of the LR5 editing tools are fast enough on my hardware, which is all good. However, as per a previous post I made, doing massive amounts of metadata changes for some reason grinds my system to a halt. I also just found out that my i7 930 CPU goes to 100% (although RAM doesn't go over 5GB utilized) and really starts to cook, making LR unusable when I select multiple galleries to publish at the same time to Smugmug. Really weird, because it doesn't happen when I select one gallery at a time.

I appreciate the debate and discussion in this thread over performance issues. It's been an informative exchange and in a few areas really eye opening.

Bob_A wrote in post #16062238
Nope, I don't think they will, not in the short term anyway and not at a reasonable hardware cost for most users. (really, it's just my opinion) Give it several years and certainly hardware could be available to use LR5's spot healing brush tool ... but I'm hoping by that time there will be significant code and technology improvements to deal with those kind of speed issues anyway. Maybe some sort of hybrid database/pixel editor approach. Fortunately right now the spot healing brush tool isn't that great anyway, even if it were fast, so for that kind of editing I'll stick to CS6.

The rest of the LR5 editing tools are fast enough on my hardware, which is all good. However, as per a previous post I made, doing massive amounts of metadata changes for some reason grinds my system to a halt. I also just found out that my i7 930 CPU goes to 100% (although RAM doesn't go over 5GB utilized) and really starts to cook, making LR unusable when I select multiple galleries to publish at the same time to Smugmug. Really weird, because it doesn't happen when I select one gallery at a time.

I appreciate the debate and discussion in this thread over performance issues. It's been an informative exchange and in a few areas really eye opening.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that. I'm surprised that LR was able to push your CPU to 100% utilization. I haven't checked, but my i5 2500K at 4ghz runs Lightroom without any issues. I think once PCI-E base SSDs becomes cheaper and more prevalent, it's going to make Lightroom even better.

lsquare wrote in post #16062514
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that. I'm surprised that LR was able to push your CPU to 100% utilization. I haven't checked, but my i5 2500K at 4ghz runs Lightroom without any issues. I think once PCI-E base SSDs becomes cheaper and more prevalent, it's going to make Lightroom even better.

It only does it using Publish and queuing up a bunch of galleries to publish at the same time. Looks like a bug to me, in that Publish seems to want to do all of the operations in parallel instead of sequential. Manually selecting one gallery at a time doesn't cause full utilization of the CPU to occur and images upload faster.

what's the best way to convert my existing raw files to process version 2012? theyre all 2010 from lr3

On a pc, select all, settings "Update to current Process"

ekinnyc wrote in post #16065072
what's the best way to convert my existing raw files to process version 2012? theyre all 2010 from lr3

I read earlier in this thread that one may "delete" stuff form the older version when an upgrade to LR5 is performed...

I have always thought that an upgrade builds ontop of the old application and continues to use the same resources. In this case catalogue, backup etc...

So, do I really need to clean anything some time after the upgrade? I will be coming from LR3 on a PC.

ekinnyc wrote in post #16065072
what's the best way to convert my existing raw files to process version 2012? theyre all 2010 from lr3

I would do it on a photo-by-photo basis as needed (when you want to make further tweaks to a given photo) instead of in bulk. There will be some differences in the rendering and you might not like how LR "translates" 2010 to 2012.