Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-14-2013, 09:01 PM   #1
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
reivax's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 824
Lightroom 4 to Lightroom 5: Is It Worth It?

Ever since Lightroom 5 was announced, I've wanted to upgrade to it, but decided to wait for Lightroom 6 instead. I had no real reason for waiting, other than I didn't want to spend the money. Now, I'm debating upgrading to Lightroom 5 again because the lag of Lightroom 4 has become unbearable. I recently upgraded my video card and doubled my ram in the hopes that it would make Lightroom 4 faster and it didn't really seem to have much effect. I've read that Lightroom 5 is faster than Lightroom 4, but I don't know if it's worth spending the money (considering that we're half-ways there to Lighroom 6).

Can anyone, that has had both 4 & 5, confirm whether it's worth the upgrade? Any other pros/cons? Thanks.

11-14-2013, 09:22 PM   #2
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,052
QuoteOriginally posted by reivax Quote
Ever since Lightroom 5 was announced, I've wanted to upgrade to it, but decided to wait for Lightroom 6 instead. I had no real reason for waiting, other than I didn't want to spend the money. Now, I'm debating upgrading to Lightroom 5 again because the lag of Lightroom 4 has become unbearable. I recently upgraded my video card and doubled my ram in the hopes that it would make Lightroom 4 faster and it didn't really seem to have much effect. I've read that Lightroom 5 is faster than Lightroom 4, but I don't know if it's worth spending the money (considering that we're half-ways there to Lighroom 6).

Can anyone, that has had both 4 & 5, confirm whether it's worth the upgrade? Any other pros/cons? Thanks.
I think it was worth it, but not for speed reasons. I've honestly never had any version of LR to run slow for me. For me it was more about better noise reduction tools, improved clone/heal tools, etc.. If they didn't offer the discount rate for upgrades I'm not sure I'd have done it, but at the price charged I have no regrets.

AFAIK, ram and video upgrades have virtually no effect on LR. Processor speed/multi-core ability will. I also think a speedier hard drive that's less than half full helps. A solid-state drive is ideal.
11-14-2013, 09:27 PM   #3
Veteran Member
dcBear78's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Gladstone, QLD
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 823
QuoteOriginally posted by DogLover Quote
I think it was worth it, but not for speed reasons. I've honestly never had any version of LR to run slow for me. For me it was more about better noise reduction tools, improved clone/heal tools, etc.. If they didn't offer the discount rate for upgrades I'm not sure I'd have done it, but at the price charged I have no regrets.

AFAIK, ram and video upgrades have virtually no effect on LR. Processor speed/multi-core ability will. I also think a speedier hard drive that's less than half full helps. A solid-state drive is ideal.
I second this.... Although my version of LR4 was... Umm... Just a "trial" version. But 5 has been a worthy purchase.
11-14-2013, 09:39 PM   #4
Senior Member
DVaughan007's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Rockhampton
Posts: 103
Hey on the same topic; In order to speed up LR4/5, Do the Raw files need to be on the SSD? Or just the LR4 catalogue files?

The LR5 healing tools look like a pretty sweet upgrade. The previous circular spot heal/clone is quite a hindrance and often requires me to venture into cs6.
Cheers.

11-14-2013, 09:47 PM   #5
Veteran Member
Bob from Aus's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,094
I use LR because it is so fast compared to any other major programs. I think your computer is what I call constipated. It is jammed up with to many programs.

make sure you have plenty of spare room on your c drive and then do a defrag. If you have done both of those and the computer is still slow, is there someone who can look at it and see what's up. I must confess when I get to your point, I get a new computer. I have resorted in the past at removing many of the programs, but computers seem to be able to pick up baggage without us knowing about it.

I don't think you will get any satisfaction from LR5 if you want to speed things up.
11-14-2013, 09:59 PM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,052
QuoteOriginally posted by DVaughan007 Quote
Hey on the same topic; In order to speed up LR4/5, Do the Raw files need to be on the SSD? Or just the LR4 catalogue files?
I actually don't have an SSD on my mac, but I have no issues with LR speed. I just built my wife a PC with an SSD, though. Her RAW files will be going to her conventional HDD, with LR being run from the SSD, and I anticipate her having no speed issues, either. It would obviously cost a fortune to buy an SSD big enough for long-term RAW storage, but I guess you could load them to a more conventionally sized SSD in the interim and then transfer them to a standard hard drive after you've edited. Could get a little tedious if you ever do re-edits, though.
11-14-2013, 09:59 PM   #7
Pentaxian
Miguel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Near Seattle
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,742
QuoteOriginally posted by reivax Quote
Ever since Lightroom 5 was announced, I've wanted to upgrade to it, but decided to wait for Lightroom 6 instead. I had no real reason for waiting, other than I didn't want to spend the money. Now, I'm debating upgrading to Lightroom 5 again because the lag of Lightroom 4 has become unbearable. I recently upgraded my video card and doubled my ram in the hopes that it would make Lightroom 4 faster and it didn't really seem to have much effect. I've read that Lightroom 5 is faster than Lightroom 4, but I don't know if it's worth spending the money (considering that we're half-ways there to Lighroom 6).

Can anyone, that has had both 4 & 5, confirm whether it's worth the upgrade? Any other pros/cons? Thanks.
Upgrading a video card won't improve LR's performance so far.Maybe future versions will involve video cards supplementing the work of the CPU as this seems to be the trend with visually oriented software.

The jump from v4-v5 is not as profound as the leap from v3-v4, mainly because they have not changed the process version. Functionality has been added beyond the pure scope of managing and editing photographs, and that is not all that important to me. The best argument for version 5 is that it will eventually be upgraded to include an inherent profile for the K-3 and any other new Pentax bodies and lenses. Though you can edit K-3 DNG files in v4, I prefer to have camera profiles available in LR as well as lens correction adjustments. V4 does seem more sluggish with K-3 files for me and I believe this is a reflection of the larger image file sizes, but that's subjective. There are a few other nice-to-haves with v5--your call of course.

Why don't you install a trial of Lightroom 5 and see if it is really faster. Then you will know the truth.


M
11-14-2013, 10:04 PM   #8
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,870
QuoteOriginally posted by DVaughan007 Quote
Do the Raw files need to be on the SSD?
I will get flamed by people who spent the money for an SSD, but it won't make your PP any faster. In fact, other than loading your OS or making random database searches faster, there is no need for SSDs. The thumbnails in Grid view are stored in RAM (or at least a screenfull at a time) and once individual pictures are loaded, they remain in RAM in pagefiles until all your RAM is used up. Multi-core CPU's definitely help with PP and a discrete video card will help as well. Specific to Lightroom, let the program import your pictures from your device, it's slower than a plain file copy, but all of the thumbnail/preview processing and indexing that is being done at the same time will speed up your actual work in the program. I try to time it with refilling my coffee cup and going to the bathroom, so I don't waste time watching Lightroom import pictures. Don't confuse faster load times with greater productivity.

11-14-2013, 10:13 PM   #9
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
reivax's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 824
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Miguel Quote
Upgrading a video card won't improve LR's performance so far.Maybe future versions will involve video cards supplementing the work of the CPU as this seems to be the trend with visually oriented software.

The jump from v4-v5 is not as profound as the leap from v3-v4, mainly because they have not changed the process version. Functionality has been added beyond the pure scope of managing and editing photographs, and that is not all that important to me. The best argument for version 5 is that it will eventually be upgraded to include an inherent profile for the K-3 and any other new Pentax bodies and lenses. Though you can edit K-3 DNG files in v4, I prefer to have camera profiles available in LR as well as lens correction adjustments. V4 does seem more sluggish with K-3 files for me and I believe this is a reflection of the larger image file sizes, but that's subjective. There are a few other nice-to-haves with v5--your call of course.

Why don't you install a trial of Lightroom 5 and see if it is really faster. Then you will know the truth.


M
I've actually spent the last half hour playing around with a trial of LR5 and it does feel faster. Switching from photo to photo, in develop mode, is where I see the biggest increase in speed. Exporting also seems to be faster (not as dramatic, but still good). It seems like the "auto" algorithms have also been improved. They are much more accurate now. I'm going to continue to play around with it. It doesn't seem like much more has been improved, but there might be enough here to get me to pay for the new version. Thanks guys. Any more suggestions/comments are greatly appreciated.
11-14-2013, 10:14 PM   #10
Pentaxian
Miguel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Near Seattle
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,742
QuoteOriginally posted by DVaughan007 Quote
Hey on the same topic; In order to speed up LR4/5, Do the Raw files need to be on the SSD? Or just the LR4 catalogue files?
You will get a variety of responses about this. I believe that Adobe officially says that an SSD doesn't improve performance.

That said, my personal experience says that it does with V4.x. I put the application + the whole catalog (previews, Ircat, journal, and settings) on my SSD as well as the OS. The raw image files are on a separate internal 4TB hard drive. Having sufficient RAM will also improve performance, as will a newer CPU and a fast hard drive. My computer is a self-built Hackintosh that was specifically designed as a photography workstation with nine internal drives, an i7 processor, 16 GB ram, and a couple IPS monitors. Though I have a higher end video card, it is not necessary for Lightroom. With all this good stuff however, the recent addition of K-3 files has started making LR4 feel slower. I'm doubtful if LR5 (which I just haven't had time to convert over to) will be significantly faster, but hopeful that I'm mistaken. A part of me thinks that Adobe needs to re-architect LR to better accommodate increasing numbers of huge image files that are being generated by newer cameras this past year.

M
11-14-2013, 10:15 PM   #11
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,052
QuoteOriginally posted by RGlasel Quote
I will get flamed by people who spent the money for an SSD, but it won't make your PP any faster. In fact, other than loading your OS or making random database searches faster, there is no need for SSDs.
I don't know. My strategy with my wife's is to load the OS and all programs/applications on the SSD and I must say that hers is the only PC I've seen that could compete with a decent mac, speed wise. I run Flight Simulator from the SSD and it is noticeably faster in operation than my last PC without one.
11-14-2013, 10:16 PM   #12
Pentaxian
Miguel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Near Seattle
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,742
QuoteOriginally posted by reivax Quote
I've actually spent the last half hour playing around with a trial of LR5 and it does feel faster.
That's good to hear, I really should install LR5, but just when I'm ready it seems like another worthy distraction comes up. This time it's the K-3 that came in the mail.

M
11-14-2013, 10:23 PM   #13
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,052
QuoteOriginally posted by Miguel Quote
That's good to hear, I really should install LR5, but just when I'm ready it seems like another worthy distraction comes up. This time it's the K-3 that came in the mail.

M
I can relate. My replacement K-3 arrives tomorrow.
11-14-2013, 11:37 PM   #14
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
reivax's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 824
Original Poster
I've been taking a look at upgrading my processor (currently have a Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 @ 3.16GHz). I'm thinking about buying either:

1) AMD FX-8350
or
2) Intel Core i5-3570K

I'm leaning towards the Intel because it seems to have better benchmark scores:
AMD FX-8350 vs Intel Core i5-3570K

The AMD seems to do better in some areas, while the Intel does better in other areas. Can anyone recommend one or the other? They're both about the same price, so that's not really my concern. I don't do a lot of gaming, I'd mostly work with Lightroom, Premiere, and Photoshop. Greatly appreciate any help.
11-14-2013, 11:53 PM   #15
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,913
Quite independent of the task of throwing around image data, I suspect a lot of the LR bottlenecks are also database related. With a big image collection, with lots of metadata, image edits, plugin settings etc in it, the LR (SQLite) database system has to store a lot of data, and refer to it a lot (IO bound). The queries going in and out of the database are also probably quite complex (CPU bound).

In an ideal setup, you could break apart LR, and mount the database on a completely dedicated database server, whilst running the graphics functions of the program on another dedicated server, and doing the image storage on yet another server. (Or a virtualised equivalent of all the above).
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
lightroom, money, photography, photoshop, upgrade
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is it worth it to upgrade from kit lens to DA16-45 ? Ben E Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 05-26-2013 12:36 PM
Is it worth it to get a 16-45mm? carcrazy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 05-13-2013 08:11 AM
Is Lightroom 4 worth it? Rondec Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 14 10-08-2012 04:47 AM
FREE upgrade from Lightroom 3 to 4 if bought it recently jeanpascalc Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 25 05-01-2012 10:37 AM
is it worth it to get $20 warranty? atomic Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 12 12-14-2011 08:29 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:21 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top