Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-29-2018, 06:42 PM - 1 Like   #1
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,617
Adobe Lightroom - Major Performance Boost

Adobe is preparing a major Lightroom Classic performance update, and we got to try it: Digital Photography Review

FINALLY! Adobe will be optimized for more cores. This has been rumored for almost a year. I thought this was coming with the last big release and I updated my system to an 8 core CPU..... Very disappointed at the lack of improvement, but apparently this will be the release that will finally allow it to take advantage of more cores and memory.

01-29-2018, 06:51 PM   #2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Washington Cascades
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,991
Very good news. I was in fact just sitting here trying to convince myself it was time for a computer upgrade. And pricing out components. Solely for Lightroom. I have even been considering dumping Lightroom entirely to look other alternatives. On my i7 3770 LR has become just too frustrating. Only 4 cores but if they can show any improvement it would help.
01-30-2018, 07:33 AM   #3
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: central Iowa
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 969
Forgive my skepticism, but I'll believe it when I see it. As much as I've loved using Lightroom over the past year, it is a pig on resources, and I don't know if the old legacy code can be salvaged. I think Adobe is just biding time until their new (non-classic) Lightroom CC product is ready to take over, at which time the legacy version will be canned. That's the primary reason I cancelled my CC subscription and began looking for alternatives; I don't want to buy into Adobe's cloud-based storage concept. I have my own storage, thank you, and I don't want to be forced to save into a proprietary paid cloud service.
01-30-2018, 11:58 AM   #4
Veteran Member
MadMathMind's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Houston, TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,717
QuoteOriginally posted by babywriter Quote
That's the primary reason I cancelled my CC subscription and began looking for alternatives; I don't want to buy into Adobe's cloud-based storage concept. I have my own storage, thank you, and I don't want to be forced to save into a proprietary paid cloud service.
Cloud storage will be really impractical and unspeakably expensive for SLR photos. An average wedding is something like 1000+ photos...if that's in RAW, you're talking about 50-80GB PER WEDDING. Now do that every week for every wedding photographer in the country. Adobe just doesn't have the resources to make it forced, nor do people generally have the internet speed, to make that practical. Transferring 20GB of photos from my card takes a few minutes. Uploading all that will take 20 hours.

Think of cloud storage now as a mobile-platform, mostly for JPEGs.

01-30-2018, 02:19 PM   #5
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: central Iowa
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 969
QuoteOriginally posted by MadMathMind Quote
Think of cloud storage now as a mobile-platform, mostly for JPEGs.
Agreed. They're trying to bring in the folks who shoot primarily on their smartphones, and use Lightroom on their mobile device. This is reasonable from their perspective, certainly. It makes it awkward for the rest of us.

The problem is that the new Lightroom CC doesn't really have an option to directly save and archive outside the cloud. It's also not feature complete compared to Classic. This is a major problem for those of us who shoot RAW, or shoot hundreds of shots at a time, or do detailed editing. Adobe knows this. However, I doubt they want to maintain two separate Lightroom products any longer than they have to.

So they're going to have to do one of two things (or, conceivably, both):
- Build additional functionality into Lightroom CC - which I believe is likely, because I think Lightroom Classic is going away as soon as that happens;
- Radically reduce the per-MB cost of their cloud storage, either by lowering the actual cost, or by adding considerably more storage for the same cost.

If they do only the first option, I wouldn't be opposed to returning to the Adobe fold. I actually like the new interface - it's tremendous for mobile editing, and works well on laptop touch screens - and if they can add off-cloud saving and make CC feature-comparable, I'd be ok with it.

However, if they persist in locking my photos inside their cloud-based walled garden, that's a dealbreaker for me. I'd like to think that Adobe isn't going to screw over traditional photographers in favor of casual smartphone shooters, but there's a lot of potential money there to be had. I guess we'll see.
01-30-2018, 03:03 PM   #6
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Bay Area California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 796
QuoteOriginally posted by babywriter Quote
Agreed. They're trying to bring in the folks who shoot primarily on their smartphones, and use Lightroom on their mobile device. This is reasonable from their perspective, certainly. It makes it awkward for the rest of us.

The problem is that the new Lightroom CC doesn't really have an option to directly save and archive outside the cloud. It's also not feature complete compared to Classic. This is a major problem for those of us who shoot RAW, or shoot hundreds of shots at a time, or do detailed editing. Adobe knows this. However, I doubt they want to maintain two separate Lightroom products any longer than they have to.

So they're going to have to do one of two things (or, conceivably, both):
- Build additional functionality into Lightroom CC - which I believe is likely, because I think Lightroom Classic is going away as soon as that happens;
- Radically reduce the per-MB cost of their cloud storage, either by lowering the actual cost, or by adding considerably more storage for the same cost.

If they do only the first option, I wouldn't be opposed to returning to the Adobe fold. I actually like the new interface - it's tremendous for mobile editing, and works well on laptop touch screens - and if they can add off-cloud saving and make CC feature-comparable, I'd be ok with it.

However, if they persist in locking my photos inside their cloud-based walled garden, that's a dealbreaker for me. I'd like to think that Adobe isn't going to screw over traditional photographers in favor of casual smartphone shooters, but there's a lot of potential money there to be had. I guess we'll see.
Well, one can save locally with CC. I think it's sometimes awkward, and it of course pales in comparison to what Classic can do, but it is an option. I use it for a bunch of stuff that is sort of the equivalent of a shoebox of snapshots. You can basically tell CC to use x % of your laptop say for local storage. And I use it instead of exporting/importing catalogs between laptop and desktop. You can save to... a local folder that's already imported into Classic, and then just do a synchronize... and there are all the CC edits (except keywords...aargh). Not as convenient as going the other way with smart previews, but if I have the laptop on the road it works pretty well for light loads.

And I'm not too worried about Classic going away any time soon. It's not just the folks in your situation who still need it (and are probably a big market), but all the institutions that use it, and are even more reluctant to use cloud storage, or who can't legally. All the schools I worked in, eg. Bridge is still hanging around, so I don't see any reason why Classic won't. But if it does, I'm sure there would be options. Non-cloud storage isn't going away.
01-30-2018, 04:29 PM   #7
Veteran Member
MadMathMind's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Houston, TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,717
QuoteOriginally posted by babywriter Quote
I'd like to think that Adobe isn't going to screw over traditional photographers in favor of casual smartphone shooters, but there's a lot of potential money there to be had. I guess we'll see.
Actually, I think there's no money to be had there. Sure, there's millions and millions of smart phone users, but the number who will edit photos with Lightroom? It's got to be like 0.000001%, if that. Instagram filters are popular for a reason: they require no work whatsoever. Lots of my friends do the beauty apps and frames and stuff, but the time spent on each photo is like 15 seconds. And those apps are free. No way any of them are going to pay for editing capability.

It's like why sales of entry-level DSLRs are in the toilet but the top cameras are robust. A $3500 SLR serves a market who's willing to pay; it's small, but that customer needs (or wants) that caliber of camera and will spend for it. The guy buying the $500 SLR probably won't even learn to work more than a handful of features, if he even takes it from the box after a few months, and is not going to spring for a second camera because he found he never used the first one like he expected.

01-30-2018, 04:44 PM   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Bangalore, India
Posts: 581
QuoteOriginally posted by MadMathMind Quote
Cloud storage will be really impractical and unspeakably expensive for SLR photos. An average wedding is something like 1000+ photos...if that's in RAW, you're talking about 50-80GB PER WEDDING. Now do that every week for every wedding photographer in the country. Adobe just doesn't have the resources to make it forced, nor do people generally have the internet speed, to make that practical. Transferring 20GB of photos from my card takes a few minutes. Uploading all that will take 20 hours.

Think of cloud storage now as a mobile-platform, mostly for JPEGs.
This is waste of network bandwidth. I think good engineering should take efficiency in to account. Interestingly companies quote 'efficiency' when closing divisions and laying-off employees.
01-30-2018, 04:52 PM   #9
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Bay Area California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 796
QuoteOriginally posted by MadMathMind Quote
Actually, I think there's no money to be had there. Sure, there's millions and millions of smart phone users, but the number who will edit photos with Lightroom? It's got to be like 0.000001%, if that. Instagram filters are popular for a reason: they require no work whatsoever. Lots of my friends do the beauty apps and frames and stuff, but the time spent on each photo is like 15 seconds. And those apps are free. No way any of them are going to pay for editing capability.

It's like why sales of entry-level DSLRs are in the toilet but the top cameras are robust. A $3500 SLR serves a market who's willing to pay; it's small, but that customer needs (or wants) that caliber of camera and will spend for it. The guy buying the $500 SLR probably won't even learn to work more than a handful of features, if he even takes it from the box after a few months, and is not going to spring for a second camera because he found he never used the first one like he expected.
Ah, but maybe the money is in the storage. Or in the info to be gleaned from images. Think Apple's iCloud or Google Photos. Adobe just uses CC as a front end to the storage, and some smaller percentage will eventually see the utility of moving to full Classic, and maybe even Ps. Or just paying for storage. Lots of iPhone camera users I know generate way more photos than I do, and although they may not spend much time editing each, they sure need something like Lr to organize and publish all that.
01-31-2018, 04:10 AM - 1 Like   #10
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,603
QuoteOriginally posted by MadMathMind Quote
Cloud storage will be really impractical and unspeakably expensive for SLR photos. An average wedding is something like 1000+ photos...if that's in RAW, you're talking about 50-80GB PER WEDDING. Now do that every week for every wedding photographer in the country. Adobe just doesn't have the resources to make it forced, nor do people generally have the internet speed, to make that practical. Transferring 20GB of photos from my card takes a few minutes. Uploading all that will take 20 hours.

Think of cloud storage now as a mobile-platform, mostly for JPEGs.
My upload speed is on the order of 1 Mbps. I live pretty far out in the country and don't even have great cell service at my home. The idea of storing photos, even jpegs, in the cloud is useless to me. The chances are that that isn't going to change any time soon. The population density in rural areas is such that there is little motivation on the part of phone companies and other internet providers to increase bandwidth in that direction. But there are plenty of photographers who live in rural areas.
01-31-2018, 09:25 AM   #11
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Bay Area California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 796
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
My upload speed is on the order of 1 Mbps. I live pretty far out in the country and don't even have great cell service at my home. The idea of storing photos, even jpegs, in the cloud is useless to me. The chances are that that isn't going to change any time soon. The population density in rural areas is such that there is little motivation on the part of phone companies and other internet providers to increase bandwidth in that direction. But there are plenty of photographers who live in rural areas.
The odd thing is that even in urban areas, like where I live, we still have lousy upload speeds by comparison. My download speed from Xfinity recently got bumped to 150, but upload speed has been capped at 5 for like forever. Is there a technical reason for that? I'd have thought there would be pressure from storage sites to improve that pipeline, but maybe there's a technical reason, as they always give priority to the download lanes.

And yeah, the USA badly needs an infrastructure plan for broadband in rural and other underserved areas a la the electrification push decades ago.
01-31-2018, 12:23 PM   #12
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,225
QuoteOriginally posted by Oakland Rob Quote
Is there a technical reason for that?
Yes, there is. The "A" in ADSL stands for asymmetric as in download and upload speeds aren't the same. If the total bandwidth between the server and the client is 6 Mbps and the download speed is 5 Mbps, there is only 1 Mbps available for upload.

The Internet consists of billions of clients and millions of servers, to make it worse if the server a user connects to isn't the source of the data the user wants to download (or the final destination for data the user wants to upload) that server has to connect to another server (and this process can continue to the point where dozens of servers are involved). Multiply the original size of the data being downloaded or uploaded by the number of servers that data is transferred between and you can see where the bandwidth between servers gets used up. Now, multiply that data traffic by the number of clients trying to reach servers they aren't connected to and the information highway gets really clogged up.

There are ways to keep data traffic moving faster, mainly by making it one-way as much as possible. If more than one client wants the same data, then several servers can cache or store that data to reduce the amount of total network traffic. If clients only upload small amounts of data and download the same data as several other clients (think of Netflix), then traffic on the Internet can be sped up by favouring downloads over uploads. I could get into how inefficient TCP/IP data transfer is and how two-way transfer of data slows down the information highway as well, but the bottom line for clients is that online backup of large amounts of data is a poor solution.
01-31-2018, 12:34 PM   #13
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,603
QuoteOriginally posted by RGlasel Quote
Yes, there is. The "A" in ADSL stands for asymmetric as in download and upload speeds aren't the same. If the total bandwidth between the server and the client is 6 Mbps and the download speed is 5 Mbps, there is only 1 Mbps available for upload.

The Internet consists of billions of clients and millions of servers, to make it worse if the server a user connects to isn't the source of the data the user wants to download (or the final destination for data the user wants to upload) that server has to connect to another server (and this process can continue to the point where dozens of servers are involved). Multiply the original size of the data being downloaded or uploaded by the number of servers that data is transferred between and you can see where the bandwidth between servers gets used up. Now, multiply that data traffic by the number of clients trying to reach servers they aren't connected to and the information highway gets really clogged up.

There are ways to keep data traffic moving faster, mainly by making it one-way as much as possible. If more than one client wants the same data, then several servers can cache or store that data to reduce the amount of total network traffic. If clients only upload small amounts of data and download the same data as several other clients (think of Netflix), then traffic on the Internet can be sped up by favouring downloads over uploads. I could get into how inefficient TCP/IP data transfer is and how two-way transfer of data slows down the information highway as well, but the bottom line for clients is that online backup of large amounts of data is a poor solution.
I don't really think there are separate "pipes" for download and upload. If that were the case then when I upload something it wouldn't effect my download speed, but the reality is that if I upload a couple of images to Flickr, during the ten minutes that takes, my internet browsing speed slows to a crawl and even times out at times.
01-31-2018, 01:29 PM   #14
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,225
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I don't really think there are separate "pipes" for download and upload
The ratio of outgoing to incoming packets of data is fixed. The total number of packets that can be transmitted varies depending on the quality of your connection and traffic limits placed on that connection by your ISP and to make it worse, some (often many) of the packets coming and going in the pipe are redundant, because the sender keeps repeating data packets until it receives confirmation that they have been received. To make it even worse, much of the traffic on the network is requests for data that keep getting sent until a server responds (which may be occupied dealing with requests from other clients) and some of the data going back and forth is meta-information so the modems and computers on each end of the connection can decode the contents of data packets. In the end, the actual speed is well below the theoretical speed of your connection. What happens when you upload to Flickr is that Flickr's servers are still communicating with your browser along with the other websites you are trying to communicate with and the Internet traffic cops aren't letting anyone drive through the intersection until everyone else on your piece of the information road has come to a complete stop. If another request to go down your road comes in before all of the currently waiting requests are allowed to go through, then the traffic cop doesn't let anyone else through until the new request is told to get in line, which slows things down even more. The narrower the road, the worse this problem is.

But wait, it gets even worse. Every time someone has to wait, they ask for an update, which is in the form of a packet of data and the road gets even more clogged. In the old days of Compuserve and dial-up connections, the speed limit was much lower, but the traffic cop only had to deal with two drivers at a time and the server could change the size of vehicle on the road to more efficiently carry the data load.

Oh, I forgot to mention that many of the drivers on the information highway are impatient and if they get told to wait more than once, they look for other things to do. When that happens, they might forget about your requests, so your browser keeps sending your request over and over again to no avail, which uses up some of the pipe's capacity and in the end you get a time-out message.

Last edited by RGlasel; 01-31-2018 at 01:56 PM.
01-31-2018, 04:04 PM   #15
Veteran Member
MadMathMind's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Houston, TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,717
QuoteOriginally posted by Oakland Rob Quote
My download speed from Xfinity recently got bumped to 150, but upload speed has been capped at 5 for like forever. Is there a technical reason for that? I'd have thought there would be pressure from storage sites to improve that pipeline, but maybe there's a technical reason, as they always give priority to the download lanes.
Technical? No. Monetary, yes. Here's what Xfinity charges for business internet:
Business Internet, Small Business Internet Service- Comcast Business

Here's what they offer for home usage:
Comcast Internet Plans | XFINITY Internet Prices and Packages

A 100 Mbps down for the home user is $50/mo while for business, it's $200. What's the difference? Support? Not quite. Home internet is capped to 5 Mbps, totally useless for running a server or distributing any kind of web content whatsoever. The reason they cap your upload is so that you can't run a business from it and they can charge you a lot more if you wanted to.
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!
adobe, adobe lightroom, cc, cloud, code, cores, lightroom, lot, performance, photography, photoshop, post, reason, release, storage, thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
a Full-Frame System MILC to boost Pentax market share... geo444 Pentax Full Frame 85 05-23-2018 04:56 PM
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 Software vs. Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 Software Update ASheffield Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 3 05-08-2014 05:52 AM
Question about the Dynamic Range boost Camos1313 Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 5 06-16-2011 02:02 PM
Boost FPS? AndersPS Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 11-04-2009 03:28 PM
Should we expect an autofocus performance boost for the K10D? bc_the_path Pentax News and Rumors 20 04-25-2008 06:42 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:14 PM. | 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