Registered: Oct 22, 2008
Total Posts: 8887
A couple of things here.
Adobe says that LR4 is indeed Multi-core and not just MT. So where is your information coming from?
Nuke is a video and FX editor/compositor, not a photo editor.
OpenGL is a 3D display language not really suited for 2D image processing at all. There's CUDA and such which are different, and could be used for 2D image processing and rendering.
Older is usually better in the world of apps. It spells maturity. If the PS GUI and workflow don't suit you personally that's a different issue. I'm an example of the opposite case.
It seems to me that LR is only a cludge of retrofitted PS code - if I can get away with using such ridiculous laymen terminology. It's a slow dog even compared to PS which is actually much faster and of course order's of magnitude more capable and diverse. Between Bridge and ACR you have 100% of the librarian, management and display functionality of LR4 and at about 4 to 6 times the speed. If you include a few functions from PS itself then you have 100% of all functions in all areas - and 4 to 6 times faster. Few people know this because of the way the GUI is laid out, the location of the various menu items, and the metaphorical terminology used to convince us we're doing something different or have something more in LR. Great for Adobe sales but kinda silly to anyone who has taken the time to actually look at all the functionality in Bridge and ACR. And speaking on a lower level it's identical as well. The same demosiacing routines are used, the same color models, the same (identical) core routines are present in LR for every one existing in Bridge, ACR, or Photoshop - with a few exceptions because PS gets the newer improved code before it hits LR 6 to 8 months later.
Here's a speed test for those not convinced of this. Load 200 RAW images into ACR, select all, make some edits you think will be CPU intensive, click Done. Now import those into LR and try browsing them. All the ACR edits render perfectly but it takes 2 to 3 seconds per image to "load" and render making everything fell very sluggish and making it nearly impossible or at least VERY uncomfortable to look navigate and compare images. Now load up Bridge and point it to the folder containing those same 200 RAW images. Everything is nearly instant and yet still all of the ACR edits render just like in ACR itself or in LR.
Why? Beats me! If can suggest a reason, I think it's because Adobe actually employs retarded chimpanzees instead of intelligent and accomplished application programmers. And I'm actually serious here - not kidding. I guess it's actually a management decision based on budget constraints and profit profiles. We went through some of that at NewTek for awhile too tho that was taken care of some years ago now. Basically Adobe employed a method (read: hackish cludge) of bringing together existing components into a GUI which streamlines image processing workflow to match that of several competing products, appear unique and different from ACR/Br/PS, and "create" an additional product.
So why do people use it?
a) They were told it's "the best" by someone with pretty images posted on-line.
b) They're stuck in a rut - it's all they know and don't wanna learn something different.
c) They didn't do any homework and believed the marketing hype - related to a).
d) They got it cheap or are using their dad's computer and can't afford something else.
e) They only process a few images a day anyway so who cares - they like the handholding GUI.
By now you're all thinking that I'm just bashing this app. But I'm really not. It's the actual state of affairs we find ourselves in with this product. Of the "popular" editors it's the very slowest there is. And exactly because of that slowness it's the most cumbersome and "unusable" to photographers who have any kind of schedule to keep with any sizable workload. So what are we doing here profiling LR? Trying to determine WHY it's slow? Unless Adobe want to start cutting me a paycheck I don't really see any value in determining why. It just is and there's nothing we can do about it.
Not only are almost all other editors faster but what happens in the future when/if Adobe gets it together too? Will you then go out and buy a machine with more processors to take advantage of the added speed? That seems like a waste of time and probably money too. It's the opposite of how trained system engineers profile as well. You select the hardware for the kinds of tasks you're wanting or expecting to have to achieve, and then you select the most suitable software to accomplish that - based on budget, company ecological and political standing, EULA, function, performance, and so forth.
Image rendering (not so much editing), and video editing and rendering (what most photogs are concerned with in these modern times) greatly benefit from adding more cores. It scales almost linearly with each added core. The cost per CPU cycle also scales favorably to the typical professional - or can be made to!. So if the initial price can be justified, adding more cores to a system's spec is a great way to improve productivity - and perhaps even so for LR in the future too. To the casual photog shooting 1 to 20 images a day on average and almost no video, then for sure, Corei3 2-core boxes running LR are fine - they won't realize any of the advantages from higher bandwidth systems or (probably) faster editors either. And this profiles across the board to someone like Chase Jarvas who shot twenty thousand plus images in a single weekend for a single sporting goods ad. Can you imagine just the sorting & selecting job alone with that many images?
Here again, the system architecture is selected based on what you expect to be using it for and the most suitable software follows. For me LR doesn't fit into my profile anywhere at all - it's just too slow - and imo too restrictive as most of these kinds of apps are. It sounds to me from reading this thread that many of you have come to the same conclusion as well. So why fight it? Give it up and move to something that isn't currently a dog.
blob loblaw wrote:
I could not agree more!
I'm glad to see I was not the only one that feels this way, because calling out LR like that people don't seem to take you seriously and it sounds like you're just ranting and being unreasonable. Well, in my circles anyway.
Almost two years ago, I decided to try and find a replacement and tried as many trials as I could get on a PC: Bibble, Adobe Bridge+PS, DxO, CaptureOne, etc, etc.
I was just fed up with the way LR kept running. Took me a few weeks of frustration because of a learning curve and I've been very happy with C1Pro since.
I was a user of LR since before initial release of v1, a beta. Every new update, and every new version I kept hoping they would put priority on performance. They would always mention 'speed improvements' but I could not see any. In fact it kept feeling slower.
It feels like their target demo is non-professionals, an advanced amateur or non-technical user. I don't want to say an 'Apple/Mac' user, but that's the kind of user I envisioned. Someone who is willing to compromise performance for usability.
To me C1Pro definitely has a steeper learning curve. It requires knowledge of color theory and a host of other industry features, which makes it more of a craftsman tool rather than enduser tool, if that makes any sense but the results are amazing.
I did essentially the same thing and came to the same conclusion. I downloaded the evil or free copies of 13 different editors and really concentrated on feature, result, and speed. Heh, I even took notes and listed out any/all unique features. I also concluded that CaptureOne Pro was the superior tool. I've repeated the process a few times since though with far less rigor, and my conclusions have remained the same as far as the first place holder goes. If a person wants speed, accuracy, robust capability, and a good result in a process-guided GUI then it's C1p. There was a free app which ranked extremely high the first time around too BTW. Also the system and service integration of some packages should be recognized for the convenience and time savings they provide. That can be a major decision point to some.
So I purchased and keep current with C1p but I actually use PS far more often. The process guided GUI type apps just aren't as good as open environment apps like PS IMO where the speed and versatility of the OS can be employed to great assist. To C1p's credit, at least it doesn't force it's process on you as much as some others. DxO is probably the worst in that regard tho LR ranks fairly low in that department as well.
Anyway, to each their own (jedem das Seine) and (mir das Meiste ), the a) through e) people have a place too. It's just not mine.