Opening images takes to much time

Comments

23 comments

  • Avatar
    Konstantin Zolo

    Hi,

    Thank you for joining in!

    Does it happen with all images? I assume you open RAW files. May I ask you to send an example of your RAW file to our support team at support@skylum.com? Thanks in advance.

    Please use WeTransfer to send files: https://wetransfer.com/ 

    Looking forward to hearing from you.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Mark Quatz

    Hi Konstantin,

    Thanks for your reaction.

    I do use RAW (orf) files indeed. And lmnr files.

    The orf files takes a bit less time (about 10-12 seconds) Which is also to long for me.

    I will send the files right now.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Phil Hurd

    If you are passing your files from Lightroom into Luminar, some of that time delay will be down to Lightroom. I don't actually find Luminar any worse than other 3rd party applications in that respect.

    Remember also that Luminar is opening the original RAW file (if you use Export) but some 3rd party apps will use a TIFF. I don't whether that makes any material difference but it might.

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Mark Quatz

    I open the files directly in Luminar. Opening every single file takes about 10-12 seconds for a lmnr file and 15-20 seconds for a raw file (orf). 

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Remo Coon

    MacMini, late 2012 Intel I7, 2.6 GHZ, 16GB RAM, program on SSD, data on HDD. 14.3 seconds for a 25GB file from Sony a6500. Very typical.

     

    Test performed by first starting Luminar then picking a file from the Finder dialog popup and letting it go through its two steps.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Alexandr Latyshev

    Macbook Pro 13" late 2011, 2.4GHz, i5, 16GB 1600MHz, SSD 512MB

    The SRW file Samsung NX30 25-30 MB open on average 50-75 seconds. Files TIFF and PSD open 2-3 seconds, psd file size 330 MB 55 MP opens 6-7 seconds, which is already quite acceptable. That is, the only question is about the incredibly slow RAW discovery.

    The opening of the same SRW in ACR takes 2-3 seconds, which is faster by 25 times! The gap is more than impressive.

    File type SRW.lmnr opens for 40 seconds. By the way, these data after activating the program, in the trial version it was still slower in 2 times, that is, not 50-75 seconds, and 100-150 seconds.

    The question about batch processing, the result I have obtained an incredibly oversaturated pictures of terrible noises. What can I do to change batch presets?

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Jeffrey Raines

    There are a few individuals who report no problems with loading Raw files or for that matter no problems with Luminar in any respect. I would like one of them to publish the details of his computer and raw photos for comparison.

     

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Phil Hurd

    My computer is an iMAC, 27 inch (Mid 2011), running macOS High Sierra, Version 10.13.4.

    Processor Intel 3.1HHz Core i5.

    Memory 32GB 1333MHz DDR3.

    Graphics Card AMD Radeon HD 670M 1224MB (BTW Lightroom has stopped using the graphics card since the latest update)

    I use Lightroom as my image library and always process RAW files by launching them from Lightroom (Export >Luminar 2018 >Open Source Files

    A 24.8MB RAW file takes 12 seconds to load from Lightroom. The same file opened directly by Luminar takes 12 seconds.

    RAW files are SONY ARW from an A6000 camera.

    Hope that helps Jeff

     

    -1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Remo Coon

    Regarding Phil Hurd's report, my cameras are both Sony's: a6500 and RX10iv, my results are similar to his and were already reported: 14 seconds loading from within Luminar directly from the file system. Files are, of course, ".arw" like his.

    Hardware Overview:

      Model Name: Mac mini

      Model Identifier: Macmini6,2

      Processor Name: Intel Core i7

      Processor Speed: 2.6 GHz

      Number of Processors: 1

      Total Number of Cores: 4

      L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB

      L3 Cache: 6 MB

      Memory: 16 GB

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Mark Quatz

    So there needs to be done something on this issue, waiting 14 seconds for opening every file is way to long for me. I am currently testing DXO Photolab. This is also not a catalog file system. Opening images takes about 1 or 2 seconds. Thats incredibly faster...

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Mariia Divavina

    Hi,

    The upcoming mid-April update will bring significant speed improvement, and RAW files will be uploaded much faster.

    We would appreciate hearing your feedback on opening images after the update.

     

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Jeffrey Raines

    Phil, thanks for posting the details of your computer. My setup is pretty much similar and now I have found a solution to my problem. I was recently notified by Skyum support that Luminar was not designed to be run on an external SSD. This was what I was doing. In fact all my photo apps, catalogues etc were on the external disc.. Everything is now back on HD and running reasonably well. However, I hope the next update decreases the reaction time for the sliders as it makes it difficult to compare various settings quickly.With jpegs performance is similar to lightroom.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Phil Hurd

    You're welcome Jeff. I run all of my Apps and Photo Libraries from the internal disk of my iMac.  

    I probably should have mentioned that I fitted an internal 1TB SSD after my previous hard disk went to meet its maker. The whole machine is very snappy with an internal SSD (it boots in seconds)

    All of my actual image files are on 2 x 2TB Firewire 800 hard drives, one being the working drive and the other a backup drive. I know that loading image files from an external drive will be marginally slower (though Firewire isn't too bad) but I'm willing to live with that for the convenience. When the external drives get too full (they are about 60% full at the moment), I will probably look at external SSD with Thunderbolt.

    I don't perceive that Luminar is any worse than any other external editor when opening files, they are all much-of-a-muchness.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Remo Coon

    Regarding using an internal data drive vs USB. I keep Luminar on my internal SSD but all the image files are on an external HDD.

    I tested loading the same file from each one today. I tested the HDD version first. Then I closed the file and "quit" the application. Then I started the application again and loaded the identical copy of the file directly from the SSD.

    In both cases my stopwatch reported 13.28 seconds. Allowing for my reflexes, the results are nearly identical and I must conclude that the source of the file is not making any material difference in the speed of loading and opening for editing.

    I understand this is not in agreement with some of the data above. Sorry. It is what it is.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Phil Hurd

    Hi Remo, not sure what bit isn't in agreement.

    I also keep my files on an external HDD  (using Firewire 800 not USB) and I don't think it makes a difference to file loading. If you are saying that 13.28 seconds is too long to open a file, then I have no views about that, its acceptable to me. I think what is important is that the Luminar App is located on the internal drive of the MAC and if this is a SSD, it will run better.

    What Jeff was indicating was that he was running Luminar on an External SSD and this caused him problems. So the tests that you have just run concur with mine in terms of speed of opening files (I timed them roughly at 12 seconds) but not relevant to the issue of where the App is located. Hope that makes sense

    Regards

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Remo Coon

    Phil, thanks. I did misunderstand Jeff's post to the extent that it referred to the executable, not only the data.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Phil Hurd

    I think Luminar needs far more memory overhead than Skylum are willing to admit. In fairness though their minimum spec of 8GB assumes all of that is available for Luminar. I read lots of posts on the old Facebook group where users were moaning because they had 8GB MacBooks or whatever and it wouldn't run very well. I bet they were running Safari and loads of other stuff at the same time and the real memory available was one;y 3 or 4GB. So I take the approach of maxing out my memory at 32GB and having a SSD.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Remo Coon

    My MacMini has 16GB and that is all I was able to put on it. I have never seen any indication in Activity Monitor that I was even close to high "Memory Pressure" with Luminar. Luminar even runs OK, if slower, on my MBA with 4GB.

    While writing this on the MBA in Safari I started Luminar and loaded an arw. The memory reported is:

    Luminar 2018 947.9 MB 146.5 MB 

    Safari 491.6 MB 439.4 MB 

    The two numbers are memory and compressed memory. The reported "pressure" was in the green and slightly below the 50% level. The opining of a file was VERY slow as compared to my Mini but this computer is slow on most apps.

    My conclusion sans deep thought is that memory is not the problem, at least after the initial load. Perhaps it takes more memory during the load, but I have not bothered to investigate that.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Clement Oh

    Running Luminar 3

    I'm running a mac pro i9 9900k 5Ghz 16 threads with 32gb memory on high sierra and it still takes 14-15 seconds to load a converted DNG raw file from a SSD drive. I can't load my original CR3 raw files (but that's for another post).

    It's incredibly frustrating. Lightroom loads the images instantaneously. Please help asap.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Anna V

    Hi Clement, I am sorry for the inconvenience. 

    We are aware of the performance and speed issues and most of them must be resolved in the upcoming update.  It will be released in a month. 

    For now, I can recommend you to have your images on the Internal HD and try to minimize the number of images in your Catalog.

    Hope for your understanding and patience. 

     

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Clement Oh

    Hi Anna,

    Thanks for the quick reply. Will keep an eye out for the next update :)

    Cheers,

    Clement

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    evan kosowski

    This is very sad. I am using JPEGs and it still takes up to 20 seconds to load one image. You guys have some great features but this is unacceptable. I have a top of the line Macbook Pro and I only have 20 images in the catalog so far! What? What am I missing?

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Helga Rowles

    Hi Evan, could you please send your system info to our support team at skylum.com/support?
    We'll do our best to reply as soon as possible.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.