Opening images takes to much time
It takes to much time for opening an image in Luminar.
I'm on a MacBook Pro 16GB, 512 GG ssd. Every image I open, I have to wait between 15 and 20 seconds.
That is way to long when you want to edit a lot of images.
For now I am still using Lightroom hoping this will be improved in Luminar.
-
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. -
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
23 comments