Luminar 4.3: Display of photos and export still as slow as in 4.2
Answered
Once again an update that raised hopes in advance and is now quite disappointing. I wonder how many times Skylum wants to do this.
In any case, the performance when displaying the photos is as slow as before. It just takes too long for the photo to come into focus, especially with RAW files (FUJI RAF) the waiting time is about 10-20 seconds, that's just too long.
Also the waiting time with JPGs is still too long, of course much shorter than with RAW files, but compared to other programs not suitable for a quick viewing of the photos.
In my opinion, the export now takes even longer, which is also a no-go.
It's a pity, but it seems that the software has to be reprogrammed from scratch to change that.
So Luminar remains only a very good software for editing single photos.
In my opinion the execution of the filters is now a bit faster and the new preview function for the looks is of course a big improvement.
If relevant:
Intel Core i7-10710U, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, 32 GB RAM, Samsung SSD PM981
So a quite current and perfomanted computer
-
Same issue here. Pentax K3, Pentax K1 and Sony A7III RAW extremelly slow, during opening file, during processing. Even when I'm zooming to see 100% picture I need to wait few very long seconds until I see rendered image with all details.
Capture One with the same RAWs are few times faster.
I can record movie with these issues and thinking about refund but can wait few days and see what about other users and solutions.
PS I have only few photos in my catalog
- Dodaj do Rozmówek
- Brak listy słówek dlaAngielski -> Polski...
- Stwórz nową listę słówek...
- Brak listy słówek dlaAngielski -> Polski...
- Skopiuj
- Dodaj do Rozmówek
-
I tested the release on DNGs from Pentax K-70 and have the same feelings. I also reported another issue - Luminar slows down after applying multiple changes to the image. Even if it works pretty smoothly in the beginning when you adjust multiple things and your editing history contains e.g. 30-40 entries, even changing exposure is laggy and takes up to a few seconds.
Have you Mariusz Janosz or Martin Ische captured the same issue as mine? Relevant thread is opened here.
-
Number of photos doesn't matter, I've already tried it (this answer was already given earlier), it doesn't matter if I have only 20 photos or 120 photos in my library. It doesn't make a difference and honestly: it must not make a difference.
And all photos are stored on a very fast, internal 1 GB SSD (bought especially for this purpose), the computer runs at maximum performance, that's not the reason. -
I have had the same issues. Trying to scroll through images in my library is no faster than 4.2.
I have multiple libraries, and the one I'm currently using isn't that large compared to most - only around 4300 images. My other libraries are much larger and the speed is not slower than this one.
My library is on an external Samsung SSD.
I have been using Capture one to sort through my libraries as Luminar is so painfully slow that I'm afraid I'll be 6 feet under before I even sort this small library!
I had hoped that 4.3 would really fix performance. Not seeing it. Very disapp
ointed. I love the program, but the performance is terrible compared to Capture One.
-
Also, Luminar 4.3 has already crashed multiple times.
I am running an older imac - late 2013, 24 GB memory. Everything is up to date including latest version of Catalina and all other programs, including Capture One and Lightroom are running flawlessly.
My external drive is a Samsung SSD 1TB, which should be fast enough!
-
@Martin,
I agree that the number of photos shouldn't play a role but, according to our experience, currently, the app performs better if there are fewer photos in the Catalog.
Both the file rendering speed and the export time will be addressed in future releases, we're not going to stop improving the performance after this update, as, definitely, there's still a lot of work to do.
@Tony,
Luminar proves to be faster if the photos are located on an internal drive. Could you try creating a new test catalog (File > Catalog > New), add a couple of folders from your internal drive instead, and see whether it makes things faster for you?
Please also let me know whether you're experiencing crashes in this catalog.
You'll be able to reopen your previous catalog via File > Catalog > Open.
Besides, some of our artists mentioned that they find culling images in a library mode suitable. You can switch to the gallery view by clicking on the button marked by an arrow and then select the largest size of the previews. See the screenshot: http://prntscr.com/tkjwr3
If the crashes reoccur, please contact us at https://skylum.com/support and provide a detailed-step-by-step description of what you do before the app crashes.
-
Hi Kate,
I think there is a lack of understanding perhaps with how photographers store or use their photo library.
I could be way out to lunch on this, but I know for myself I have an extensive travel photo library (in the 20k+) and I store my RAW photos in the cloud and on an external HD. I thus run my Luminar Catalog sourcing off my External HD.No internal HD is large enough for all my photos and my programs. Perhaps I could source out other methods, but for me, this has been the best to manage. However, with Luminar, it is certainly not optimal in speed performance by any definition.
The wait time to sync adjustments across photos is insane, and doesn't even properly load unless I scroll the images down in the dam multi-view window.
I really think you guys need to take a closer look at the speed and performance of the program in multiple scenarios as to where or how photographers store and source their images.
-
Es ist schon fast bewundernswert, mit welcher stoischer Energie seitens Skylum immer wieder gesagt wird, daß die Anzahl der Bilder im Katalog und die Festplatte eine Rolle für die Performance spielt. Ich verwende schon gar keine Kataloge mehr.
Ich habe meiner Bilder ebenfalls auf externen Laufwerken, da ich sonst jedes interne Laufwerk sprengen würde,
Aber: andere Bildbearbeitungsprogramme (Affinity Photo, Darktable etc) greifen ja auch auf meine externen Laufwerke zu und sind um ein vielfaches schneller, weil sie eben die eingebaute GPU erkennen und auch verwenden.
Meine NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 mit 6gb RAM befindet mit Luminar jedoch im Tiefschlaf. Solange das so bleibt, hat Skylum keine Argumente. Das nächste Update muss zwingend mit GPU - Unterstützung kommen, und zwar sehr bald.
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments