Lightroom CC releasing tomorrow?

SDK^ said:
It appears in actual use the LR CC performance is no faster than LR 5.
Yes it now uses the GPU rather than the CPU but it's not any quicker because of the switch.
Click to expand...

I've found the same in reality, although I still feel there is an improvement over LR5.
It is worth trying it without the GPU acceleration turned on though. On my 13" Macbook Pro Retina I think it is slightly slicker without it on than with.

I assume the graphics model has a difference though. My Windows desktop only has a GTX 560 Ti too. Would be nice to try it with something newer.
 
ajf said:
I've found the same in reality, although I still feel there is an improvement over LR5.
It is worth trying it without the GPU acceleration turned on though. On my 13" Macbook Pro Retina I think it is slightly slicker without it on than with.

I assume the graphics model has a difference though. My Windows desktop only has a GTX 560 Ti too. Would be nice to try it with something newer.
Click to expand...

You'd think that but I'm using it with a GTX 770 and haven't noticed any real gains, they really do need to fix the performance as moving between photos has become extremely tedious with Lightroom.
 
DeathStorm said:
You'd think that but I'm using it with a GTX 770 and haven't noticed any real gains, they really do need to fix the performance as moving between photos has become extremely tedious with Lightroom.
Click to expand...

This is what really needs improving now. Still need to pre-render. I was hoping for adobe to use opencl, but I should have known better. Right now our GPU's are hardly being taxed at all. This still untapped resource could be used to pre-render pictures ahead of time as we are working.
As for the other performance improvements, if LR was already fast you are not likely to notice much difference. To use gaming speak, it's like going from 100fps to 200fps. Sure there is a big difference in fps, but it isn't very perceptible. On my 5k, it's like going from 15fps to 30fps, which is very noticeable. However it's still not perfect as I was hoping for something like 60fps.
 
Last edited:
I do think it feels a little smoother overall, at least on my creaky dual-core G3258. I did a quick timed import and 1:1 pre-render benchmark and the new version was actually slower however, although I haven't tested it in 6 with GPU off.

Edit - apparently there's a bug with AMD cards where GPU acceleration doesn't work with drivers newer than April 2014, so I guess I'll have to wait for them to fix that to see if it makes any difference.
 
Last edited:
LR6 doesn't seem to be any improvement over LR5 so I'm going to skip this upgrade, facial recognition accuracy is terrible and HDR etc. is poor compared to free software. CC is so expensive in comparison to standalone.
 
My rig is X58 with a 975 running at 5ghz and an ATI 5970 Gpu. Just downloaded LR6 to give it a try and in the performance box it says "Graphics processor has been disabled due to errors" I get the same with my Dell Inspiron laptop as well.
I had a look on Adobe's website and they confirm the 5970 as been tested ok with LR6.
Latest GPU drivers installed, so the question is, am i missing something here ?
 
So just watching ep 11 of lightroom killer tips and they are saying if you buy the physical copy it's never getting any updates. Is that right? Seems a hell of a way to force people into the subscription model.
 
dannyjo22 said:
So just watching ep 11 of lightroom killer tips and they are saying if you buy the physical copy it's never getting any updates. Is that right? Seems a hell of a way to force people into the subscription model.
Click to expand...

I had 5.4 on my mac. Last week I tried to get update to 5.7 from within the application which it was bugging me todo at startup. However instead of downloading the update, it took me to a buy CC6 page. They had a internal re-direct on the 5.7 patch update link to a buy cc page instead...:rolleyes:.

After speaking with Adobe support, sales, marketing, and enterprise teams. They all took the stance that Perpetual license's of lightroom are entitled to 0 bug fix's or updates, and they only way to now obtain them now are to purchase a CC subscription.

After a hours of arguing and escalation, the existing patch downloads are now available. Although many fake links and re-directs still exist.

Pretty crooked behavior.:mad:

Adobe do make some cracking software, the developers have made a great eco system of applications. :) The management however seem hell bent on destroying any desire to support or recommend them. It's a shame there are not many viable alternatives, I guess they know this. Hopefully things change.
 
Raymond Lin said:
It's cheaper than buying physical copies.

At the current pricing, for both LR and PS, you will have to make the physical copies lasts about 5 years before you break even.
Click to expand...

Yes but that's only true if you actually need and use PS, as I keep saying for photographers Elements does all you need anyway for 99% of us. So I am paying for something I don't need or want. Plus it's only correct because they have put the pricing of LR back up after they dropped it before.

Elements 13 cost me £33 for the full version and LR 5 £55. So in over two years it's cost me £3.40 a month and that's excluding resale which I always have done on older copies.

I won't deny if you are one of those PS wizards and use it a lot then compared to a copy of PS it's a bargain but elements now has just about everything that the PS photography module has and more. I think I'm lucky enough to come to post processing late enough to not be one of these people that think it's a necessity.

I did laugh at the latest LR killer tips video when Kelby mentioned how little he goes outside LR for anything these days and then remembered himself as he has loads of Photoshop for photographers books to sell.

I would probably go CC if I could buy a LR only sub or LR and elements.
 
Raymond Lin said:
It's cheaper than buying physical copies.

At the current pricing, for both LR and PS, you will have to make the physical copies lasts about 5 years before you break even.
Click to expand...

If you just want LR. CC is way more expensive, even with Adobe CC teaser rates.

For me it's not about the money anyway, I just don't want to end up renting EVERYTHING in life, like it will if this trend continues.
 
Last edited:
Hence I said LR and PS.

I'm not a fan of the subscription model either but it's not that expensive and seeing I used to buy a new copy annually before anyway which is like renting, except I paid on an annual basis, now I pay monthly. That's the difference really in practical terms.
 
Last edited:
I've been playing with this latest version of lightroom.

It seems to only use the GPU for browsing? Which... with a Titan X... is quicker than a 4.5GHz 5820 (six-core) working by itself... definitely noticeable.

However, the export function appears to still be CPU-only? Unless I am mistaken... I just haven't noticed any difference in speed there & the CPU cycles up to near 100% on export, while it's a lot less busy than 5.7 when browsing.
 
That is correct. GPU is used in the develop and library modules when working on images, exporting uses the CPU. I guess exporting uses different math to processing images else they'd have used the GPU there too.
 
GPU enabled = Faster editing but really slow when flicking through different images. Image displays then blurs then displays again.
GPU disabled = Slower editing but instant image loading when flicking through them, as long as they are pre-rendered. Might as well have stayed with LR5.

Considering adobe has had nearly two years to sort this out, they have almost done sweet * all in that time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom