Lightroom 4.2 Release Candidate now available on Adobe Labs

Lightroom 4.2  is now available as a Release Candidate  on Adobe Labs.   The ‘release candidate’ label indicates that this update is well tested but would benefit from additional community testing before it is distributed automatically to all of our customers.  The final release of Lightroom 4.2 may have additional corrections or camera support.

Bugs Corrected in Lightroom 4.2 Release Candidate

The following bugs that were part the Lightroom 4 releases have been corrected. The team appreciates the very detailed feedback the community has provided on Lightroom 4 and we’re excited to correct a number of issues experienced by our customers. These issues have been FIXED:

  • Folder stacks with virtual copies get unstacked when moving to another folder
  • Stacked photos get hidden in both the Grid view and Filmstrip.  This occurs when photos get unstacked as a result of enabling auto-stacking.
  • Errors encountered when publishing videos to Facebook through the Facebook Publish Service
  • Users may have occurred problems when trying to enter the Web Module from Library.
  • Unable to edit JPEG photos in Photoshop Elements
  • Unable to upload files to Flickr if there is a carriage return in either the Title or Caption fields (Win only).
  • Background graphics that are applied to a Book globally may not appear as expected in a Saved PDF.
  • Certain book covers had spine text positioned in a Horizontal manner, not Vertical.
  • Double byte characters are not being exported to PDF in Books
  • Photos were exported with original GPS coordinates recorded by the camera, not with the GPS coordinates updated in Lightroom.
  • Keyboard shortcuts in the Develop module sometimes do not work when editing an image in Process Version PV2010.
  • Parents and synonyms of “do not export” keywords also do not export.
  • Audio does not play in video files after creating a slideshow containing music (win7 only)
  • Tether support not working for Nikon D4, D800 , and D800E (win only)

Please provide feedback on your experience with the Lightroom 4.2 Release Candidate in our Feedback Portal (link – http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family)

New Camera Support in Lightroom 4.2 Release Candidates

  • Canon EOS 650D / Rebel T4i
  • Canon EOS M
  • Fuji FinePix F800EXR
  • Leaf Credo 40
  • Leaf Credo 60
  • Panasonic DMC-FZ200
  • Panasonic DMC-G5
  • Panasonic DMC-LX7
  • Pentax K-30
  • Sony DSC-RX100

Release Notes

  • Lightroom 4.2 RC now supports the Albums functionality in the recently released Adobe Revel 1.5.

Thank You

143 Responses to Lightroom 4.2 Release Candidate now available on Adobe Labs

  1. 4.2 says:

    You need to update the 4.1 text you copied and pasted – to 4.2…

  2. Frank Werner says:

    No sign of Retina Support for Lightroom or the much needed Performance Improvements here. Now its almost 3 months that Retina Support for Photoshop was announced by Apple and Adobe?

  3. Peter says:

    what about the video importing issues?

    i have reported a bug and it was verfified by one of the lR coders….. weeks ago.

  4. Thomas says:

    The list of changes does not include support for the MacBook Pro retina display. Is this really not included or just not listed? Adobe, do we really have to wait until at least December for a 4.3 release for retina display support?

  5. Eric says:

    What about Canon 5dMkIII tether support?

    Thank you

  6. Mikael says:

    Does this fix the well-documented performance issues?

    • Mark says:

      4.1 seems to have fixed performance issues for most people (at least from what I’ve observed on the forums that I visit). Are you using that version at least?

      • Greg says:

        Mark, you must be kidding, right? 4.1 solved the issues for hardly anyone, as far as I can see.

        • Peter says:

          4.1 runs flawless for me on 2 systems… as fast as v3.6.

          that your system has speed issues does not mean everyone has.

        • Alex says:

          4.1 was faster than 4.0 without a doubt. But Lightroom 4.1 is still much slower/laggy than 3.6 and eats up memory.. I have 16GB memory and thats even not much after ~200 images.. Actually, its faster for me to review, edit and export 1000RAWs to JPGS in Bridge/ACR/PS than LR since I don’t have to close _everything_ after 5 minutes because of program eats up mem and is generally slow! Now, if you don’t have this problem, then shut up! We are pretty much a community out there with this problem and don’t want to hear how well 4.1 runs on your computer!.. It MUST be possible for Adobe to simulate this problem when 50% of users out here have it!.. Maybe it cost to much to fix things and cheaper to add functions?.. I’m soon off to DxO or Corel or something.. I just want a interface that works!! So, Ulf and Peter… I said, if you don’t have this problem, why are you bothering to tell us others that your interface works? This is a general complaint from 1000s of users about a problem and not one retard who don’t know what Camera Raw Cache is.. So, don’t be a retard you either… We don’t want to hear about your fast lightroom and not having issues.. Because, how should that help us? Should we other users claim our money back then? Should 1000’s of users claim their money back? Maybe you guys are right after all.. Maybe we should claim our money back and buy Aftershot Pro, DxO or CatureOne… I hope Adobe see the problem and fix it before they loose lots of customers.. I got to use a working interface so I’m currently using Bridge, ACR and PS… Lightroom 4.1 just sits there like a trash waiting to be removed.. Adobe’s now motto should be.. “New functions isn’t worth s#@t when interface is poor”

        • Andrew Millott says:

          Well Everyone, having just bought LR4, am now deciding whether to trash it still easled in the box and continue using PS elements 9. Seems there is a lot of conjecture as to the reliability and speed of LR4.
          Maybe I will just sit on the fence and wait a while before deciding as to whether I will install or return for refund.

      • Mikael says:

        And the answer (having used 4.2 for a whole afternoon) is……

        Nope,

        4.2 still runs like a snail, just like 4.1 (64-bit).

        • Alex says:

          Btw Mikael.. Have you tried disabling hyper-threading in bios? I’m certain LR doesn’t use it, and also certain Adobe use some coding that conflicts with HT.. Not a good solution since rest of system gets slower, but might get a proper LR speed..

          • Boris says:

            “Adobe use some coding that conflicts with HT”… do you want to say, that Adobe employees are not so smart people who develop applications like in 1980? Hyper-threading was available for PC in February 2002, so Adobe had 10 years to learn something about it… I hope you are joking…

    • I was having very poor performance to the point of unuseability from on my reasonably high end system. The problem was still evident after downloading this release candidate. I have discovered a partial solution though — at least for my system. I have a core i7 950 processor and turning OFF hyper-threading has rendered LR4.2 RC useable — I can touch a noise reduction slider without fear now.

  7. Marc-104 says:

    are lens corrections for the raw of the sony RX100 included ?

  8. Mark says:

    Amazing timing. I just picked up the RX100 last weekend and was looking for raw support. Thanks!

  9. Eric says:

    Fine all these new features, but the incredible slow performance of release 4.1.!!
    will this all be solved in release 4.2…..or.??

    wait and see folks.

    Eric

    • Peter says:

      have no issues at all.

      clean 4.1 installation and imported the v3.6 catalog.

      speed is the same as with v3.6 on my intel i7 2600K with 16 GB ram.

      • Eric says:

        Computer was set-up as a clean new installation with all drivers at latest release level. Even so LR 4.1. Catalog was newly created and 2,000 RAWs imported (resolution 12Mpx).
        No automatic sync to sidecar fiels (xmp). As said above: All LR files, catalog, raw, caches are on SSD.
        The longer I work on the images the slower it gets.

  10. Kenneth Daves says:

    The Windows 64 bit installer changes the language to Swedish even if I try and change the language to English (U.S)

  11. Robert F. Tobler says:

    What about Sigma SD1 Merrill / DP2 Merrill support?

    Thank you,
    Robert

  12. Chuck W. says:

    Please add the tools to recover image sensor data lost when shooting in a camera crop modes for the 5D Mark III. This shortcoming in LR4 and ACR 7 is extremely frustrating. I am at a complete loss as to why this incredibly simple feature was not included years ago.

    • Ulf says:

      why shooting in crop mode to begin with?

      • Chuck W. says:

        Ulf, are you trying to be obnoxious or is that just they way you are naturally? With the 5D3, if you shoot a raw still in movie mode, it will be cropped to 16×9 in the metadata. The rest of the pixels are there, but LR4 and ACR 7 won’t let you “uncrop” to see them. In addition the 5D3 has multiple crop modes in Liveview that may be used as composition aids. Once you get back to the computer there is no reason to be stuck with the in-camera crop if you change your mind.

  13. Charlotte says:

    Yes, please state if performance issues has been looked at and fixed. @Mark, No, 4.1 did not fix performance for a lot of people…

    • Charlotte says:

      I have gone back to using LR3 ! The lack of speed in LR4 makes it totally useless in my workflow.

  14. Stewart Ross says:

    Please fix the biggest bug of them all, the performance issues. The slow speed of use & exporting is similar to LR2.0.

  15. When Lightroom 5 is released can you make sure it works first this time?

    Beta, release, candidate, release, candidate, release………………………and so on!!!

  16. Johan de Wit says:

    Indeed 4.1 lacks any performance as compared to LR3. I also went back to LR3. Please Adobe bring back the speed to LR4.x along with the nice other features

    • Alex says:

      You know.. Because they have enough money to add new functions they don’t have enough for correcting errors and fix things.. And there are a community who say or pc/macs is too slow… Well, I have a Asus Rampage IV mobo with intel i7 3960x extreme cpu @ 4.3GHz in 6 cores and 2 threads. 16 GB of 2400MHz ram by G.SKILL, GeForce GTX580 AMP2+ 3GB, SSDs for system-disks and RAW-cache and so on.. This computer cost at least $8400 USD total, and they still have a nerve to show me a link about ….. “how to get the most out of your computer…” Single response from me is… If a program consume more than the newest games on the market, then the program is faulty… No way that lightroom should consume all of those spesifications..

  17. Hawaii-Geek says:

    LR v4.1 imho, could use a SPEED boost in Win7 64-bit. We “always” have a need for more speed. More so with these High Res cameras (D800 tether).
    I would love for LR to load up more in RAM for those that have more ram to spare.
    Maybe even have a config so it will load itself in the background on Win7 64-bit start up.
    So, when you open it is ready to go.
    None of that first delay from G to D … grid to Develop the first time.

  18. miguel hernandez says:

    Still slow as can be

  19. Brian says:

    Still slow! Performance is the same as 4.1, unusable in the Develop module. LR3 was so much faster, same computer. I’m only a hobbyist so I’m just planning to wait this problem out, but my patience is wearing thin with Adobe’s unwillingness to even recognize the problem. Adobe, it’s not just a few isolated cases, do the research in the forums.

  20. Peter says:

    speed is fine for me.

    only annoying thing is that some videos will not import.
    i always get an error message on synchronizing folders with video.
    and my travel folders include videos too.

    and it´s not possible to disable video support completely (would like to do that).

  21. Eric says:

    Too bad that no performance fixes have been applied. Running windows7 64 with 8GB RAM, quadcore intel processor and two fast SSDs (one for OS and programs, second holds catalogue, previews, cache and raw-files in progress) is really slow.

    No enhancement of the book module. Solely blurb and pdf with uncommon page-sizes that are not customizable. :(

    • William says:

      Totally agree, Lightroom 4 (even rc 4.2) SUCKS!, I can run 3D parametric software in my computer and compared to that software lightroom CRAWLS What a rip off!!!

      How can you put out a new software release and not implement performance when EVERYONE is telling you the performance is terrible? Adobe needs new product managers, what a mediocre job they are doing.

  22. Please work with Fuji to perfect a Lightroom module whereby RAW files equal the jpegs created by the X-Pro 1 (and whatever emerges from Photokina, e.g. X-Pro2 etc., next week). The colour-smearing from RAW decoding, as referred to in a few educated reviews, leaves these cameras ‘professionally’ highly limited (except in jpg terms: and photo libraries, for a start, will not accept such results). Apparently this has something to do with the layout of pixels in Fuji’s anti-aliasing solution. It is in Fuji’s interest to co-operate with you over this: it remains these cameras’ ‘weakest link’.

    Lightroom’s Heal and Clone tool is so convoluted as to be a source of total frustration! To remove a short scratch, for instance, not to mention telegraph wires, invites so many ill-chosen overlapping circles as would drive one insane. Please revert Urgently to the procedure used in Photoshop. It should be quite unnecessary ever to visit that program.

    Nikon-emulating camera profiles seem still nowhere near as exact (to the results ‘read off’ by Capture NX) as the user expects (sees on the screen) when shooting. “Standard+1″, or “S-1″, or “Neutral + 1″ etc., are all everyday user settings, of no great subtlety, that one would expect to find copied in LR: there is still far too much ‘fiddle’ in getting started anywhere near to a predicted result.

    Please add a Warmth and Saturation button, like the unsurpassed one in Capture NX, so that any starting colour temperature may be warmed by a user-choosable amount, rather than one needing to revisit and fool around with the two top Colour Temp settings — for every picture!

    Is CaptureNX’s “Color Control Point” tool ©opyrighted to the extent that you cannot emulate it? A wonderful and simple way of selecting areas for saturation changes etc. LR’s spot brush version does not allow one, for instance, to add measured amounts of specific colours, and requires numerous ‘revisits’ to attain what NX achieves in one .

    Please co-operate with Topaz so that one can address their filters through LR. Yes, they are in competition to you, but those of us who rely on occasion on their subtle DeNoise engine, etc., will use that in any case (via Elements if needs be, an infuriating program).

    Please try to save us opening numerous programs to process each individual picture.

    • Andy says:

      Again I return to this blog to bang on about my frustrations with the X-Pro1 support. I realise that you don’t HAVE to provide support at all, but surely it’s in your interest to and to make sure it’s the best it can be.

      The current version does not process these Raw files well at all, this colour smearing is dreadful. SilkyPix takes a while to get used to and of course lacks a lot of what Lightroom can offer, but the detail I get from SilkyPix processed Raw files is incredible.

      With the X-E1 just around the corner using the same sensor and possibly an X-Pro1 coming next year this needs to be addressed.

      Please please please please please tell me you are working on it? Just a sign, anything. I’m down on my knees here, what more can I do?

      I’ve posted samples where I’ve been told to, I’ve posted here on the blog. Is it now time to do daily or hourly tweets about this matter? A bit like Andy Dufresne in Shawshank writing letters every day to get the books for his library. I’ll do it if I have to…

  23. Janajan says:

    speed is fine.

    improve the GPS features!

  24. Archer66 says:

    4.2RC is faster than 4.1 on my PC, I dont see the “Loading” text anymore when switching from Library to Developer ( Sony A850 24Mpix RAW files, Win 7/64, 4 Gb memory )

  25. Greg says:

    @ Peter – fine, we get it. Works perfectly for you. If you had any idea how serious the performance issue is for a number of people, and how frustrated they all are, you would stop saying how it works great for you. The issue is so bad that I, like many, just stopped using LR4.x. because it is simply unusable for any real work. I figure that it was just lost money. Every project going forward will be on LR3.6 and I think I am simply done with LR, which is a shame as I have been a huge LR fan since its very first Beta period. In addition, in light of this completely unreliable performance (seemingly not related at all to machine configuration) I can only cautiously recommend the software to anyone else. For Mac users I just tell them to buy Aperture because of the superior integration into OSX and the vastly superior organizing and publishing features. (not a better raw converter, however)

    • Boris says:

      It is really nice, that from thousands of people we have Peter (from Adobe) for who is the LR4.2 fast… I am sorry, but if the LR4.2 final will be so slow as 4.1 then I do not care about Peter’s Adobe computer and I will buy another software and will tweet to Adobe GOOD BYE… I will not waste my time with company which is not able to fix a performance issue within 1 year.

  26. Thomas says:

    Hi,
    the only features i’m asking for are still not implemented since LR3.

    1.) Ability for better organizing develop presets. Still a mess because you can only add a folder inside LR and import all presets into that created folder. A more comprehensive approach inside LR3 is welcome, (import whole folder strutucres, creating subfolder, organizing them with drag and drop and move them around inside LR and in Finder hierachy) anything else is just lame. Why breaking OS X Finder behaviour anyway.

    2.) Arrow keys to browse presets. This is really terrible, because you alway have to move your eyes on the preset list to hit the next preset with the cursor. Terrible nav concept.

    3.) second annoying GUI usability/navigation fact. I cannot use the scroll wheel or tablet scroll functions to work with the sliders. I might use the comand & drag for the numerical values instead of the slider but that concept still makes my eyes and head move from the canvas i am working on.

    4.) using the “home” keys does not jump back to the first picture in the film strip

    Don’t know if u gous are happy if customers are happy, or you just do not care.

  27. Tim Arrick says:

    One thing I’m curious about is the Auto-Tone. Yeah, I know that it is best to manually adjust my images but when I am going through 1400 or so images from a Triathlon, I tend to auto-tone first and then step back and tweak.

    Currently the majority of the images I auto-tone are underexposed. I know this is a common and much talked about problem but haven’t seen a real solution yet.

    Tim

  28. Ture says:

    The uploading from lightroom to flickr still doesent work , still the same errors as in 4.1.
    it uploads 5-10 then you have to restart it.

  29. Organized content is the best way to display or post an article, thank you for making it easy to digest your

  30. Arne says:

    I’m happy with the current version of Lightroom. But I really miss proper support for the Fullscreen mode which was introduced with Mac OS X Lion.

  31. Paul says:

    I was hoping to see performance improvements here. I have been moving all of my processing to ACR and my Catalogs to a non adobe solution. I have a brand new top end Dell computer and with a clean install LR is still unacceptably slow. SO so I re-installed and will not be putting LR back on until people start reporting speed improvements. FYI Adobe speed issues are real and just because someone with a small work load (most users) isn’t affected doesn’t mean that us with larger workloads are making this speed issue up. ACR workflow has always been slower than LR but as someone else pointed out. when you subtract the overall slowness and degrading performance with use and the inevitable reboots. ACR becomes lightning fast by comparison. One more point just because it works on your computer doesn’t mean anything to me. If you were a pro making a living processing 1000s of photos and a slowdown could mean the difference between working 1 week on a project vs working 1.5 weeks on a project than I might give your opinion more weight but you are a developer or beta tester and one second each mouse click might not be as apparent to you as it is to me. Do you think I am making this up Imagine loosing a total of 5 sec per photo on 2000 photos. That becomes 2.8 hours lost . Shoot 4,000 to 6,000 photo a week and that becomes 8.4 hours lost. that’s the difference between accepting another job or having to turn it down. So 5 seconds per photo doesn’t seem like much but t adds up. The reality is that most people don’t shoot 6000 photo a week but most people having problems would be thrilled to death if LR was only 5 sec a photo slower.

  32. Charles says:

    My BIGGEST issue – 25-30 second lag (in Mac terms, beachballing) when switching to the Book module (slightly less for the Slideshow, Map or Web modules) when LR4 is first opened.

    Other issues/concerns – only one book publisher, and Blurb’s quality is spotty; heavily dependent on Photoshop for any real editing.

    • Pete Green says:

      We’re still working on some of the performance issues, and this update is still in RC, not final yet. That said, some folks are reporting there has been an increase in LR 4’s speed since 4.2… Is this your experience as well Charles?

      • Charles says:

        Short answer – nope.

        I haven’t had any issues with slow response on the sliders, but there’s no change on the beachballing with LR4.2 RC when going from the Library to the Book, Slideshow (and to a lesser extent) the Map and Web modules.

        Also…I can’t emphasize this enough – Adobe needs more options for book printers. Apple Aperture has four, and Blurb’s reputation is spotty.

  33. Benny says:

    What about Canon EF 40/2,8 STM? Is i supported?

  34. Ron says:

    This could be a design flaw from the very start. When using the Book module and you click on the drop down menu to choose a font style all you get is a list of font styles in plain text. You have to click on each font style and then you get a preview in the main work area. This is time consuming because you have to go through each one to see a preview of the font style rather then having a preview right in the drop down menu as you do In Photoshop and InDesign. I’m using Windows. Perhaps it’s different in a MAC. Is there a possibility for a fix in a future update or is this a major design overhaul?

  35. Adam Falgout says:

    LR 4.2 RC runs like SH** for me… As all the other releases have, except anything before 4.x
    Here are my system specs, ADOBE!

    4.2 Ghz quad core i7.
    Solid State Hard drive.
    16 GB tripple channel RAM
    (2) GTX 570’s in SLI
    Windows 7 64bit

    My system anihilates anything I throw at it, from games, to having 10 system intensive programs open at once, my pc always run without a hitch. EXCEPT when I run LR 4.x… And it’s the only thing open, I even reformatted my SSD and reinstalled everything clean… no dice…. still takes me 5 seconds to switch between pictures in develop mode… this is BS.

  36. I had to bite the bullet and install LR4 as I’d acquired a Canon 5D Mark III.

    It has had an extremely negative impact on my workflow – not because of any functional changes (I like the 2012 Develop module) but because of its speed. 4.2RC hasn’t made any difference, it’s still very slow and gets slower as time goes on. Could this be a cache issue or something similar?

    It absolutely *eats* CPU on my 2.66GHz Core i7 Macbook Pro (8GB RAM, SSD, NVidia GEforce GT 330M 512MB, OS X 10.7.4) doing seemingly simple tasks like changing colour temperature or just shifting a crop area using the cursor keys. And because it lags, it’s very difficult to tweak an image: something which might have taken me 10 minutes in LR3 takes an hour in LR4.

    I *really* don’t want to have to move to Aperture and shift a library of over 80,000 images but it’s starting to get that way simply because of the poor speed.

    It would help if either [a] the speed was addressed (come on Adobe, you must know about it by now), or [b] there was a workflow I could use in LR3 with the 5Dmk3 without having to do the whole convert-to-DNG dance.

    Please?

    • Pete Green says:

      For LR3 — you’ll need to use the DNG converter to use the RAW images from the 5DMKIII.

      We’ve acknowledged that there are several users experiencing the performance issues, but we do not have a resolution yet for it.

      Acknowledgement, and other folks are talking about it here: http://phtshp.us/PAkEDi

  37. jamie says:

    eating cpu is right! that is the biggest problem with so many programs and has been the problem for *years*. eating cpu on a w7 machine with intel t6600 dual core processor so this shouldn’t be a problem as i’ve turned off aero and other resource hogs.

    i hope adobe gets serious about this asap or we will all migrate away from adobe… just like everyone has installed java bcz oracle won’t get serious about all the security holes in java.

  38. Kimberly says:

    dude, what is up with renaming files and then sorting? AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH

  39. Ron says:

    The Auto Fill for Book Module does not work. I have Auto fill when starting a new book set in the book module preferences but when I”m in the Library module and select a collection and then move to the Book module it does not auto fill my pages. I have to use the auto layout button instead.

  40. Dale Fazendin says:

    No support for Canon 5d mkIII tethered? Why is this not in the 4.2? 3 months????

    • Pete Green says:

      4.2 is still RC (release candidate) and not final yet. We’re working on adding this support and hope to get it into 4.2.

  41. Adobe, are you listening? There are a loooooooooot of people that are seriously frustrated with this. I’m about to download and try this 4.2 but I don’t have much hope. I know someone who already has with no success. I’m running an i5 @ 4.5 ghz per core, 16 gb ram, SSD’s, ATI 7750 and 4.1 is the slowest LR I’ve ever used. PAINFULLY slow. It costs me time which costs me money. I am already downloading trial versions of other software to replace it. If they are found to be acceptable/better performing you will be losing this costumer.

  42. Patrick says:

    I am on a Mac Pro 6 core. Lightroom 4.1 is Useless, totally useless. Going back to Aperture. Adobe are NOT LISTENING. THIS IS SLOWWWWW.

  43. Alex says:

    An when you get the chance.. Please change the name of “Clarity” slider to “Texture”… Have you ever said that you wanted more “Clarity” in a photo? Its a stupid name! “Texture” is far better…

  44. LR 4.2 RC does not show up anywhere after installation (Mac Mt Lion, SSD HS, Mac Pro). I installed it multiple time. The new installer says it is already installed but no search nothing can discover it. At the same time it had overwritten my 4.1 on my MacPro laptop. Are we having a problem here?

    • Pete Green says:

      The installer should install in its own folder, not overwrite the other folder.
      Where did you install it to?
      Try a reboot, check the applications folder for installations of lightroom, if none, try the install again.

      Could also try the installer in a new administrative user account as a troubleshooting step.

  45. Chris Lang says:

    is 4.2 going to properly address the issue with the “Vanishing Book” syndrome plaguing so many LR users while working in the Book Module?

  46. Nick Beadle says:

    I rely on Lightroom for my workflow and love the develop quality in Lightroom 4. BUT, performance has been an issue all the way through and, while there have been minor improvements, this latest 4.2 RC shows that Adobe still do not take the problem seriously. This is THE best app I have ever used for digital photo post-processing and not sure where else I go if I were to ditch it. I JUST WANT IT TO WORK LIKE 3.6 did.

  47. The following solution worked for me on the Mac to speed up LR4, but YMMV of course.

    I think the journalling/Time Machine stuff in Lion is the key to this:
    http://blog.joel.co.uk/2012/09/lightroom-4-speeding-up-on-the-mac/

    Hope this helps someone.

    jx

  48. Paul Keppel says:

    I absolutely love LR and will be upgrading to LR 4 on my next pay check.

  49. Nigel says:

    When will Lightroom properly support RAW files from the Sony A700? Every single one is over exposed in Lightroom! My Sony A330 has the images displayed perfectly
    It’s a fault that has been with us since ACR 4.2 for goodness sakes!
    And not supporting tethered shooting with Sony cameras? Will that feature ever be implemented?

    • Pete Green says:

      I’m not aware of any Sony A700 issues with over-exposure.

      Nigel, Can you post a sample original raw file ( maybe through dropbox) that exhibits the problem, along with a screenshot of the image in an application that displays the image as you expect it to look.

      Provide the images and details in a new topic here: http://phtshp.us/AskAQuestion

      Also, double check that you’re not applying auto-tone or any develop presets on import (there have been some folks who have done this without realizing it).

      As for tethered support, it’s unlikely until Sony offers a tether SDK that we can work with (like Nikon and Canon do).

  50. fedepan says:

    Please. if you can insert in 4.2 also nikon d600 and canon 6d as supported camera… please!!!!

  51. Dale Fazendin says:

    I am hoping that tethered support for 5d MKIII is included or I will have to jump ship, to Aperture or Corel. In addition to the SLOW processing. $$$$$$$ is going down the drain.

  52. Steve says:

    As a new Nikon D800 user, I was forced to upgrade from LR3 to LR4 just to be able to work with the .NEF files. I can accept this as progress. BUT now having to wait for tether support for the D800 makes me think i should’ve just bought a Mac & been a happy shooter from day 1 :)

  53. Charles says:

    When I plunked down $150 for LR4 this past March, I didn’t expect to become a beta tester for Adobe. I bought it based on all the NAPP hype, only to find out that I had to have PS installed to get my plug-ins to work with the original version (fixed in 4.1). Still, the performance issues so many have noted are frustrating. I wish I could get my $$$ back.

  54. Leon Rasmussen says:

    How much longer do we have to wait for support of tethered shooting with Canon 5D Mark III. I love Lightroom for it’s features and I can even live with the much lower performance in LR4 but without tethered I will seriously have to consider alternatives like Aperture simply to be able to work with one of the market leading cameras … NOT GOOD ENOUGH ADOBE!!!

  55. Slow says:

    SLOWWWW FIX ITTTTTTTTTTT please

  56. Hi Peter, the big thing for studio photographer like me, using D800 is WHEN Adobe will have tethering capture with this nikon D800 camera, It’s so important, and many of use use Mac not win. I’m waiting for this feature to upgrade from LR3 to 4

  57. Hi adobe,

    What is the current ETA for a RC release that supports the D600? I am a big user of Adobe Products and feel terrible handicapped by the current workflow that makes me open the RAW in Nikon software and do my processing there.

  58. Ben says:

    Supa-Dupa Slow. New computer etc. As a consumer, I shouldn’t have too spend hours researching the web on how to tweak my computer to run software. Lightroom 2 was actually faster for me.

  59. John W Jones says:

    Have had intermittent problem with being unable to move spot removal brush onto image – it sticks at the side the image.
    Anyone else have same problem in LR 4.1.

  60. lorin duckman says:

    How about fixing tether for Canon Mark II?

  61. Jim Whitcomb says:

    Just updated to LR 4.2 and no longer can tether my Canon 5D. It was working just fine until I updated. Need Help……. Any comments to help?

  62. Jim Whitcomb says:

    Can I download and install 4.1? I have 4.2 running……. need to go back for now……. what is the best way?

  63. Jim Whitcomb says:

    Thanks Pete
    I downloaded LR4.1 and installed it. I opened LR up and it was still running 4.2 would not tether to camera. I then opened up LR3+ Opened up packets, took out the Canon plugin, and replaced 4.2 plugin with 3+ it saw the camera but would not trigger the camera… still no good …. then put every thing back the way LR4.2 was…… I am still Lost. Any comments……..

  64. Nick says:

    When are you going to add the Canon G1 X to the list of supported cameras?

  65. John says:

    The performance issue is an absolute workflow killer and I am at the point where I want to throw my 2009 MacPro tower out the window. I spend more time waiting for module switches and image adjustments to take effect than actually editing images. There were similar issues with the upgrade from LR2 -> LR3 but not to this degree.

    Please, please stop adding new features, functionalities, and window dressing – get back to the basics and focus on making a functional product for your user base.

  66. I have recently been processing some time lapse videos when the 4.2 version was released and I updated my Lightroom. With 4.1 it was taking approx. 20 – 25 min to export a 1 minute video, with 4.2 it started taking about 5-6 hours when it doesn’t stall and crash part way through. It seems to start quite quickly then about one third of the way through it slows to a standstill. I haven’t installed or made any changes to my computer. The other two problem I’ve been having are lagging when using the spot removal tool, up to 30 seconds between spot removals and my Smug Mug plugin keeps disappearing for no known reason. The video is my biggest problem at the moment. Should I switch back to 4.1? Here are my specs from my computer(taken while processing a video:

    Lightroom version: 4.2 [850741]
    Operating system: Windows 7 Home Premium Edition
    Version: 6.1 [7601]
    Application architecture: x64
    System architecture: x64
    Physical processor count: 8
    Processor speed: 2.8 GHz
    Built-in memory: 12278.9 MB
    Real memory available to Lightroom: 12278.9 MB
    Real memory used by Lightroom: 666.6 MB (5.4%)
    Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 731.9 MB
    Memory cache size: 0.0 MB
    System DPI setting: 120 DPI
    Desktop composition enabled: Yes
    Displays: 1) 1176×664

    Application folder: C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.2
    Library Path: C:\Users\Darryl MacDonald\Pictures\Lightroom\Lightroom 4 Catalog (DarrylMacDonald’s conflicted copy 2012-07-19).lrcat
    Settings Folder: C:\Users\Darryl MacDonald\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\Lightroom

    Adapter #1: Vendor : 10de
    Device : 6c0
    Subsystem : 75f10de
    Revision : a3
    Video Memory : 1488
    AudioDeviceIOBlockSize: 1024
    AudioDeviceName: Realtek Digital Output (Realtek High Definition Audio)
    AudioDeviceNumberOfChannels: 2
    AudioDeviceSampleRate: 44100
    Build: 6.0×552
    Direct2DEnabled: false
    GL_ALPHA_BITS: 0
    GL_BLUE_BITS: 8
    GL_GREEN_BITS: 8
    GL_MAX_3D_TEXTURE_SIZE: 2048
    GL_MAX_TEXTURE_SIZE: 16384
    GL_MAX_TEXTURE_UNITS: 4
    GL_MAX_VIEWPORT_DIMS: 16384,16384
    GL_RED_BITS: 8
    GL_RENDERER: GeForce GTX 480/PCIe/SSE2
    GL_SHADING_LANGUAGE_VERSION: 4.20 NVIDIA via Cg compiler
    GL_VENDOR: NVIDIA Corporation
    GL_VERSION: 4.2.0
    OGLEnabled: true
    OGLPresent: true
    GL_EXTENSIONS: GL_AMD_multi_draw_indirect GL_ARB_base_instance GL_ARB_blend_func_extended GL_ARB_color_buffer_float GL_ARB_compatibility GL_ARB_compressed_texture_pixel_storage GL_ARB_conservative_depth GL_ARB_copy_buffer GL_ARB_depth_buffer_float GL_ARB_depth_clamp GL_ARB_depth_texture GL_ARB_draw_buffers GL_ARB_draw_buffers_blend GL_ARB_draw_indirect GL_ARB_draw_elements_base_vertex GL_ARB_draw_instanced GL_ARB_ES2_compatibility GL_ARB_explicit_attrib_location GL_ARB_fragment_coord_conventions GL_ARB_fragment_program GL_ARB_fragment_program_shadow GL_ARB_fragment_shader GL_ARB_framebuffer_object GL_ARB_framebuffer_sRGB GL_ARB_geometry_shader4 GL_ARB_get_program_binary GL_ARB_gpu_shader5 GL_ARB_gpu_shader_fp64 GL_ARB_half_float_pixel GL_ARB_half_float_vertex GL_ARB_imaging GL_ARB_instanced_arrays GL_ARB_internalformat_query GL_ARB_map_buffer_alignment GL_ARB_map_buffer_range GL_ARB_multisample GL_ARB_multitexture GL_ARB_occlusion_query GL_ARB_occlusion_query2 GL_ARB_pixel_buffer_object GL_ARB_point_parameters GL_ARB_point_sprite GL_ARB_provoking_vertex GL_ARB_robustness GL_ARB_sample_shading GL_ARB_sampler_objects GL_ARB_seamless_cube_map GL_ARB_separate_shader_objects GL_ARB_shader_atomic_counters GL_ARB_shader_bit_encoding GL_ARB_shader_image_load_store GL_ARB_shader_objects GL_ARB_shader_precision GL_ARB_shader_subroutine GL_ARB_shader_texture_lod GL_ARB_shading_language_100 GL_ARB_shading_language_420pack GL_ARB_shading_language_include GL_ARB_shading_language_packing GL_ARB_shadow GL_ARB_sync GL_ARB_tessellation_shader GL_ARB_texture_border_clamp GL_ARB_texture_buffer_object GL_ARB_texture_buffer_object_rgb32 GL_ARB_texture_compression GL_ARB_texture_compression_bptc GL_ARB_texture_compression_rgtc GL_ARB_texture_cube_map GL_ARB_texture_cube_map_array GL_ARB_texture_env_add GL_ARB_texture_env_combine GL_ARB_texture_env_crossbar GL_ARB_texture_env_dot3 GL_ARB_texture_float GL_ARB_texture_gather GL_ARB_texture_mirrored_repeat GL_ARB_texture_multisample GL_ARB_texture_non_power_of_two GL_ARB_texture_query_lod GL_ARB_texture_rectangle GL_ARB_texture_rg GL_ARB_texture_rgb10_a2ui GL_ARB_texture_storage GL_ARB_texture_swizzle GL_ARB_timer_query GL_ARB_transform_feedback2 GL_ARB_transform_feedback3 GL_ARB_transform_feedback_instanced GL_ARB_transpose_matrix GL_ARB_uniform_buffer_object GL_ARB_vertex_array_bgra GL_ARB_vertex_array_object GL_ARB_vertex_attrib_64bit GL_ARB_vertex_buffer_object GL_ARB_vertex_program GL_ARB_vertex_shader GL_ARB_vertex_type_2_10_10_10_rev GL_ARB_viewport_array GL_ARB_window_pos GL_ATI_draw_buffers GL_ATI_texture_float GL_ATI_texture_mirror_once GL_S3_s3tc GL_EXT_texture_env_add GL_EXT_abgr GL_EXT_bgra GL_EXT_bindable_uniform GL_EXT_blend_color GL_EXT_blend_equation_separate GL_EXT_blend_func_separate GL_EXT_blend_minmax GL_EXT_blend_subtract GL_EXT_compiled_vertex_array GL_EXT_Cg_shader GL_EXT_depth_bounds_test GL_EXT_direct_state_access GL_EXT_draw_buffers2 GL_EXT_draw_instanced GL_EXT_draw_range_elements GL_EXT_fog_coord GL_EXT_framebuffer_blit GL_EXT_framebuffer_multisample GL_EXTX_framebuffer_mixed_formats GL_EXT_framebuffer_object GL_EXT_framebuffer_sRGB GL_EXT_geometry_shader4 GL_EXT_gpu_program_parameters GL_EXT_gpu_shader4 GL_EXT_multi_draw_arrays GL_EXT_packed_depth_stencil GL_EXT_packed_float GL_EXT_packed_pixels GL_EXT_pixel_buffer_object GL_EXT_point_parameters GL_EXT_provoking_vertex GL_EXT_rescale_normal GL_EXT_secondary_color GL_EXT_separate_shader_objects GL_EXT_separate_specular_color GL_EXT_shader_image_load_store GL_EXT_shadow_funcs GL_EXT_stencil_two_side GL_EXT_stencil_wrap GL_EXT_texture3D GL_EXT_texture_array GL_EXT_texture_buffer_object GL_EXT_texture_compression_dxt1 GL_EXT_texture_compression_latc GL_EXT_texture_compression_rgtc GL_EXT_texture_compression_s3tc GL_EXT_texture_cube_map GL_EXT_texture_edge_clamp GL_EXT_texture_env_combine GL_EXT_texture_env_dot3 GL_EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic GL_EXT_texture_format_BGRA8888 GL_EXT_texture_integer GL_EXT_texture_lod GL_EXT_texture_lod_bias GL_EXT_texture_mirror_clamp GL_EXT_texture_object GL_EXT_texture_shared_exponent GL_EXT_texture_sRGB GL_EXT_texture_sRGB_decode GL_EXT_texture_storage GL_EXT_texture_swizzle GL_EXT_texture_type_2_10_10_10_REV GL_EXT_timer_query GL_EXT_transform_feedback2 GL_EXT_vertex_array GL_EXT_vertex_array_bgra GL_EXT_vertex_attrib_64bit GL_EXT_import_sync_object GL_IBM_rasterpos_clip GL_IBM_texture_mirrored_repeat GL_KTX_buffer_region GL_NV_alpha_test GL_NV_blend_minmax GL_NV_blend_square GL_NV_complex_primitives GL_NV_conditional_render GL_NV_copy_depth_to_color GL_NV_copy_image GL_NV_depth_buffer_float GL_NV_depth_clamp GL_NV_ES1_1_compatibility GL_NV_explicit_multisample GL_NV_fbo_color_attachments GL_NV_fence GL_NV_float_buffer GL_NV_fog_distance GL_NV_fragdepth GL_NV_fragment_program GL_NV_fragment_program_option GL_NV_fragment_program2 GL_NV_framebuffer_multisample_coverage GL_NV_geometry_shader4 GL_NV_gpu_program4 GL_NV_gpu_program4_1 GL_NV_gpu_program5 GL_NV_gpu_program_fp64 GL_NV_gpu_shader5 GL_NV_half_float GL_NV_light_max_exponent GL_NV_multisample_coverage GL_NV_multisample_filter_hint GL_NV_occlusion_query GL_NV_packed_depth_stencil GL_NV_parameter_buffer_object GL_NV_parameter_buffer_object2 GL_NV_path_rendering GL_NV_pixel_data_range GL_NV_point_sprite GL_NV_primitive_restart GL_NV_register_combiners GL_NV_register_combiners2 GL_NV_shader_atomic_counters GL_NV_shader_atomic_float GL_NV_shader_buffer_load GL_NV_texgen_reflection GL_NV_texture_barrier GL_NV_texture_compression_vtc GL_NV_texture_env_combine4 GL_NV_texture_expand_normal GL_NV_texture_lod_clamp GL_NV_texture_multisample GL_NV_texture_rectangle GL_NV_texture_shader GL_NV_texture_shader2 GL_NV_texture_shader3 GL_NV_transform_feedback GL_NV_transform_feedback2 GL_NV_vertex_array_range GL_NV_vertex_array_range2 GL_NV_vertex_attrib_integer_64bit GL_NV_vertex_buffer_unified_memory GL_NV_vertex_program GL_NV_vertex_program1_1 GL_NV_vertex_program2 GL_NV_vertex_program2_option GL_NV_vertex_program3 GL_NVX_conditional_render GL_NVX_gpu_memory_info GL_OES_compressed_paletted_texture GL_OES_depth24 GL_OES_depth32 GL_OES_depth_texture GL_OES_element_index_uint GL_OES_fbo_render_mipmap GL_OES_get_program_binary GL_OES_mapbuffer GL_OES_packed_depth_stencil GL_OES_point_size_array GL_OES_point_sprite GL_OES_rgb8_rgba8 GL_OES_read_format GL_OES_standard_derivatives GL_OES_texture_3D GL_OES_texture_float GL_OES_texture_float_linear GL_OES_texture_half_float GL_OES_texture_half_float_linear GL_OES_texture_npot GL_OES_vertex_array_object GL_OES_vertex_half_float GL_SGIS_generate_mipmap GL_SGIS_texture_lod GL_SGIX_depth_texture GL_SGIX_shadow GL_SUN_slice_accum GL_WIN_swap_hint WGL_EXT_swap_control

  67. Rhoda says:

    I am a pro shooter who has loved LR but like many others was required to upgrade to LR4 when I got my D800. Now I want to cry as it is a slow as molasses and is costing me time, money, sleep and sanity. I don’t have the option of going back to LR3 without having to apparently convert all my files to DNG first. I am considering the switch to Aperture (but that is a frustrating prospect time-wise at the moment as well). If this problem resolves soon please email me! I don’t live on these forums.

  68. Rhoda says:

    In regards to my previous comment, it was just a plea to be informed without having check back, but I suppose that will only happen with a new update. This is assuming I am still using the program once any such update arrives. Not meant to imply others “live” here. ;)

    • Pete Green says:

      Hi Rhoda,
      Do you get back to LR3 speeds if you switch to process version 2010 inside LR4?
      This can be found in the Camera Calibration section in the develop module.

  69. Jared says:

    Lightroom 4 is so painfully slow compared to Lightroom 3.

    If Adobe can not fix the problem, then please allow us to convert our LR4 catalogs so we can resume working in LR3. That might be an easier fix than whatever is taking so long with LR4.

    I’ve tried everything I can think of. New hard drives, fresh install of EVERYTHING, several times, and LR4 is still very very slow, or it simply crashes every time I go to the develop module. At least I got past it crashing on import. but now I can’t do anything at all.

    Reformatting my machine tomorrow, for the FIFTH TIME! Probably going to have the same problem.

    • Pete Green says:

      A fresh install of MacOS? or windows? Let us know how it goes from there.
      Do you notice LR4 speeding up to LR3 speeds if you use PV2010 instead of PV2012?
      You might also consider removing USB hubs if you have many connected. I’ve seen some windows installs of USB hubs causing LR to crash during import and other times.

  70. Lightroom 4.1 is a Snail! When will you guys have a fix?

  71. sally reid says:

    Have just gone back to LR4 now that you have support for D600 and like everyone here, the appauling speed is enough to drive you mad. Can you give support to D600 in LR3 please.

  72. Sean says:

    Anyone out there know why I cannot bring photos in from my library to develop. Pressing “d” does nothing.

    Camera is an x100.

    Thanks,

    Sean

    • Pete Green says:

      What happens if you click on the Develop Module on the top?
      Have you tried restarting the computer?

      Has this always happened? are you on Mac or Windwos?
      Which version of Lightroom?

  73. Monika says:

    Updated to LR 4 and my disappointment couldn’t be greater!!!! First of all same story here : SLOW!!!!!!!!!! Since I got tired of seeing the exclamation sign in the Develop module, decided to see what difference would it make if I indeed update it to “current version 2012″. HORROR! Not only that I can’t even jump from one image to another in a timely matter, but it made the images duller! I will NOT use the version 2012 update ever again!!!!! It is a ridiculous waste of time and money! Expected better product with LR4 but I feel like I got ripped off!

  74. Jayde says:

    I’ve only noticed LR 4.3 running painfully slow just recently, I’ve done heaps of searching but nothing people were recommending was fixing it, so I thought, what have I changed in the last month, then I remembered that I installed a new anti-virus, (bitdefender), where previously I was using AVG, so I uninstalled it, LR is now running perfect.
    Not sure if this will work for everyone, but it might be worth a try.

  75. I have Lightroom 4 and I just got the canon mark 111
    I cant open up any images, is there an up grade.
    If so can you send me a link.

    Thank You
    Nora