The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

twist said:
I think Adobe needs to do a lot more optimising themselves, its kind of like they have a massive market share and now it all just feels bloated and patched every other day, I come from quark / Adobe days and still use/pay for every app they offer.
Click to expand...

100, I couldn't agree more. It shocking really. I tried Capture One and it was ok, faster than Lightroom but just didn't feel like home and I think Adobe knows this and they have us by the stones.
 
Tkenny said:
You are correct, it will only drop once being used. Lightroom doesn't have that inbuilt efficiency tool that photoshop has. What you can do is click the System Info option and it will show how much ram is in use. This is my iMac when accessing that from Library preview:

Application architecture: x64
Logical processor count: 4
Processor speed: 3.8 GHz
Built-in memory: 53,248.0 MB
Real memory available to Lightroom: 53,248.0 MB
Real memory used by Lightroom: 2,982.2 MB (5.6%). This goes to 6300MB - 11% just opening a file in Develop, no edits.
Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 11,768.2 MB
Memory cache size: 110.3MB
Internal Camera Raw version: 12.4 [ 555 ]
Maximum thread count used by Camera Raw: 3
Camera Raw SIMD optimization: SSE2,AVX,AVX2
Camera Raw virtual memory: 974MB / 26623MB (3%)
Camera Raw real memory: 987MB / 53248MB (1%)
Displays: 1) 6400x3600


You could try increasing the Camera Raw Cache as what "could" be happening is your previews are larger than this. Check this out by clicking Go To Catalog settings and then File Handling option and see what your Preview Cache Total Size is. As an example; my Camera Raw Cache is 100GB which is used for the develop module and the File Handling preview is using 31GB. If you have hit your 20GB limit, any raw file that hasn't had a preview created in that 20GB will need to be drawn, this could be the slowness. Also check the options for Standard preview size, this should be larger than the horizontal resoutlion size of your monitor. I have a 5K display so I chose 6400px, but 2048 is suitable for 1080p displays. Preview quality is also set to High. Im running from SSD so these settings are ok. If you are on a mechanical HD, lowering them will help.

Before Purge the Cache check the above as you need to manually delete the preview & smart preview files to complete this as the button only does the catalog. Doing this will require Lightroom to rebuild it and it could take ages depending on the size of your catalog and the previews. I wouldn't purge unless I had a reason, as anything you do from zooming in to viewing files in Loupe will need to be redrawn and take time. Typically only purge if you are running out of disk space or getting errors.

The beachball is typical apples "you are out of Ram message and its paging to the HDD"
Click to expand...
Thanks for taking the time to do this.

TBH I don't fully understand the Camera Raw Cache, what it does and why you can choose different sizes. My brain just tells me it should be the biggest it can be ;) How do you know what the develop module and the file handling preview is using?

These are my screenshots, it looks like standard previews are only 1440 but my screen is 2880 on the long edge so I need to up that?

Screenshot 2020-09-06 at 20.11.12.pngScreenshot 2020-09-06 at 20.13.04.png
 
This is my PS performance settings at the mo

Screenshot 2020-09-06 at 20.27.55.png
 
snerkler said:
Thanks for taking the time to do this.

TBH I don't fully understand the Camera Raw Cache, what it does and why you can choose different sizes. My brain just tells me it should be the biggest it can be ;) How do you know what the develop module and the file handling preview is using?

These are my screenshots, it looks like standard previews are only 1440 but my screen is 2880 on the long edge so I need to up that?

View attachment 291865View attachment 291866
Click to expand...

Looks like Lightroom is using a lot of virtual (scratch?) memory - >18GB.
 
I've just been reading something else about speeding up LR, it says that your catalogue should have no more than 10,000 images and even suggests having a new catalogue for every event. I've just the one catalogue and then have different folders for each year. In my current catalogue I have over 88k images in it from the past 4 years. Will this dramatically slow it down?

Screenshot 2020-09-06 at 20.37.28.png
 
Tkenny said:
While I agree Photoshop usage cases vary, and as I said, many spend large amounts on a scratch disk that is never even used which is why I said plenty of people, not all people.

You are incorrect in regards to the scratch disk, it is only used when Adobe Photoshop doesn't have enough ram for the task at hand. the Official Adobe link I posted to Snerkler and again below confirms this.. I see from your later reply that you are stitching 200 photos together so I would suggest probably a task beyond the average user daily use case for most. Should a system be capable of running 1.5TB Ram as per the latest Mac Pro it would compete your specific task without the need for a 640GB temp file on a scratch disk or even if you had say 256GB ram it would still be faster than if you had 64GB as both cases would need to use the slower scratch disk, the lower ram system paging to it first.

The system Ram is also far faster than any consumer NVMe SSD, even if those SSD run in Raid 0. Any user that has 8-16GB ram and experiencing slowness in Photoshop should check the efficiency monitor as should this drop below 100% they are out of Ram and using the slow scratch disk which may be the source of the slowness, should it say 100, then it’s a different source of slowness than Ram, perhaps a slow mechanical HDD, CPU or a combination of all. If the efficiency indicator is above 95% a scratch disk will be of little performance benefit.

The second link provides tips for optimising photoshop performance and explains what each setting does, particularly useful information around cache levels, layers and history states.

https://helpx.adobe.com/uk/photoshop/using/scratch-disks-preferences.html

Optimize performance Photoshop

Tweak your operating system, hardware, and application settings to help your computer run Photoshop stably at the optimum speed. If Photoshop is running slower than expected on your computer, or if you're experiencing system freezes, lags, or delays while using Photoshop, try the tips and...
helpx.adobe.com helpx.adobe.com

Im not trying to pick an argument With anyone. I just seen that somebody recommended Snerkler, albeit with good intentions to help; an expensive External SSD that I believe wouldn’t solve his issue and without getting him to check that he did indeed need a scratch disk via the efficiency monitor and lead to him potentially wasting money.
Click to expand...

I never mentioned photoshop. Lightroom uses the scratch disk for all temporary files as does some of the other programs I use.

Photoshop can be set up to use the scratch disk as well far faster than using ram in actual practice regardless of what you have googled.

Also I have tried merging 150-200 files on an iMac it couldn’t do it and just crashed. Macs suck.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I've just been reading something else about speeding up LR, it says that your catalogue should have no more than 10,000 images and even suggests having a new catalogue for every event. I've just the one catalogue and then have different folders for each year. In my current catalogue I have over 88k images in it from the past 4 years. Will this dramatically slow it down?

View attachment 291869
Click to expand...

I have always created a new catalogue for every event.
 
f/2.8 said:
I never mentioned photoshop. Lightroom uses the scratch disk for all temporary files as does some of the other programs I use.

Photoshop can be set up to use the scratch disk as well far faster than using ram in actual practice regardless of what you have googled.

Also I have tried merging 150-200 files on an iMac it couldn’t do it and just crashed. Macs suck.
Click to expand...
Is this an automatic process if you select a scratch disk for LR to use?
 
snerkler said:
Thanks for taking the time to do this.

TBH I don't fully understand the Camera Raw Cache, what it does and why you can choose different sizes. My brain just tells me it should be the biggest it can be ;) How do you know what the develop module and the file handling preview is using?

These are my screenshots, it looks like standard previews are only 1440 but my screen is 2880 on the long edge so I need to up that?

View attachment 291865View attachment 291866
Click to expand...

No worries at all.

The Camera Raw Cache is indeed a tricky thing to get your head around! Its where the information is stored about what changes you have made to your raw files in the Develop module such as increasing the various sliders for Exposure, Contrast and so for. The camera raw cache stores the values that are used, the more photos you have and the more values you change the bigger the cache becomes. As you suggest a simple solution would seem to be to bang it up as high as possible, however this then becomes a large file/dataset which can become difficult for a system to manage. Ideally this would be stored on an SSD to assist but the CPU is equally important here. If you go to Catalog settings and choose the general tab, it will show the size of your catalog. Looking at your later posts, you have 80k+ images which is massive. How you store the Catalogs is up to you, some people store by Client/Job, some by year, it really is a personal preference as you can only load 1 catalog at a time.

Lightroom uses previews to display photo thumbnails in the Grid view, the Loupe view, and in the Develop, Slideshow, Print, and Web modules. If you change your 1440px preview setting to higher then it will take longer to load as the file size increases. I would leave at 1400px and medium for now. You are also discarding 1:1 previews after a week which means that any image you recall that is older than 1 week will need to have a 1:1 preview redrawn for it, this is essentially looking at the values in your Camera Raw Cache and then redrawing them so its slower depending on the number of adjustments it needs to make. 1:1 is used exclusively in the develop module or when you zoom in to 1:1 views. This is potentially where some of your slowness may occur.

Looking at your system information grab, nothing out of the ordinary, what I would try is take a screen when you first open Lightroom, then work as normal and take random grabs and when you notice the beach ball take another one. IF that Real Memory used by Lightroom is high then that will be the issue. Remember out of the 16GB it still has to run Mac OS and any apps you have running so there may only be 10-12GB Ram free. You can also used the Mac OS Activity Monitor tool to keep a track on the CPU, GPU, RAM and Disk Usage.

Does your laptop have an internal SSD or is it one of Apples Fusion drives (hybrid ssd+mechanical)
 
snerkler said:
Is this an automatic process if you select a scratch disk for LR to use?
Click to expand...

The is where the catalog is stored, you need to manually change this. You do this by selecting preferences, performance and then choose option. You would then select your SSD drive. If you add an external SSD, have it formatted to Journaled as you can then also select it as a scratch disk in Photoshop.
 
Tkenny said:
No worries at all.

The Camera Raw Cache is indeed a tricky thing to get your head around! Its where the information is stored about what changes you have made to your raw files in the Develop module such as increasing the various sliders for Exposure, Contrast and so for. The camera raw cache stores the values that are used, the more photos you have and the more values you change the bigger the cache becomes. As you suggest a simple solution would seem to be to bang it up as high as possible, however this then becomes a large file/dataset which can become difficult for a system to manage. Ideally this would be stored on an SSD to assist but the CPU is equally important here. If you go to Catalog settings and choose the general tab, it will show the size of your catalog. Looking at your later posts, you have 80k+ images which is massive. How you store the Catalogs is up to you, some people store by Client/Job, some by year, it really is a personal preference as you can only load 1 catalog at a time.

Lightroom uses previews to display photo thumbnails in the Grid view, the Loupe view, and in the Develop, Slideshow, Print, and Web modules. If you change your 1440px preview setting to higher then it will take longer to load as the file size increases. I would leave at 1400px and medium for now. You are also discarding 1:1 previews after a week which means that any image you recall that is older than 1 week will need to have a 1:1 preview redrawn for it, this is essentially looking at the values in your Camera Raw Cache and then redrawing them so its slower depending on the number of adjustments it needs to make. 1:1 is used exclusively in the develop module or when you zoom in to 1:1 views. This is potentially where some of your slowness may occur.

Looking at your system information grab, nothing out of the ordinary, what I would try is take a screen when you first open Lightroom, then work as normal and take random grabs and when you notice the beach ball take another one. IF that Real Memory used by Lightroom is high then that will be the issue. Remember out of the 16GB it still has to run Mac OS and any apps you have running so there may only be 10-12GB Ram free. You can also used the Mac OS Activity Monitor tool to keep a track on the CPU, GPU, RAM and Disk Usage.

Does your laptop have an internal SSD or is it one of Apples Fusion drives (hybrid ssd+mechanical)
Click to expand...
Tkenny said:
The is where the catalog is stored, you need to manually change this. You do this by selecting preferences, performance and then choose option. You would then select your SSD drive. If you add an external SSD, have it formatted to Journaled as you can then also select it as a scratch disk in Photoshop.
Click to expand...
Thanks again, most helpful. Last couple of questions for now. I assume the camera raw cache is temporary data and only accessed when you are using LR therefore is not going to take up any permanent space on my hard drive? Does it load the data for every photo in the catalogue each time or just those that you are editing that day? If it’s the former then maybe I’m filling the cache every time I work in LR?
 
f/2.8 said:
I never mentioned photoshop. Lightroom uses the scratch disk for all temporary files as does some of the other programs I use.

Photoshop can be set up to use the scratch disk as well far faster than using ram in actual practice regardless of what you have googled.

Also I have tried merging 150-200 files on an iMac it couldn’t do it and just crashed. Macs suck.
Click to expand...

My Apologies then, I believed you said Photoshop as per your comment below and referring to it as a scratch disk only. If you believe an SSD is faster than internal RAM, well that's up to you, Adobe certainly don't; as an example, DDR4 Ram found in a typical computer is around 19000MB/s which is approaching 10x the speed of the average NVMe SSD.

snerkler said:
That’s what I’m going to do next time, I’ll probably shoot with medium or small size in camera.

Should be reasonable, MBP with i7 processor (2.9ghz from memory), 16gb RAM, decent GPU and SSD.

Maybe it’s because I tried sending the raw files from LR rather than opening directly in PS. I assume you were using raw?

TBH I’ve often wondered if there’s something that I’ve done in the ‘setup’ somewhere as I’ve found for quite some time that LR isn’t as fast as I’d like/think it should be. I thought when I upgraded to this MBP it would improve things but it didn’t. It can be fast for a while then it slows and I get the spinning wheel a lot. Sometimes if I just flick through 4-5 images it can do it, and that’s using any files even m4/3.

I might try creating a brand new LR catalogue again, but this time not having it syncing in Dropbox.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yeah macs suck.

Yes I always build Brenizers from full size raws.

The main thing with Lightroom / photoshop for good performance is having a good sized fast scratch disk. Not sure if you can set up an external drive as a scratch disk pretty sure you can’t, making mobile devices useless for any intensive post work really.

I have a 1tb ssd that is only used as a scratch disk. You don’t need to use photoshop for building Brenizer style images you can also just merge them as a pano direct from Lightroom.

Like Quote Quote
Report
 
snerkler said:
Thanks again, most helpful. Last couple of questions for now. I assume the camera raw cache is temporary data and only accessed when you are using LR therefore is not going to take up any permanent space on my hard drive? Does it load the data for every photo in the catalogue each time or just those that you are editing that day? If it’s the former then maybe I’m filling the cache every time I work in LR?
Click to expand...

The camera raw cache is taken from your HDD, so that 20GB is reserved. It holds data values for every photo, even those that are unedited, they will just have the standard camera data values in that scenario. It doesn't load all the data every time it stores it in the catalog file so when you click on an image, your CPU sends a request to the Hard Drive to find that file and the CPU/GPU then applies those values. In your specific case it gives a 1400px medium preview in the Library/Loupe view. Once you click develop and its sitting at 1:1 view then it either has to draw a new 1:1 preview or retrieve one previous created, as you are editing the image its updating the 1:1 preview. Your setup allows for those 1:1 previews to be stored for 7 days before they are discarded. If you return after 7 days then it has to repeat the above process so will take longer to load the 1:1 image. If you increase the retention of 1:1 to 30 days it could help but it takes more storage space.

Without being hands on with your setup, I believe that you have these issues:

1. Large Catalog size - Possibly slow HDD as well
2. 16GB Ram bottleneck
3. 1:1 previews of 61MP photos are a lot to handle.
 
Tkenny said:
My Apologies then, I believed you said Photoshop as per your comment below and referring to it as a scratch disk only. If you believe an SSD is faster than internal RAM, well that's up to you, Adobe certainly don't; as an example, DDR4 Ram found in a typical computer is around 19000MB/s which is approaching 10x the speed of the average NVMe SSD.


Yeah macs suck.

Yes I always build Brenizers from full size raws.

The main thing with Lightroom / photoshop for good performance is having a good sized fast scratch disk. Not sure if you can set up an external drive as a scratch disk pretty sure you can’t, making mobile devices useless for any intensive post work really.

I have a 1tb ssd that is only used as a scratch disk. You don’t need to use photoshop for building Brenizer style images you can also just merge them as a pano direct from Lightroom.

Like Quote Quote
Report
Click to expand...

You seem to want to have some sort of argument over p***y computer specs, it is very boring and I can't be arsed.

When I try to merge more than anything over 50 images on my wifes iMac it crashes pretty much every time so I don't use it, cos it is crap for that purpose. It is fairly reasonable spec being a recent model with a 3.8ghz i7 and 64gb of ram. The previous i5 iMac she had was reasonable spec as well but also crashed or took an age every time I tried to merge multiple files as well.

My p,.c handles it fine, and reasonably quickly since I added the scratch disk, some time ago. In lightroom temporary files are written to the hard drive not the ram this is were having a decent sized high speed scratch disk really helps.

I have no idea if it works the same on a mac but on windows if you set the scratch disk to be used for all temporary files there is a very noticeable difference in performance when using photoshop for anything intensive as well. It also makes a huge difference when rendering video as well. That is my experience, your mileage may vary.

You can link up as much stuff as you can find on google as you like, I have no interest. Using a scratch disk has made a huge performance difference for me. Merging files is something I do a lot, probably every wedding and portrait session.

You also mentioned somewhere about the cost, a 1tb S.S.D costs about the same as a half decent lunch and a few drinks for two.
 
Tkenny said:
The camera raw cache is taken from your HDD, so that 20GB is reserved. It holds data values for every photo, even those that are unedited, they will just have the standard camera data values in that scenario. It doesn't load all the data every time it stores it in the catalog file so when you click on an image, your CPU sends a request to the Hard Drive to find that file and the CPU/GPU then applies those values. In your specific case it gives a 1400px medium preview in the Library/Loupe view. Once you click develop and its sitting at 1:1 view then it either has to draw a new 1:1 preview or retrieve one previous created, as you are editing the image its updating the 1:1 preview. Your setup allows for those 1:1 previews to be stored for 7 days before they are discarded. If you return after 7 days then it has to repeat the above process so will take longer to load the 1:1 image. If you increase the retention of 1:1 to 30 days it could help but it takes more storage space.

Without being hands on with your setup, I believe that you have these issues:

1. Large Catalog size - Possibly slow HDD as well
2. 16GB Ram bottleneck
3. 1:1 previews of 61MP photos are a lot to handle.
Click to expand...
Thanks. My hard drive is an SSD so that’s not the problem, 16gb RAM and large catalogue may be though.

Sorry I’m still getting confused about the raw cache, if I close lightroom down will that cache be empty, ie it won’t be using any storage on my SSD? Therefore if I then create a new catalogue that doesn’t have any photos the raw cache will still be 0, and will only start to fill every time I add photos? Or does LR create a new raw cache folder for every catalogue and therefore over time theses raw caches will eat away at valuable storage space?

P.S. I’ve not my computer with me at the moment to check the physical file size of the raw cache stored on my SSD
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
You seem to want to have some sort of argument over p***y computer specs, it is very boring and I can't be arsed.

When I try to merge more than anything over 50 images on my wifes iMac it crashes pretty much every time so I don't use it, cos it is crap for that purpose. It is fairly reasonable spec being a recent model with a 3.8ghz i7 and 64gb of ram. The previous i5 iMac she had was reasonable spec as well but also crashed or took an age every time I tried to merge multiple files as well.

My p,.c handles it fine, and reasonably quickly since I added the scratch disk, some time ago. In lightroom temporary files are written to the hard drive not the ram this is were having a decent sized high speed scratch disk really helps.

I have no idea if it works the same on a mac but on windows if you set the scratch disk to be used for all temporary files there is a very noticeable difference in performance when using photoshop for anything intensive as well. It also makes a huge difference when rendering video as well. That is my experience, your mileage may vary.

You can link up as much stuff as you can find on google as you like, I have no interest. Using a scratch disk has made a huge performance difference for me. Merging files is something I do a lot, probably every wedding and portrait session.

You also mentioned somewhere about the cost, a 1tb S.S.D costs about the same as a half decent lunch and a few drinks for two.
Click to expand...

Im not having any argument or getting p***y with anyone! I'm merely stating some facts and trying to assist another user. In regards to your wife's iMacs and your experience with them, yes it possibly crashes, perhaps it ran out of resource, software error, needed updated, user error, unsuitable for that task and potentially a multitude of other issues; I don't know and its not really relevant. I personally think PC are better value for money and more customisable but that doesn't make a Mac crap or a correctly specced one not suitable either.

I don't know what spec your PC is but the scratch disk in Photoshop is different than the Camera Raw Cache in Lightroom. Lightroom will run faster if its installed with the Catalog & Camera Raw Cache on an SSD, nobody is disputing it. Any application will run faster on SSD v Mechanical HDD.

You keep mentioning linking stuff on google and you have no interest in reading and that's totally cool; I'm linking them for snerkler, to the official Adobe support articles, what's wrong with that? Adobe are the experts on their product, not you or I.

I didn't ever say people shouldn't use a Scratch Disk, clearly its suitable for some users or workflows such as yourself and as you said, your workflow generated a 640GB temp file which unless you have more Ram than that, Photoshop will use the specified scratch disk/disks, so clearly of benefit in that scenario. If you are editing a single image, or even have a few images open in Photoshop on your wife's 64GB iMac, I would bet Photoshop efficiency is 100; so adding an external SSD for a scratch disk would offer zero benefit.

As for the cost of an SSD costing a half decent lunch and a few drinks for two, a high speed Thunderbolt 3 NVMe 1TB SSD Costs £270 unless you are referring to the almost decade old Sata based technology you can pick up for £80...
 
snerkler said:
Thanks. My hard drive is an SSD so that’s not the problem, 16gb RAM and large catalogue may be though.

Sorry I’m still getting confused about the raw cache, if I close lightroom down will that cache be empty, ie it won’t be using any storage on my SSD? Therefore if I then create a new catalogue that doesn’t have any photos the raw cache will still be 0, and will only start to fill every time I add photos? Or does LR create a new raw cache folder for every catalogue and therefore over time theses raw caches will eat away at valuable storage space?

P.S. I’ve not my computer with me at the moment to check the physical file size of the raw cache stored on my SSD
Click to expand...

I appreciate its confusing, that what Adobe do lol. A new Cache for Every Catalog is created. The Catalog is stored separately from the Camera Raw Cache/Previews, currently my Catalog is 138MB for 7700 images and the Camera Raw/Preview Cache I have is 31GB with retentions for 30 days. If I make a new catalog then all my photos, collections will be temporarily gone from Lightroom view but they are still stored safely on my SSD so when I load the old catalog they will return.
 
Tkenny said:
I appreciate its confusing, that what Adobe do lol. A new Cache for Every Catalog is created. The Catalog is stored separately from the Camera Raw Cache/Previews, currently my Catalog is 138MB for 7700 images and the Camera Raw/Preview Cache I have is 31GB with retentions for 30 days. If I make a new catalog then all my photos, collections will be temporarily gone from Lightroom view but they are still stored safely on my SSD so when I load the old catalog they will return.
Click to expand...
Are the raw cache files part of the irdata.previews files, or whatever they’re called then, or are they something different? From memory (as I said I don’t have my Mac on me at the mo) when I was looking into the cache the folder was specified as one under cameraraw2 in my library files, and certainly not where the LR catalogue and irdata files are. By default the irdata files always end up where the catalogue file is, but it doesn’t appear the raw cache does. Am I best directing the raw cache to the same location as the LR catalogue?
 
trevorbray said:
Some older motorcycle enthusiasts might like this.
Greeves Scrambler in the showroom of Gordon Farley in Guildford .
Can just see his old Montessa trials bike to the right.
Used a cheapo large rubber hood thingy to shield from reflections .
35mm f1.8

Greeves through a showroom window.jpg by Trevor, on Flickr
Click to expand...


You probably know far more about these bikes than me Trevor, but I'm sure a pretty good scrambler called "Dave Bickers" (might have spelt his name wrong) used to ride one of those.

George.
 
trevorbray said:
Some older motorcycle enthusiasts might like this.
Greeves Scrambler in the showroom of Gordon Farley in Guildford .
Can just see his old Montessa trials bike to the right.
Used a cheapo large rubber hood thingy to shield from reflections .
35mm f1.8

Greeves through a showroom window.jpg by Trevor, on Flickr
Click to expand...


Very nice Trev, loving the reflection in the tank.
 
From Fred Miranda thread about the Voigtlander 35mm f1.2...

Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton Aspherical Review

www.fredmiranda.com

"The Sony cameras make it easy to take photos, their RAW files allow you a lot of head space to post-process them as you wish till you hit the barrier after a broad vastness, wide DR, IBIS, the AF (eye AF, animal AF detection, tracking etc.) but somehow with all that technology it literally takes away the experience of taking photos as Leica and the Leica camera owners propagate (Das Wesentliche). I can't believe that that I am saying/writing this but somehow there is some truth in it. If you say this to my past me I would label you as a crazy person."

My reply would be to mount a manual lens and ignore all the bells and whistles. This probably wont work though as the label still says Sony rather than Leica.
 
snerkler said:
Are the raw cache files part of the irdata.previews files, or whatever they’re called then, or are they something different? From memory (as I said I don’t have my Mac on me at the mo) when I was looking into the cache the folder was specified as one under cameraraw2 in my library files, and certainly not where the LR catalogue and irdata files are. By default the irdata files always end up where the catalogue file is, but it doesn’t appear the raw cache does. Am I best directing the raw cache to the same location as the LR catalogue?
Click to expand...

The files on mine are installed in the same location at the catalog. You could move it but as long as they are on the sam physical disk it won't make much if any difference. Have you tried clicking the optimise catalog option in Lightroom? You also have a location where the actual Raw Files are stored when imported. Are you storing those files on the internal disk as well?
 
Last edited:
Tkenny said:
The files on mine are installed in the same location at the catalog. You could move it but as long as they are on the sam physical disk it won't make much if any difference. Have you tried clicking the optimise catalog option in Lightroom? You also have a location where the actual Raw Files are stored when imported. Are you storing those files on the internal disk as well?
Click to expand...
Yeah I optimise the catalogue frequently and all files needed for LR are always on the SSD. Once processed I offload the raws to an external drive but always put them back in the original location if I ever want to re-edit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top