Do you have this setting checked in Preferences?
I have a GFX 100 test file and it load nearly instantaneously with this setting checked.
I have a GFX 100 test file and it load nearly instantaneously with this setting checked.
Yes I have that option ticked. I’ve tried with and without it ticked and the time it takes for images to snap into focus is the same. Would have expected images to load faster if it was unticked.
If it’s the first time on this laptop, could it be it’s still indexing?
Have a look if pl is busy.
George
1 Like
Not sure I fully understand you. Are you are you referring to the time the images have been on the laptop, and PL6 doisng something in the background while they load? If so, then the images have been loaded on for a few days and PL has been opened for quite a long time.
If pl is new then under certain conditions it will build a database or dop files. That can take some time. Just have a look if pl stays busy when you open it. I don’t remember what setting that where.
George
That option has nothing to do with initial rendering of images in the image viewer. It only has to do with whether the image will be blurred while dragging an adjustment slider or will continue to be rendered in high quality during that action. For better performance, it should be unchecked. But that shouldn’t be necessary on a fast computer.
I think the indexing suggestion is a good idea. I also suggest using Windows Task Manager and its resource monitor to see what else is going on.
I thought dop files were only created once you start editing an image.
Having just opened PL6 again, after an initial rush of blood it is now quiet, and task manager shows it as occupying 22% of the laptop memory, and less than 1% of the CPU. When I edit an image, the memory % remains about the same, but CPU goes up to 3 to 4%, and then settles back to less than 1% again.
Reviewing what I’ve said so far, the delay is not so much in editing, it’s in the time that an image takes to load and snap into focus. If I have 2-3 shots of the same thing and want to quickly decide which to keep before editing, I move back and forth between the images and this takes 5-10 seconds each time I select the image, so to go back and forth, say, three times takes 15-30 seconds … not milliseconds.
Oh well, it was just a guess. 
Many of us have noticed a slowdown with v6.1.
Ahh - that’s clearer … My system is reasonably fast - but it still takes 2-3 secs to switch between images and see a good-enuff result … which is too slow to make comparisons of different images.
It’s just a matter of PL not being the best tool for comparing and culling different images (because PL is doing a lot of work in processing the RAW file, before you see a rendered image) … Instead, most of us here use something like Fast Raw Viewer, or Irfan, etc, to do this task … and then PL for processing the selected images.
Note: It’s an altogether different matter when comparing different versions of the same image (which PL can do, very quickly, via Virtual Copies) - - but that’s not what you are referring to here.
HtH - John M
On my system a fraction of a second. And I don’t have anything special. How big are your images?
No back ground programs that delays the program?
George
The OP has an extremely high powered system that is performing abominably, specifically with PL - I think the issue is not simply down to choice of tool (though I completely agree with you 
), this is something else I’m sure.
1 Like
Windows/ Nvidia users - could this be related to that studio driver thingy issue that was evident a couple of months ago?
After update of NVidia Studio Driver the use of my outdated GPU was improved by same degree,
but nothing earthshaking, while everything was and is working.
If it hasn’t been done already, I suggest making sure that all drivers and uefi firmware provided by Alienware are up-to-date.
I think DXO needs to improve their caching of images. I noticed especially in the Photo Library it takes forever to load the images the first time when you go into a folder. And if you change the preview image size in the Photo Library, it has to re-cache all of the preview images again. I think the older versions of Photo Lab had better caching performance compared to the newer versions. For me it’s not as bad when editing and going from photo to photo. I have a newer Dell desktop also. And my images files are not that big either. They are from an old 12MP Nikon and a newer 20MP Olympus. But it’s really slow going into a folder for the first time. You have to scroll down and let the images slowly load. Then scroll down further and let more images load. Once it’s cached, it’s fine. The reason why I believe it’s an issue with the caching is that Lightroom and Capture One will create cache preview images the first time you import them in to the system. So you pay for the slowness the very first time you import. Also if you look at the cache directory size in those other two software, they are much larger than that of DXO. Those other software have no cache space limit and will continue to grow when you add more photos into them.
I have a desktop PC running Windows 11 Pro: 10th Generation i7-10700F CPU 2.90GHz processor; 32GB Ram and a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Super graphics card and PL6 is installed on a SSD. The best thing I did to improve user experience, was to enable ‘Always prefer high quality previews’. This setting eliminates the lag when adjustments are made to images in Customize.
As other posters have stated, when you open a folder of images it takes a while to render all the images. In Customize, if I switch to another image, it takes around 2 second to render, but this is I believe down to the application of the DxO Standard default.
I have also updated the drivers on my NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Super, to Studio Driver 527.56, which also appear to be the latest for the RTX 3080.
I have to say though, as a long time user of DxO Photolab and before that Optics Pro: PL6 feels slower and less responsive than previous versions. Lightroom Classic and Affinity Photo 2 by comparison, feel positively snappy on my machine!
That is perfectly normal for a RAW file. What you initially see is the embedded JPEG rendering; then, once the RAW data has been processed and cached, you see the default rendering you’ve set up for RAW images. If you switch back and forth between two images, you will no longer see the two-second delay because the images are now cached. (This can take a few tries sometimes, but it shows what’s going on.)
For what it’s worth, I think PhotoLab has been improving how well it multitasks while these images are being loaded and previewed. I don’t know if it’s any faster than it used to be, though. Maybe a little?
I agree - especially after PL6 has been running for a day and has processed a number of images or when one has used a variety of adjustments on a single image (local adjustments, ReShape, healing and cloning…). It’s brutally slow at times, and then it’s fine again for only a little while.
I have been a user since purchasing PL1 in November 2017. I have an almost 6 year old i7 Windows 10 machine which was not top of the line even when purchased new. I have 24gb of ram and an old discontinued GTX 1050Ti graphics card. I find PL6.1.1 to be very responsive, very snappy. It hard to make direct comparisons to older versions which are not currently installed, but, if anything, the latest version is at least as fast and in several ways much faster then previous versions.
As an example, Image refreshes changing from one extremely heavily edited image to another generally take approximately two to three seconds to completely refresh, even when zoomed in past 75%. Less heavily edited images take between one and two seconds to refresh and unedited images take from less than a second to a second and a half. This is on an older, slower computer. I distinctly recall that in previous versions, prior to PL 5, similar refreshes took at least twice as long on a regular basis.
Results from moving all sliders are instantaneous. My DeepPRIME and DeepPRIME XD exports process very quickly considering my older computer and my old and less powerful graphics card. DeepPRIME averages 14 seconds and DeepPRIME XD averages 34 seconds. I have noticed a steady improvement in DeepPRIME processing time in each version since it was first introduced. The only thing that has gotten a bit slower then PL5 is startup time. It took around 9-10 seconds for PL 5 to complete its start up on my computer. PL6.1.1 takes around 10-12 seconds, an inconsequential difference.
In what specific ways do you see the latest version as being slower? Maybe something needs to be optimized on Windows 11.
Mark. .
1 Like
Mark,
Whilst PL6 is most definitely usable, I would not describe it as either very responsive or very snappy. The machine I am now using is fairly new, arriving with Windows 11 Pro preloaded, so you may well be right about some settings needing optimising.
Pat