Skip navigation
Junk_Bond
Currently Being Moderated

Does turning off modules speed up Lightroom 4?

Apr 18, 2012 12:22 PM

Tags: #lightroom #off #4 #performance #slow #upgrade #lr3 #modules #turn #lr4 #uncheck

Hi All,

 

It seems that in Lightroom 4 you have the ability to turn off individual modules by right clicking on them and unchecking whichever ones you don't use.  I'm wondering if when modules are unchecked, does that increase the speed or performance of the system?

 

I recently upgraded to LR4 from 3 and definitely experienced a major slow down.  That being said, when I uncheck everything except the development module, the sluggishness completely disappears.  Is turning individual modules off actually helping performance? Can anyone else confirm this?  I've posted on a few other forums and haven't had a great response.  Thanks!

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 18, 2012 12:33 PM   in reply to Junk_Bond

    It is my understanding if you don't use or invoke the various modules, they do not impact your computer's resources. Hiding the modules from view shouldn't improve performance significantly.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 18, 2012 12:42 PM   in reply to Butch_M

    I'd have to agree with Butch_M.

     

    By the way, it is my understanding that you're not really turning off the modules when you do this, you are simply prevent certain text from appearing in the Lightroom window.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 18, 2012 12:47 PM   in reply to Junk_Bond
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 20, 2013 9:10 PM   in reply to Junk_Bond

    Actually, in another thread this topic came up and I'll post my results below...
    The posts above are correct, simply "right clicking to turn off the modules from the title bar does not disable them.

    I have had significant performance gains by actually removing the modules altogether from the Lightroom program folder.

    Your mileage will vary.

     

    My original posts come from this thread : http://gsfn.us/t/2qqr8


    I've made slight edits for context.

    ----------------------------------------------

     

    When I removed the modules, I started from scratch.

    I simply uninstalled LR4.3, defragged, reinstalled, updated, moved the modules i dont use, rebooted.

     

    I then used this link for the How To : http://www.slrlounge.com/boost-lightroom-4-performance-by-hacking-the- lightroom-modules-lightroom-4-workflow-system-dvd
    It's insanely easy.

     

    I followed the standard Adobe recommendations for lightroom that you can search for in "help".

    I started Lightroom with one of my (large) existing lcat files (11k images) and regenerated absolutely everything at 1:1.

    Ate dinner, played the Xbox, ignored the phone... had family time for a while.

     

    right now,

    it opens bullet fast into library.

    it's 10 seconds to move from library to develop. film strip scrolls bullet fast- but at super low Rez and takes 3 seconds to load the "highrez thumbs" - once I stop moving the strip (12 thumbs wide)

     

    When an image is clicked they open to "fit" within 3 seconds. Choose 1:1 and its 5 seconds.

    switch to library again and it's 1-2 seconds and a redraw of the image - filmstrip unchanged.

    choose an image at 1:1 and its a 3 second wait

    "Fit" is immediate. awesome

    these times flex a second either way depending on image content.

     

    scroll film strip and it behaves the same as above - but not jerky like it used to be (up till today's efforts).

    LR4 is way faster than LR3 like this.

     

    ==============

    --- I then read another person's post relating to my earlier posts and decided to do a test :

    ==============

     

    put modules back.

    20 seconds to start.

    I don't change the image shown.

    change to develop 30 seconds

    5 seconds to "refresh" same image same setting of "fit"

    change to 1:1 6 seconds

    lower to fit 2 seconds

    back to 1:1 2 seconds

    film strip jerky on develop

    thumbnail refresh same speed

    change to library - 3 seconds

    I'm still in 1:1

    film strip "less jerky" - only a slight lag

    3 seconds to load a new image as 1:1

    1 second to change to "fit"

    1 second back to 1:1

     

    with the one main image chosen in library, mouse wheel scroll is pretty darned quick, low Rez "fit" with 1 second refresh when you finish moving

    10 seconds to go back to develop in "fit"

    5-6 seconds for subsequent photo choices in fit

    1:1 is ten seconds

    scrolling the 1:1 is so jerky you have to use the mouse "hand"

     

    exit

    move - book, layout, print, slideshow, web

     

    delete win prefetch references for a clean start, reboot.

     

    wait for windows to realize its a computer and settle down.

     

    start Lightroom, same lcat.

    it remembers I was in develop and reopened in 5 seconds with a "fit" image

    cool actually - program loads and displays image all in 5 seconds, in develop.

     

    change to 1:1 2 seconds

    can actually scroll 1:1 with mouse only small lag

    film strip back to new normal (fast and smooth)

    change to library immediate

    back to develop 1 second

    new image 2 seconds on fit

    1 second to 1:1

    new image 1:1 2 seconds

     

    so yeah

     

    module disable worked for me

    my pickle?

    I have to test each one at a time to point adobe as to which is the issue...

     

    *sigh*

     

    -----------------------------

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 20, 2013 9:15 PM   in reply to Axiom DeSigns
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 20, 2013 9:25 PM   in reply to Junk_Bond

    Disabling modules (by renaming module files) makes my Lr startup much faster (much to my surprise actually, since previously I thought, wrongly, that modules were in no way loaded until first use). But after startup - no difference.

     

    Yet for some people, like Axiom (and others I've heard from), disabling modules in this fashion favorably affects (post-startup) performance - this definitely should not be happening and points to a bug in Lightroom.

     

    Reminder: I'm not talking about hiding from top bar of UI, I'm talking about moving/renaming the module files.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 21, 2013 2:13 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    If the process to disable modules is a simple "hack" as Axiom DeSigns indicates then it would be logical to have the option in the install package to actually install only the modules you need.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 21, 2013 3:36 AM   in reply to DdeGannes

    Well, it's generally not such a great idea to hack them out: although 99.9% independent, they are not 100% independent.

     

    For example, there is one plugin UI component that uses something from the Layout, or Multiple Module monitor modules - I can't remember which now.

     

    (I removed all modules I thought I wasn't using, and did fine, until I had a problem with a particular plugin - once I found the dependent module to load, all was well)

     

    I don't know how many other "gotchas" there are like that. But, there is a reason why modules are in fact "loaded" upon startup (something from them may be needed by other modules), even though more initialization and loading is still be required upon first use.

     

    I mean if Axiom's performance got worse after hacking out the modules, one could say: "don't do that". But his (her?) performance got better after hacking out some modules, which means the "loading" of said modules is causing an unexpected problem.

     

    I'm guessing it was Adobe's original intent to have them be completely independent and maybe even optional, but then when it became clear that wasn't going to happen (or at least not yet), some minor dependencies weren't worth teasing out. - just a guess.

     

    R

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 21, 2013 4:11 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    I am not in favor of hacks, and would only be cofortable with some thing Adobe implimented.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 21, 2013 4:26 AM   in reply to DdeGannes

    Point taken. Still, hopefully, you get that Axiom must use such hacks in order to have acceptable performance. This is something that should be addressed by Adobe. In the mean time, it may very well be the key to numerous people's abnormal performance problems in Lr4(.3). Only way to find out is to try it. - again: it's not a preferred way to go, but if that's what it takes... - and if it does make a (positive) difference in performance (other than startup time I mean), it's something that should be brought to Adobe's attention immediately, here:

     

    http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/new

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 21, 2013 4:36 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    I went ahead and took initiative to make problem report, since some are finding disabling modules is improving performance (indeed it shouldn't, but some say: it is):

     

    http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lightroom_4_3_re naming_lr_modules_so_they_arent_loaded_is_improving_operational_post_s tartup_performance_for_some_people

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 21, 2013 5:38 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    g'morning everybody!

     

    Thanks for the submission Rob, I didn't get around to it last night.

     

    In a sense, moving the modules isn't really a "hack" hack, it's more like putting them we're they can't be found - like disabling a plugin temporarily.
    But yes, it's still a modifiation of the files Lightroom opens.

     

    Because I LIKE to have features, just not always "enabled", I concur with DdeGannes (that was a keyboard twister) that "features" or modules should be able to be just "turned off".

     

    I have three monitors, so I need the multimonitor plug in - but I do my own webdesign, I don't use adobe "automagic" webdesign tools *shudders*. I don't use "books", I have InDesign... not really sure what layout does, but so far I have noticed no lack of functionality by disabling the modules I did - all I see is gain across the board.

     

    Unfortunately current trend for software companies is to "force" a user to have some functionality "merged" into a new program feature so that they can "encourage" the retention of whatever "must have" new feature.
    For instance - "that" won't work any more unless you also have "this", and "this" might track your data, datamine, show ads, or otherwise invade your privacy (insert anything cloud related here) and of course if we don't like it we can either stop using the software or suck it up. tisk tisk.


    But since I MAY use these features, it's good they are still there.

     

    I'm tempted to try a Raid 0 setup (with a backup obvs) and see how that impacts things, but it'll have to wait for my next tinkering spree, and for now, it's completely acceptable.

     

    I have yet to try the speed out with a large number of RAW files - again, I mainly just use the full rez jpegs my D5000 makes, but of the few I came accross, there was only a tiny increase in the wait without modules - and larger with.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 21, 2013 5:56 AM   in reply to Axiom DeSigns

    Axiom DeSigns wrote:

     

    Thanks for the submission Rob, I didn't get around to it last night.

    You're welcome, - consider going there and adding your .02, or at least clicking the "I have this problem too" button.

     

    Regardless of how you feel about vendors shoving software down throats and all, in your case not disabling the modules (by "hack" method) is causing degraded performance, right? Thus it's more in the realm of desparate work-around for bug(s) - right? (kinda like editing the Windows registry when that's the only thing that'll fix your problem...).

     

    I mean, you can simply "disable" modules the "approved" way by hiding them in the UI (right click up there top right. I assume you knew that but in case you missed it) - but that won't help with performance in your case, right?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 21, 2013 5:59 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    For the "right click" - that does nothing but hide the module from your UI.
    Your modules are still there in the "window" menu ready for action.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 21, 2013 6:27 AM   in reply to Axiom DeSigns

    Axiom DeSigns wrote:

     

    For the "right click" - that does nothing but hide the module from your UI.

    I know.

     

     

     

    Axiom DeSigns wrote:


    Your modules are still there in the "window" menu ready for action.

    Not sure what you mean exactly. If you can't see them, or click on them, or invoke them using the keyboard, then they're hardly ready for action, as I think about it.

     

    But regardless, and last time, hopefully: there is a huge difference between "big bug in Lightroom - module loaders are interfering with post startup performance" and "I don't want the *******' things and shouldn't have to see them, hear them, smell them or know they're there..." - know what I mean? . Put another way - consider, if you really are having the performance hit that you claim, not diluting your case by going on about the less important stuff.

     

    Cheers,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 21, 2013 6:49 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    No dilution intended - still same topic - Modules causing performance - I'm trying to clarify, for those who eventuall visit and read, the finer points of this venture.

     

    my new buddy Rob wrote":

    "I mean, you can simply "disable" modules the "approved" way by hiding them in the UI (right click up there top right. I assume you knew that but in case you missed it) - but that won't help with performance in your case, right?"

     

    Hiding something is NOT disabling something.

    The initial responses to OP said to do just that - hide them - but that does no turn them "off". And that they didn't think there was a perfomance hit "if you don't touch them".


    For me; this is misleading, incorrect, recreateable, and you have noticed a perfomance increase as well - albiet just in start up.


    I put the book and layout modules back, and later tried with all modules *gah not doing that again* o_0

     

    Immediately lightroom was slow to launch as it has to open the additional module.

    It also did not like develop as much as when disabled. Like I said I don't know which - or what combination yet is the issue...

    But loading books did slow things down.


    But as I had previously tried Adobe's "disable the UI link" method, Lightroom remembers I had already hid the BOOK and other modules I didn't need.
    So I looked in the "window menu" and could plainly see - and use "books" - the missing modules were just that, missing altogether.

    So the Windows menu is a live representation of the loaded modules on startup - that's cool actually.

     

    Clicking Books in the windows menu took me to the book module.

     

    SO. If a module is present in the lightroom program folder - it will load, and run, and use resources and be all there, up in your grill, and ready to go - cached if you will, regardless of whether it is "hidden" from the UI. Cause it's not hidden, It's just not a link on that top module bar.

     

    The only way to Disable a module is to "hack" it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 21, 2013 7:04 AM   in reply to Axiom DeSigns

    Axiom DeSigns wrote:

     

    Hiding something is NOT disabling something.

    I got your point.

     

     

    Axiom DeSigns wrote:

     

    Immediately lightroom was slow to launch as it has to open the additional module.

    Although true, this is a relatively small deal, unless you close/open Lightroom a lot.

     

     

    Axiom DeSigns wrote:

     

    *gah not doing that again* o_0

     

     

    Axiom DeSigns wrote:

     

    It also did not like develop as much as when disabled.

    I don't know about you, but this is the part that most concerns me.

     

    Later,

    Rob.

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points