What am I missing with Lightroom?

OK, this is post is going to show how lost I am when it comes to working with RAW images, but LR seems to be the tool of choice for working with RAW so I want to give it a shot before my wife graduates and she loses the ability to use her student discount ....

I have been using DxO to process my RAW files because it is pretty much an automated procedure for 99% of my pictures. I simply select the files I want to process and hit "start" and all of the corrections are analyzed by the software and I get a processed jpeg at the end. It is literally as easy as it could possibly be.

I downloaded the trial of LR, and it seems like I have to make my corrections to each individual photo and then process them at the end. To make matters worse, all of the corrections require subjective input on my end and I generally have no idea what the heck I'm doing. Being red deficient colorblind means I pretty much just skip any color corrections out of fear of completely ruining a photo.

I have to missing the boat completely here. Is LR capable of analyzing my photos and making normal corrections without so much input from me? Do I need to somehow find or determine standard presets that will work in most conditions? Are there presets for my camera and lenses available already?

Sorry for the "newbness" of this post but I would like to get a better handle on working with my RAW images as sometimes I feel like my current solution (trust in DxO) is maybe making too many decisions for me.

By the sounds of what your looking for your better off just shooting JPG and adjusting the picture style.

I'm not sure where the above answer came from, but IMHO sticking with DxO make s a lot more sense than switching to jpeg?.

I'm the wrong person to ask as I'm not deeply enamored with Lightroom.. I like a far more specifically oriented tool to convert RAW images only.. one that is lightweight, low overhead and fast.
LR is none of those.

I've not used DxO but I suspect it's more up my alley.
These days Bibble, DPP and C1 are still me preferred tools over LR.

that said, you most certainly can batch process in LR,. make correction in one example image and apply to as many as you like tot let it work it's magic on all.
the idea being to do the same adjustments to all images taken in the same conditions..

...it just takes a while to understand how to do this..
The lack of intuitive-ness is another aspect I dislike.

As far as I know, DxO is the only option that claims to look at your hardware and settings and decide for you what the best processing should be to get a good conversion.
If your satisfied with its choices most of the time,. I have to assume it still offers you full control to override and make your own corrections as well?
So why not stick with it?

DaveSt wrote in post #9004219
I downloaded the trial of LR, and it seems like I have to make my corrections to each individual photo and then process them at the end. To make matters worse, all of the corrections require subjective input on my end and I generally have no idea what the heck I'm doing. Being red deficient colorblind means I pretty much just skip any color corrections out of fear of completely ruining a photo.

B+W might work well for you then, gets rid of the need for WB checks. auto wb in LR2 is ok as well. Not as good as the personal touch, but good enough that your printer can take care of the rest.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #9004275
I'm not sure where the above answer came from,

"I simply select the files I want to process and hit "start" and all of the corrections are analyzed by the software and I get a processed jpeg at the end. It is literally as easy as it could possibly be."

PMode wrote in post #9004250
By the sounds of what your looking for your better off just shooting JPG and adjusting the picture style.

I do have some reasons for shooting RAW rather than jpeg. While it is true that most of the time I simply let DxO handle my processing for me, there are those times (not that uncommon really) when I completely screw up my exposure and I am then able to go into DPP or the manual parts of DxO and fix the image. Shooting in jpeg mode doesn't really allow me that same kind of freedom. Also, there are times when I have to jack up the ISO to get a shot, and removing noise is much easier to do in a RAW file than in a jpeg. I guess I usually shoot RAW for the extra layer of protection that it gives me as opposed to needing a permanent digital negative.

PMODE, You might want to look into the science and research behind DxO before dismissing it, and it's users.
It's pretty amazing stuff.

Likewise it is never a good idea to talk down to someone simply because they don't do things the way you do.

Dave, you could continue to shoot RAW and apply picture styles in DPP as well to get the automation you are used to and still work in RAW... though DPP is also not the most intuitive or advanced option.

But I'm still thinking that DxO is a perfectly valid option.

Anyway, there are as you surmise a number of LR users here who are able to get the most from it.. (and it does offer a LOT )
Hopefully some that are willing to explain the advantages will drop in soon.

DxO is hardly "light."

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #9004275
....

If your satisfied with its choices most of the time,. I have to assume it still offers you full control to override and make your own corrections as well?
So why not stick with it?

Thanks for that response. It probably does make the most sense to just stick with DxO. I guess I see so many people talking about how good LR is that I sometimes feel like I must be missing something crucial.

DxO does indeed allow me to take full control if I choose to. I can also save any corrections as a preset to use in the future if I so choose. It is slow for sure, but then again this isn't a profession for me so the amount of files I process is pretty low most times.

DaveSt wrote in post #9004352
I do have some reasons for shooting RAW rather than jpeg. While it is true that most of the time I simply let DxO handle my processing for me, there are those times (not that uncommon really) when I completely screw up my exposure and I am then able to go into DPP or the manual parts of DxO and fix the image. Shooting in jpeg mode doesn't really allow me that same kind of freedom. Also, there are times when I have to jack up the ISO to get a shot, and removing noise is much easier to do in a RAW file than in a jpeg. I guess I usually shoot RAW for the extra layer of protection that it gives me as opposed to needing a permanent digital negative.

Then LR will do what you are looking to do. Its just takes more work to set it up so that its more automated. At the price a student gets LR you really cant beat it. IIRC its only $99. LR 3 will be out next year if your wife is still in school. Honestly Im not very good with LR but when I need an answer there is usually a video online to help.

PixelMagic wrote in post #9004373
DxO is hardly "light."

Was this aimed at my statement?
I did not say that it was,. I have never used DxO.
I simply said that LR is not and I prefer tools that are,. I did not list DxO as one of those tools.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #9004361
PMODE, You might want to look into the science and research behind DxO before dismissing it, and it's users.
It's pretty amazing stuff.

Likewise it is never a good idea to talk down to someone simply because they don't do things the way you do.

Dave, you could continue to shoot RAW and apply picture styles in DPP as well to get the automation you are used to and still work in RAW... though DPP is also not the most intuitive or advanced option.

But I'm still thinking that DxO is a perfectly valid option.

Anyway, there are as you surmise a number of LR users here who are able to get the most from it.. (and it does offer a LOT )
Hopefully some that are willing to explain the advantages will drop in soon.

I didnt mean to offend anyone I just read the post and took into consideration exactly what was written.

My opologies

PMode wrote in post #9004414
I didnt mean to offend anyone I just read the post and took into consideration exactly what was written.

My opologies

Don't worry about it, I didn't take any offense at all. To be honest, if the benefits of shooting RAW that I listed above were available in jpeg images I probably would follow your suggestion. Then again, I think sitting down at the PC and processing the RAW images appeals to the geek in me so I would have a hard time giving that up.

Fair enough; but the inference could easily be made that it is "light" when it isn't.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #9004395
Was this aimed at my statement?
I did not say that it was,. I have never used DxO.
I simply said that LR is not and I prefer tools that are,. I did not list DxO as one of those tools.

PixelMagic wrote in post #9004516
Fair enough; but the inference could easily be made that it is "light" when it isn't.

I think DxO may be seen as light to some in the fact that it requires very little from the user in many (most?) cases. Compared to programs that expect more input and general knowledge from the operator it might seem light. The program itself however is a beast when it comes down to what it can do. I will say that it has evolved nicely into a program that lets you have as much control as you want however. I started using it with version 3.xx and the amount of control that it gives you now is much greater than back then.

I appreciate all of the feedback. I think I will just stick with DxO and DPP for now. Nothing is broken, no sense in trying to fix it. If I feel I need something better in the future I will worry about it then!