Need help with developing in LR

[FunPhotons]

Hi Guys,
   I need some tips for developing my pictures. I'm a software engineer so I'd rather not spend a lot of time twiddling with images (I'd rather be writing software). Here's my workflow

• Shoot everything in Raw + JPG (JPG is to have a camera development reference)
• Import into DNG in LR
• Auto apply a Camera Dual Illuminant profile on import (I love camera calibrations) from XRite ColorChecker
• Auto apply lens corrections on import
• I usually shoot a frame with the ColorChecker, if so then apply WB from that

I like the calibrated colors I get usually. Sometimes I'll twiddle the exposure or colors if its a good photo. But usually my photos look kind of crappy, what else should I be doing?

[shining example]

Define "crappy"?

Also, what are you doing with these photos? Just displaying them on screen, or printing them?

You should probably be doing a bit of sharpening and adding contrast, but IMO you're unlikely to get the best from each of a range of individual shot by just applying standard settings. If you don't really enjoy fiddling with this kind of stuff, that's probably a trade-off you'll have to determine for yourself... 

[Menace]

Have a play with the 'vibrance' slider too

[Niterider]

Do you do anything in terms of gradient filters, brush tool, highlights, shadows, clarity, vibrance, saturation, contrast, etc?

While I understand the desire to not fiddle around with each photo, every one is different and I rarely find myself applying settings used in another photo to the one I am currently working on.

[bycostello]

i have a curve adjustment on import.. and up the saturation and vibrance a little...

[Hobby Shooter]

Hey,

I'm not an LR expert, have used it just over 6 months and processed around 5000 images in it. Of course one will over time develop a workflow, although mine is not that very effective or time saving currently. I am not sure I understand your question correctly, but I will want to recommend you to check out articles and tutorials on the web on LR. just search for whatever you're wondering about at the moment and practice that on a set of pictures, for example sharpening, then next time check out Split toning etc etc. I've learned alot that way. Practice makes permanent, so develop a style and make it yours.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Its hard to unnderstate the necessity of buying a good lightroom book to see what the experts do.  We all have varying degrees of experience as well as a tolerance for imperfections.
I tend to often shoot dark theater scenes at high ISO's, so I adjust a image at the various high ISO settings and let LR duplicate those adjustments for that ISO and body.
I often take a lot of images that are almost identical as actors move slightly, or in a attempt to capture a expression or movement.  I adjust one of the series and then clone the others to have the same settings.
If you want corrections to be made automatically, try DXO.  I don't use it, but I've tried it, and it does a excellent job of developing images, and determinimg how much nr, brightness, vibrance, contrast, ect so you get a good image with very little or no effort.  It does not have the advanced tools that LR does, so you might still want to use photoshop to touch up some images.  DXO also does not organize images, and creates sidecars which I hate, since they seem to get lost or are not always moved when I move the files.

[Hobby Shooter]

Its hard to unnderstate the necessity of buying a good lightroom book to see what the experts do.  We all have varying degrees of experience as well as a tolerance for imperfections.
I tend to often shoot dark theater scenes at high ISO's, so I adjust a image at the various high ISO settings and let LR duplicate those adjustments for that ISO and body.
I often take a lot of images that are almost identical as actors move slightly, or in a attempt to capture a expression or movement.  I adjust one of the series and then clone the others to have the same settings.
If you want corrections to be made automatically, try DXO.  I don't use it, but I've tried it, and it does a excellent job of developing images, and determinimg how much nr, brightness, vibrance, contrast, ect so you get a good image with very little or no effort.  It does not have the advanced tools that LR does, so you might still want to use photoshop to touch up some images.  DXO also does not organize images, and creates sidecars which I hate, since they seem to get lost or are not always moved when I move the files.

I've actually been thinking of getting myself a book on Lightroom also. Is there any in particular you would recommend? I use LR4.

thanks

[srh]

I've actually been thinking of getting myself a book on Lightroom also. Is there any in particular you would recommend? I use LR4.

Not sure about books but B & H and Adorama have some excellent video tutorials on lightroom.

http://www.youtube.com/Bandh
http://www.youtube.com/adoramatv

[Mt Spokane Photography]

There are lots of good ones, my favorite is the one by Martin Evening, there is also a Scott Kelby book, and one by Victoria Brampton. All three are supurb, but maybe formatted a little differently
I have viewed online videos, but I do not find it practical to take them in my camera bag, and, even if I did, finding the answer to even a simple problem would not be practical. Once I have read a book and know whats there, I can quickly find the section again and have my answer in seconds.

[Hobby Shooter]

There are lots of good ones, my favorite is the one by Martin Evening, there is also a Scott Kelby book, and one by Victoria Brampton. All three are supurb, but maybe formatted a little differently
I have viewed online videos, but I do not find it practical to take them in my camera bag, and, even if I did, finding the answer to even a simple problem would not be practical. Once I have read a book and know whats there, I can quickly find the section again and have my answer in seconds.

Thanks, will have a look and see if I can get any of them here where I live.  I have used the online articles quite frequently as it's so easy just to get one out while working on the computer. But books would of course be more comprehensive.

[Hobby Shooter]

I've actually been thinking of getting myself a book on Lightroom also. Is there any in particular you would recommend? I use LR4.

Not sure about books but B & H and Adorama have some excellent video tutorials on lightroom.

http://www.youtube.com/Bandh
http://www.youtube.com/adoramatv

Thanks, I will have a look at these, overall I do prefer text before video for learning, but sometimes it can be good to see and listen also.

[agierke]

i can second the suggestion of Martin Evening books. he works very closely with Adobe on developing their products so that they are the best they can be. he also writes simply about topics so that a novice can understand some of the more complicated techniques. there are always tons of examples, figures, and charts in his books as well.

as far as the OP's question, it would be much easier to answer if we could see a posted image that you are dissatisfied with. the outline you provided only deals in general terms and there are far too many variables in post production to get an idea of what could "make your photos look better".

my gut feeling is that the minimal amount of post production you apply only yields good results if the lighting in your shots is great and that you might be dealing with poor lighting resulting in lack luster images.

its rare for me (outside the studio) that i get lighting conditions that are so good that i "only" have to apply a lens adjustment and a camera profile. more often than not i am doing that AND adjusting exposure, fill, blacks, then using an adjustment brush for dodging and burning. then i bring an image into PS and apply Nik Filters and sometimes Portraiture filters.

not sure if this is the degree at which you want to go but there usually isnt an "auto" method that makes photos look great. if you don't have that great light to start with it typically takes alot of work to make a photo shine.