I do know that you are no fan of Adobe products, but the LR workflow does work well for many of us and the file handling and printing features are worth a minimal loss of image quality.
I use Photoshop every day, and I occasionally use Lightroom. So it's not that I don't like Adobe products, but I do have some reservations about the Raw conversion quality. When I do use LR/ACR for Raw conversion
, it's mainly for convenience but not for quality.
Since I usually do not have to process large volumes, I tend to aim for quality, which steers me to e.g. Capture One Pro (also allows LCC correction with automatic dust removal), or RawTherapee (with Amaze or other dedicated (e.g. for High ISO noise) conversion algorithms and CIECAM color corrections), for Raw conversion, and then to Photoshop for layer based postprocessing.
However, it all starts with optimized exposure, and learning from experience how to achieve that in camera is important. When a Raw converter becomes an obstacle to learning that optimal exposure and delivers sub-optimal raw conversions to boot, I'll warn others about that because I think they should know the full story. When people are fully informed, they can choose whatever compromise they want. I don't really care what others use, but I do care when people are being spoon-fed only half truths.
The OP is experiencing an issue, maybe caused by exposure technique, that can presumably be solved with proper technique. He is probably better helped by solid advice than by ways to mask/hide his fundamental issues by using a tool 'XYZ'.