Maybe not. Jpeg is fast and easy until you have to adjust it. White balance, color balance, tonal adjustments, highlight and shadow recovery is often more limited compared to what you can do with a raw file. The hardest part to understand is how with raw you can make different exposure decisions in high contrast situations, which would ordinarily result in an awful jpeg, yet has all the information required to produce a really good conversion from raw. If you shoot average contrast subjects, or shoot in a studio where you control the light, you are likely to not see much of a difference. But raw files have considerably more "pushability" than jpegs, which start to fall apart when you make even modest adjustments. To see a difference you'd have to take an image that is tone and dynamic range (and color) challenging.

First image is an unedited jpeg of what the camera recorded. I biased the exposure to protect the highlights in the water. You can already see nasty stuff in the shadows, and I didn't do any editing yet.

Second image is an attempt to open up the shadows (most of the image, actually) in the jpeg, and you can see "mud" instead of detail in most of the darker areas, posterization, and just a crappy image.

The last is a jpeg of the raw file as I converted it, and made some minor adjustments - contrast, saturation, some removal, etc. I created a 16 bit psd file, then opened it in photoshop, then saved it as a jpeg for posting.

This is the kind of subjects I shoot, so I have absolutely no use for a workflow that starts with a jpeg. I shoot weddings, sports events, birds in flight and perched, night photography, landscape, cityscape, street, etc - and so far I have not ever thought that jpegs out of the camera could touch what I can do when I use a raw workflow.

I used Lightroom and Photoshop for these. But I also regularly use ON1 Raw, DXO Optics Pro, and have used Capture One in the past.

I just finished a shoot I did yesterday of shelter cats and dogs - giving back to the community. Even though I had some control over lighting, there was some variation. and I shot everything from black dogs and cats to white ones. Dialing in a custom camera profile for the speedlight shots for all the images I took with them was a piece of cake. Making the tonal adjustments, applying sharpening, etc also very fast. I went through 300 images, culled about 50, selected 120, and was done with all the processing in an hour. Raw editing is super fast, not complicated, and far easier to learn than trying to mess with jpegs, which I would have had to adjust individually.

The advocates for Raw processing are right on. If you have Phtoshop it will open your photo's in Raw processing and even if you don't understand all of the setting hit the auto button and you will be amazed. In addition the processing is non-destructive which means you can do a lot of experimenting without the worry of damaging your art work. keep in mind that jpegs derogate every time you save them. As a side note you can open jpegs as a raw file in photoshop. Other than the large file argument why wouldn't you shoot in raw if your camera has the feature.

Then you need an upgrade to open the latest camera files.

This happens all the time, even to pros. New camera comes out. You buy it. You can't open its raw files.

Three months later, Adobe updates Camera Raw to add new camera profiles. BUT, you have the last *full* revision of the software, not the current one.

Updates that add new camera compatibility only work with the CURRENT version of Adobe software.

The Photoshop/Lightroom/Bridge CC bundle subscription solves this. You can get every update and upgrade the day it is released.