Shooting strategies #2: RAW or JPEG?

Ever since I started digital photography, I've been told to shoot raw if possible. And that I have done. Raw files give more opportunities for interpretation, since they have much more dynamic range and all other favorable technical qualities.

And so they have, of course. But they also need a lot more work than jpeg's plus of course a software that can read and convert those files. I have always used Lightroom, since version 1, because I have felt that being developed by photographers for photographers (instead of e.g. Photoshop, which was developed by graphic artists) it is more suitable for photographic needs. With Lightroom, I can do all the same tricks that I was able to do in darkroom, but not much else.

Lately I've been pissed off by Adobe's policy. I currently have Lightroom version 3.6. which is very good and well enough for me. However, to be able to open my Fuji Raw files, I need to upgrade to Lightroom 5 because older Lightroom versions do not support newer cameras. And to be able to upgrade Lightroom, I'd also need to upgrade my computer. That will cost me a lot of money, just to be able to use a program I do not want or need.

Few years ago in-camera jpeg's were not so good, and one could easily see the difference between those and carefully edited raw files. The difference is still there, but newer cameras have so much better jpeg engines that it really difficult to see and is actually visibleonly in quite huge prints. In fact, I was not able to match the quality of Fuji's jpeg files with my image editing skills.

So, all this makes me wonder if it is really worth the time and effort. I rarely print bigger than A4, so I will not need ultimate quality. With jpeg's, I can make a few adjustments in Lightroom but that is rarely needed and the pics looks wonderful. Fuji even has an opportunity to convert raw files in camera, if needed. I guess I'm a jpeg guy now.

There is a reason why all my pics seem to have some raindrops now.. Hope it shines tomorrow!