If you did want to return to using RAW, you can download Adobe's free DNG converter and convert your camera specific RAW files to DNG format.
This is a standard format RAW file.
You can then use your version of PS to process the DNG file.
Adobe keeps updating the DNG converter to handle the latest camera specific RAW files, so ensuring the ongoing ability to continue processing the DNG files even if your older version of PS isn't directly compatible with the latest RAW files.
My standard process is to shoot in RAW and then convert all the RAW files to DNG, then keep the DNG files, and process those I want to a final jpeg.
Like a few here, I have gone back on a few occasions to reprocess older DNG files as I've learnt new processing techniques in PS.
Personally, I think blindly converting everything to DNG is unnecessary and unproductive.
There is an interesting argument against using DNG here
https://photographylife.com/dng-vs-raw
In the
linked essay he asserts "
most post-processing software packages out there either do not read DNG at all, or read it poorly, making DNG a lot less useful than it was designed to be in the first place."
Other programs than Photoshop are available and certainly in the amateur world, Adobe no longer has the stranglehold it once had.
As I understand it, Adobe wanted to establish DNG as a "standard" to avoid their software engineers having to re-write their raw conversion software every time a new camera model was introduced - let me suggst that's NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN! Camera makers are never going to give up their proprietary raw formats, and will no doubt provide arguments as to why their raw format is better.
Personally, I prefer to keep the unmodified raw file direct from the camera than rely on a manipulated version, which may not necesarily contain the same amount of image data, and offers no improvement in post processing.
Hi Brian,
Thanks for your reply and particularly the linked article, which has further links in it - very interesting.
I have to admit that I implemented my existing workflow a number of years ago and haven't really reviewed it at any point, so this is useful to me.
Firstly, in my response to Cobra's comment:
When staring out I used to shoot Jpeg, then I went raw, on the advice of a few on the forum.
I now shoot Jpeg. again. because
1) My version of PS doesn't support raw from my current camera
The use of DNG would potentially be a solution enabling them to shoot RAW files rather than shooting Jpeg.
However, separate from that in relation to my own workflow, there are a number of good points made in the article you linked to, not least being the fact that the major players are never going to adopt DNG as their own RAW format as it would mean they would lose competitive advantage, and prevent them from potentially introducing new features without having to petition for an update to the standard.
There are some things I do like about DNG, not least the fact that adjustments in ACR are saved in the file rather than generating XMP sidecar files. I also don't have a problem running the DNG conversion on a folder of newly imported images as this takes a fairly short time due to having a reasonably powerful computer, and as it just runs through them all, I can go and get a coffee or do something else while it's processing.
However, the idea that some metadata is probably lost in conversion to DNG is potentially of some concern, as is the fact that a fair amount of alternative image editing software simply does not support DNG, or does so badly. Whilst I currently use Adobe Photoshop (CS6 as I do not like the idea of a subscription model), I can see that in the future, I may well get to a point of considering an alternative, at which point I could have an issue with DNG files.
In the light of all the above, I am now seriously considering keeping the original (Canon) RAW files given plentiful storage is not really an issue, so as I said, thanks for your post Brian - it is genuinely appreciated.
)
) 
