It's absurd to think one can make a few settings for JPG conversions in camera and have those settings be just right for every picture you would like to make. Unless you're just hammering away at the same scene, with the same lighting and nothing is changing... you will ideally tweak settings for every change of lighting, scene, etc... at least to some degree. One set of "settings" in camera certainly isn't going to be appropriate for the infinite variety of scenes and subject that will come before your camera. Why would anyone think that you can make a collection of settings to a camera and use that for most, or even a significant portion of the images you will want to make?
Alternatively, it would consume a ridiculous amount of time "in session" to go into camera menu settings and make appropriate changes for every different setting one would photograph in... you'd be spending all your photography time fiddling around with the camera, adjusting relatively crude settings, and missing all the great images that are right before you to be captured!
The level and degree of control in the tools one has available in LR4 and PS are almost infinitely greater than the crude sliders for just a handful of image parameters available in-camera. And even if the in-camera adjustments offered even greater controls, one would spend the whole time adjusting sliders, setting by setting, when they should be attending to capturing great images. I view it a total waste of time to even try to "get it right" in camera. Why? First of all, there is no "right" to get and to try to do so WHILE you are capturing images is folly. Secondly, the in-camera tools are too crude and laborious to make changes to while trying to capture images. That's like trying to make careful darkroom adjustments to a print at the same time you are attempting to capture "the moment". Absurd. How can you dodge and burn in camera? How efficient and effective is it to apply precise gradients with filters on camera, when the digital tools for such allow so much more flexibility and variation... and reversal, if desired?
It all comes down to what's "good enough" for the individual. Some people will be content with limiting their image development potential to what can be done, in camera, applied to pretty much most of what they shoot. These are the "happy with JPG" shooters, for the most part. Others, who are serious about carrying their images to greater heights of development potential will see things differently and choose to capture in RAW when the images are important to them.
Whether capturing JPG or RAW, the prudent photographer who is engaged in creating images which are relatively "important" to him or herself, will attempt to make the best exposure that can be made, with relatively neutral settings which will allow maximum refinement and quality when processing. Capturing RAW doesn't mean that one can or should be lax in how they expose images. For anyone to suggest that RAW is the chosen method of capture so that the photographer can be "lazy" or incompetent in making an exposure is absurd. RAW is the chosen method of capture for discerning photographers who wish to maximize image quality and image development potential.
Do your job well at the time of exposure; capture in RAW; and fine tune as much or as little as needed when you're back home and have the luxury of fine tuning your images to perfection in leisure. This is how you achieve the most polished, well crafted images. Don't waste time "in session" fiddling with crude camera controls when you should be busy capturing wonderful exposures of the fleeting scenes that are before you!
All of the above can be ignored by those who are not particularly interested in crafting their images to a very high level of quality. If you just want to capture some nice images for casual use, family snapshots, vacation snapshots, etc. and you aren't terribly concerned about fine tuning to achieve the best quality, don't bother with what I said... capture in JPG and call it "good".
