RAW better than JPG??? Nah!

Question

Here a picture I took with my Fuji Finepix.
A Kingfisher sitting about 6, 7 m away from me on a tree.
I took the Picture as JPG+RAW.
Here what the JPG looks like
and here the best I could make out of the RAW image
RAW doesnt seem to be necessarily better

Answer 1

Eireannsg1 wrote:
Donald, actually it doesnt make sense but you might have noticed this: the JPG the camera made was not made of the cameras RAW file..
Notice the difference in the tail?
So, the camera has not processed the initial RAW file to make the JPG out of it, it made two separate images, I dont know why. Maybe a Finepix 550EXR weirdness? Or do all cameras the same when taking JPG+RAW?…
That is also factually false.  ALL digital cameras can only capture raw data, they then in-camera make an internal conversion to JPEG, even when the camera output supports only JPEGs and offers no raw image output, as is the case with most consumer point-and-shoots.
When a camera, such as a pro-level DSLR, offers both RAW and JPEG output, of course the camera makes a single exposure, utilizing the raw capture data both to record the raw image file and to process said raw capture data to generate and record a JPEG in camera.
The difference you see (in your example "the difference in the tail") is precisely because the camera's built-in software has already processed the raw data internally, in-camera in order to generate the in-camera JPEG, in much the same manner a savvy, experienced Adobe Camera Raw user would process the raw image file on his/her computer with much greater control.  That is the part you have not even begun to comprehend.
I repeat: camera manufacturers design their raw conversion, in-camera  and otherwise, to compress the shadows in order to hide digital chroma noise, and to provide an over-contrasty, over-saturated and over-sharpened look that appeals to the majority of consumers.  Any savvy, experienced Adobe Camera Raw user can easily emulate said camera manufacturer's software and produce an identical result to the in-camera JPEG.
Raw means raw, uncooked, unsalted and unseasoned.  The in-camera JPEG has already been cooked, salted and seasoned with pepper according to the camera manufacturer's criteria of what constitutes a good rendering of the image.  A good, experienced cook can produce a much better, finer, more sophisticated cooked, salted and seasoned with a myriad herbs image from the raw capture with Adobe Camera Raw, in accordance with the skill, intention of the artist that produced the shot..
Your comments in this regard—unambiguously highlighted by you in "the difference in the tail" —are ample proof that you don't have a clue as to how to cook, salt and season a raw capture. 
This makes me wonder whether you are even using the full Adobe Camera Raw plug-in converter hosted by the full version of Photoshop as part of a Creative Suite, or whether you may be using the severely limited, emasculated Raw Camera version offered by the pathetic Photoshop Elements.  Even though Elements uses the very same plug-in, the Camera Raw version presented by Elements is sharply limited in the number of functions and tabs.  That might explain your dismissive comments about the controls in Adobe Camera Raw.
One can only hope that future readers of this thread will grasp the substance of this discussion in more enlightened ways that you have.
Your abusive, girlish tone underscores the weakness and poverty of your uneducated arguments.
Wo Tai Lao Le
我太老了