Thanks Dory for your kind words, but now as I do to explain you what you ask with mine bad English?
I try there...
I believe, first of all, that the vision on the monitor is not the ideal to understand as is in reality a photo from the point of view "quality" . You plunder as example this photo of mine: to be able to publish him to her PhotoForum I have had to reduce it to 164Kb while the initial jpeg was from 16Mb. How you can imagine a lot of quality has gone lost.
Another thing that I must say is that I shoot the 95% of my photos in Raw and I operate the conversion in Jpeg with the software "Capture One" (for me it is the best).
I shoot in Raw because, as you will perhaps know, it's the only way to be able to have "the negative" original (it is a "negative digital" but also always with the data not manipulated).
According to mine "workflow" I normally intervene on the file as it is owed (and as it tries to do the "chip" inserted in the camera when it owes "to produce" his jepg), and it consists of repairing the levels, the temperature color, and to give that "crisp" (crunchy... in italian: croccantezza...) to the detail and the neatness.
On the other hand, inevitably, a digital file goes "worked" to make it presentable, there are two solutions: or you make us think about the camera or you think alone of us with the PC (I prefer the second).
Perhaps, however, I still have to answer to what you wanted to know: as it was the original filethe original file... was as the whole digital files: anaemic, soft, all to be developed.
I don't know how to do you him to see, weighs 16Mb...
I don't know not even if I've succeeded in making me understand... the goodwill I have put her.