Tratamento digital de fotografias

Hi colin thanks again for your reply.
I dont know if you understand well the Portuguese language but my English isn’t the best so I will try my best to expose my ideias.
I created this new post in this part of the Fórum to continue our “quarel” of the subject in cause because I think this is the proper place in this Fórum to do it.
So, after reading the opinion contained in link sent by Peter we still don’t know wich is the best way to shot. We all know that JPEG or JPG is a image compression method. But there is two distinct compressions – one is the one made by the camera in the moment of the shot and another is the compression that we have wen we save the image after “work” a image in a computer.
Well, I think we must worry about the first one as it serves as initial support. Thus we all have in our machines some possible configurations, like the Picture size - small; normal; large; priority to the space or to the quality, and how much compression we want, basic,normal, large... (each mark has its names).
Beyond this, there is also other factors that contribute to the final result (working in JPG’S) like the amount of sharpennig, saturation, and other parameters that modify the basic information of na image in the moment of the capture.
Like you said “Unprocessed RAW files can look a bit "flat" compared to out of the camera JPEGS”. Some times this happens due to use of a non specific Raw converter to the camera model or mark. Raw is not a standart thing. Every mark or camera had is especifc Raw converter that it is unic and varies of mark to mark.
“Another big advantage of shooting in RAW is that if you make prints of A4 size or larger the image quality is far superior to an image originally shot as JPEG” Well i’ve made A4 prints and, in my opinion, comparativily with the film, I think that they are sufficiently good - grain inexistence, sharpeness…
My question is: Not wanting to be a purist, such as the owner of a Ferrari that purchase the best and fast car he can but only uses it in the maximum speed of 60 Km/h, worths working in RAW the time that must be spend in after-production for small impressions? How about crop's??? Has significant differences in resolution or in grain?
“…but they contain so much more data which allows more possibilities in post processing.”
Ok, one thing that we can’t do with JPG’S files is to work the white balance, but there are several thins that you can do, (and many people don’t know) like correct the exposition, shades, gamma, RGB, etc..
In my opinion, and that’s why I ask about “reduce noise”, I still think that RAW as less “noise” that JPG’S, and that is a very important question, mainly if we want to make significant crop’s.
I’ve already read the best commentaries and the greaters critiques to the two metodes... but I’ll try again to use Raw this time with the respective plug-in of the mark.
Another question to debate... how to obtain those contrasted and super shining images without being through the correction of gamma and RGB, that introduces artefacts and, in a certain way, contrasts the image but also darkens it ? Here it is the question. Thanks to all and sorry about my (bad) English
Best Wishes
Loureiro