It'll depend a little on the manufacturer, and your camera's settings. For some manufacturers, their own RAW conversion software will indeed perform such a fea

It'll depend a little on the manufacturer, and your camera's settings. For some manufacturers, their own RAW conversion software will indeed perform such a feat. Note that I would not personally necessarily define that as a "better/great raw conversion tool" - there's many other criteria, and for many of us, once we shoot raw, we don't look at in-camera images/JPEG the same way any more. It is weird and a bit hoighty-toighty to describe, but when I look at scene either in real world or in camera nowadays, my brain automatically sees what can come out of it, i.e. the end result I want, rather than just straight pixels on camera. Or to put it other way, I don't bother to make JPEG come out in any particular way as long as I know I've captured the right data exposure wise, so there'd be zero value to me in a converter that mimicked camera JPEG. Note that many cameras actually encode a full JPEG they shot INSIDE the RAW. You may notice if you look at file in e.g. ACDsee, it'll first show exactly as you shot it because it uses this JPEG for preview; and then, what happened, a second later it changes, as it loads the RAW. There are tools to extract this JPEG if you so desire. Otherwise, if manufacturer doesn't have good raw converter, and you use e.g. Lightroom, you can setup a lot of settings to come up pretty close to what camera spits out. But as others have pointed out there may always be fine differences. The easiest solution of course is to use RAW+JPG shooting mode, bypassing the problem entirely :)