I've just looked at the difference between jpeg and RAW histograms with the default Fuji settings and it's quite surprising how different they are
![Eek! :eek: :eek:]()
Just another quirk from Fuji
![Wink ;) ;)]()
I'll try those settins from prophotonut, and try some different ones myself to see which most resembles RAW. Just as an example, here's the difference in jpeg vs RAW with default exposure settings (I don't have default and sharpening but I can't see these making a difference to the histogram, but I guess you never know with Fuji
![Wink ;) ;)]()
)
JPEG
View attachment 76950
RAW
View attachment 76951
At least the RAW file has much better preserved shadows and highlights so at least if you're using the jpeg histogram as a guide it's erring on the side of caution
However, here's the real 'kicker'. This is only true if you use the adobe profile for your RAW photos. If you use the same camera profile as you shot the picture in (in this case Provia Standard) the RAW histogram looks like this
View attachment 76952
A bit more like the jpeg but crushing the blacks a little more with less luminosity in the shadows. At least you know you can recover blacks though as shown by the adobe RAW.