What I saw in the last post was you're misunderstanding of how your Fuji functions. The equivalent to ADL is not Fuji's Highlight/Shadow picture controls but the DR setting. Used as intended it does effect the raw files. If you like I can help you understand it better.

And again this is entirely off topic and just more smoke blowing diversion.

I said; "The problem with shooting raw + JPEG is that you can't have an optimum exposure for both." I've now proven that correct and provided supporting external references. You've failed to refute it and after repeated requests for an external reference you've provided nothing but smoke.

Joe

The point here is to get a B&W image on your camera's screen as a "proof of concept" - to see what it might look like once you do the B&W conversion from raw on your computer.

In order for this to work you need to know something about your camera's ability to cope with scenes with different dynamic ranges.

Fuji cameras are a great tool for this because you can control highlight and shadow recovery separately, just as you might want to do later on your computer.

But you have to read the manual to understand how to do it effectively.

So my OS is converting the data to something that can be viewed. Isn't that exactly what happens when viewing a JPG or a TIFF? Different method, same results. Software converts the data a format that can be viewed! So if software converts data to a format that can be viewed what's the difference? In every case software is involved and data is converted. If a data file can be used to produce an image through software manipulation then that file is an image file regardless of what the file format is.

I shoot in Raw and JPEG so I can instantly see what I have taken as soon as I pull it up in the computer. For many years I deleted the raw files to save space on my hard drives for non-important photos. I could just shoot myself for doing so as I now exhibit my personal work in galleries. The problem is similar between looking at artwork that is a vector vs. raster image. Vector is similar to a raw photo. It is crisp, holds its image even when enlarged, and is easily able to be manipulated. A raster image is similar to a jpeg file, in that it loses its quality when enlarged, doesn’t have the details within the file allowing it to be manipulated. Another thing about jpeg files, each time you adjust them, you eat away a bit at the file. With a raw file, it stays alone, until you save it as a jpeg.

Not sure what you are even trying to say. As stated I OPENED the OP posted RAW file and processed it through my ACR 9.1.1 and Ps CS6 and came up with an OK image, different I think that what I would have shot. Not that I even would have been done with it at that point but I did my normal work flow on it and since he has is own camera and exposure it is to me a bit over exposed. I then SAVED it via Ps as a JPG as that is what we are supposed to be posting on UHH. I posted my version of the OP's image. Not totally to my liking but that might be my point of exit as I did not want to fuss with his image beyond what I normally do with my own images. Yes, I like Bob's version better.

Normally I always shoot RAW myself but I am capable of processing pretty well JPGs too I my get from my CellPhone or just JPEGs I find on the WEB. So I am not sure why you are ragging on me when I essentially said and did the same as everyone else. You that bored?

I was able to DL your actual RAW file, a No No on the UHH. No idea what camera brand you have and don't recognize the extension. But my Ps CS6 was able to open it. You do realize you MUST process RAW files for use. Anyway, I gave your image my standard processing, so you tell me what you think. Yours is probably a well exposed image so there should not be a lot of difference between the RAW and JPG. But try and image with extreme lighting or under exposure or WB off, then you will be happy to have a Raw file.