>> Can you provide an example image to confirm this?
> Sure. Let's use the clouds photo since it is a more modern Sony
> format and pretty dramatically shows the loss of information. Point
> your browser here:
Looks like a normal image when opened here (fbsd, ufraw 0.19.2).
Underexposed, but can be brought up to 1.49 w/out any overexposure
blinkies. Clouds have lots of definition. WB (Camera WB) looks fine.
A little *tiny* bit of purple fringing; I'd be delighted if all
mine had that little.
You don't have the color profile, gamma, and linearity set to something
strange, do you? If I set to no profile, gamma=0.45, linearity 0.1
all looks good.
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address: email@example.com
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list