>> 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: > > http://smallthoughts.com/photos/misc/GIMP/clouds.arw
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 protected] List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
