I had to try this just to see what the result would be with enfuse. (-1, +1, +2, +3 EV)
3 Likes
DSZ_0619.NEF.xmp (13.8 KB)
DT 3.9
Edit:
It seems to me, from my recent posts, that Chrome doesn’t make the monitor profile compensation correctly. In Chrome i get the images darker then any other software i use.
Any ideas? Anyone can confirm that? 
1 Like
Does Chrome have any colour management settings that you need to (re)adjust? I don’t know: I use Firefox. What I would say is that your image is indeed on the dark side.
Thanks, i think Chrome settings are ok, but images are darker. It has been happening since I profiled the (ugly} monitor…
Quick RT test using the recent cam 16 with sigmoid local edit. Done on the laptop not workstation so not the best screen…
WB, Cam16 with some chromatic adaptation to make warmer, abstract profile tuning,
DSZ_0619.jpg.out.pp3 (17.8 KB)
1 Like
The overall image looks fine to me, maybe a bit dark in the darkest shadows. My surmise is that your display profile doesn’t have the right TRC (tone response curve); if you did the profile in a bright ambient light the profiling software might have tried to compensate.
IMHO you did a really nice job pulling the exterior levels toward the interior ones, not at all HDR-ish.
1 Like
I think that jpg is larger (mb-wise) than the original raw 
Maybe this post (Web browsers color management) or even the whole thread may shed some light?
1 Like
I.think this is the problem! Accordingly to display Cal, my monitor gamma is about 2.4… Thanks
Thanks @XavAL, i read all the thread; if i understand i would try to reach gamma 2.2 for my monitor to “please” Chrome…
If I’m not wrong, you should profile your display with a sRGB TRC (gamma). That’s not exactly the same as TRC 2.2.
3 Likes