After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 379611 - Color Balance "range" handled incorrectly.
Color Balance "range" handled incorrectly.
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: GIMP
Classification: Other
Component: General
git master
Other All
: Normal normal
: 2.4
Assigned To: GIMP Bugs
GIMP Bugs
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2006-11-26 23:01 UTC by saulgoode
Modified: 2006-11-27 10:08 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
Proposed fixed. (647 bytes, patch)
2006-11-26 23:06 UTC, saulgoode
none Details | Review
Amended patch (848 bytes, patch)
2006-11-27 00:27 UTC, saulgoode
committed Details | Review

Description saulgoode 2006-11-26 23:01:48 UTC
Please describe the problem:
In the Color Balance tool, the option to select the "Range to Adjust" (shadows|midtones|highlights) does not properly differentiate between the "highlights" and the "midtones".

Steps to reproduce:
1. Duplicate a layer
2. Apply some extreme Color balance settings to the Midtones of one of the layers.
3. Apply the same settings to the Highlights of the other layer.




Actual results:
There is very little difference between the two different layers.

Expected results:
The two different operations would effect two noticeably different results.

Does this happen every time?
Yes.

Other information:
A "cut-n-paste" typographical error seems to have been introduced into the function 'color_balance_transfer_init()' in the file "app/base/color-balance.c".

A simple patch will be forthcoming.
Comment 1 saulgoode 2006-11-26 23:06:20 UTC
Created attachment 77179 [details] [review]
Proposed fixed.

This patch implements the function in what I think to be the manner originally intended.
Comment 2 saulgoode 2006-11-27 00:27:43 UTC
Created attachment 77183 [details] [review]
Amended patch

I overlooked what appears to be an indexing problem for the existing code as well.

Note: I am confident that the pre-existing behavior of this filter is anomalous; however, I am not at all certain that my patch implements things as the original programmer intended.
Comment 3 Sven Neumann 2006-11-27 10:08:27 UTC
I think you are right. Thanks for spotting this. I have committed a somewhat cleaner version that should be easier to understand and harder to get wrong.