I don't I see anything as impertinent.
I have 2 concerns about putting a gamma reading in the White Balance module.
1. It is redundant. It would provide nothing that isn't already in the Gamma module. I understood why folks wanted RGB data in the Gamma module. I find the need for gamma data in the White Balance module harder to understand.
2. It adds a layer of complexity to the White Balance module that wouldn't otherwise be there. It is not just an extra data point. It also adds the requirement of first taking a reading at 100%, because gamma cannot be calculated until you do this.
I don't think that the example of color space drop-downs in the Color Management module offers a useful analogy. Selecting a working color space and a target Gamut are requirements for color management. Selecting a particular gamma response is not a requirement for getting good white balance. I get that some want to do both on the same screen, and I agree. This is what the Gamma module is for.
Thanks for reply Tom.
It's your software which I have been happy to buy and use so who am I to question its design, hence my advance apologies in case it was seen as impertinent.
My post was an attempt to accommodate users different preferences not only to to do with that particular Raw Data gamma suggestion..
Thank you again for incorporating the 75% saturation patterns, calibration is much faster now, even when done manually.