GIMP FX-Foundry Convolution Matrix Presets script is a requirement for this script.
It is a package of scripts and can be found at this link.
http://registry.gimp.org/node/13661

No GMIC is needed.

Edgey will put very subtle edges on flowers using low settings like .1 .2 .3
It also will do some strong 'emboss' like treatments at high settings 100
There is a pixel shift vertical and/or horizontal which can make 'hairy' edges
at very low settings 1, 2, 3 or reduce the 'gloss' on an image at low-low mid.

Black version: hoping for critique and/or suggestion!

Top at 1.0 setting (strong for this photo, it can be lowered down to .1)
Mid at 6.0
Bottom at 100 with color washed

Here are a couple of stong examples

it seems there is a prerequisite

I did not realize that the convolution was from GIMP FX-Foundry.
Thank you Dinasset!

It seems that using defaults, the outcome on a figurative image is not nice (at least to my taste)
original



could you double-check?

Thanks Brian for the new plugin.
I admire the creativity.
I like such filters when there are many parameters.
Iccii-Convolution-Presets.scm this "almost" standard.
Trifle on line 185 - repeat "mode" (HARDLIGHT_MODE_MODE).

Dinasset,

I will try after work.
I was working mostly on flowers, shrubs and landscapes as usual.
If the default is .5
please try lowering it down to .1 or .2

MareroQ, thank you!
The new zip has the correction.

Here is the repaired version! (on page 1)
I appreciate critique and suggestion.

And a couple more

Using defaults I get 3 layers and a "resulting" outcome of white borders on black.
Is this what you wanted or it's just me?

That is what I wanted for option 0,
I changed to option 1 for default!
rls1a

Thank you!

OK

Animicule. I like your new script especially with the more subtle to mid range. Have been busy with company for the holidays and getting ready for Christmas so not having much time for play. However I am getting in quality Grandma time!!

Quality Grandma time is very good for you Pat!
Take lots of photos.

Congrats, Pat. Nice results.
Animicule, yours are beautiful like usual. I don't get good results wit the filter yet. I don't know how to set the right values.

Pat, very delicate grasshopper details, had to look close to see the difference with this monitor (at my mother's baking (burning) cookies).


A bit of explaination..
the amount entry - for faces should remain low (can depend on subject size too) 1.0 would
usually be too much and .05 may not be easy to see.
For 'dramatic' clouds and landscapes, try 40- 100 for amount - it makes the outcome kind of 'dirty'
---
If you can't see much differents, the output % is too low, no effect will show, try using 100% to start with for the output % (this was added because when I used a high enough amount to make thicker edges, a lot of the time the outcome layer looked better to me with a lower opacity).
the option 1 is probably the least 'distorted' output option.

It is a very fast script so can run several
different options quickly to look at them.
One of the layers names has the options that were chosen as the name
so if you do several and find one that is closest it will tell you your choices.
in options 1,2,3 the output on top and the subject at the very bottom of the stack should
both be the 'visible' layers and you may turn the top (outcome) layer off and on to
compare them to help decide.

I find myself experimenting with this at 2.0 to 4.0 before running other filters as some
filters give a different result when there are 'borders'

Those are very nice animicule