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

The script gives me errors. FX Foundry doesn't exist anymore, so is there an updated version of this script that doesn't include FX Foundry?

Here is my file on FX Foundry. This is what is on my computer and listed on the Gimp Registry. Here is an example:




I did not make drastic changes in the default settings as I usually go for small changes.

Those are very pretty Pat.

Thank you, Molly.

The Chrominium filter in FX Foundry needs fixing since you can't delete it. If you delete the script you run the risk of getting the error about the ToolBox . To have the background as the top layer for that script makes no sense. With that said, I still get errors while using FX Foundry.
The Chrominium script I'm referring to is xtns-bodor-chrominium in Gimp it's listed under FX Foundry>Alpha to Logo

A late thank you Molly!
Your new outcomes with the floral dragonfly look excellent Pat!

Sorry to hear that you are having troubles using this script machenzieh.
I know of no other way to get the convolution matrix that this depends upon
other than the one in FX Foundry. I would not be able to make this script with out using the convolution matrix.
Perhaps someone more expert would be able to do so, but I cannot.
I do not remember using the chromium filter in this script, only the convolution matrix.

Pat, wonderful image.
I don't get nice images yet with this filter. I'd like to have some reference for settings and results.
I got the only one acceptable with this filter with this image.

About using it, see my post on the other specific thread.
About deleting it, if you mean "removing the (whole) .scm filter from the scripts folder", I did add it then remove it without any problem. I didn't try to remove ONLY the Alpha to logo part (altering the source of the .scm), because I do not see much sense in it.

I confirm: animicule's filter makes use ONLY of the convolution matrix, it works with and without chrominium in the scripts folder.

animicule can post here a mini tutorial about its use, parameters are not so "easy" to understand.
Neither me got any interesting effect so far.