You are losing detail in the clouds department, and the cliffs on the left have almost vanished.
That’s why i mixed it with the original. Maybe you could mix only the sky and cliff ?
You’d need a huge picture to keep the details without mixing.
And it would depend on the type of pictures.
I know Uglify doesn’t like grass or very detailed images.
I think the abstraction - or loss of detail - is what gives the originals their charm.
In my opinion no need to preserve them.
Or replace them with fake brush strokes or structure of a canvas.
True. I went back to the original version and downloaded a copy, but it will take a while to upload my improved version. Working on tax papers.
I’m sort of on the side of both of you. When I look at the original, there are some details that can be “simplified” as were the lake and forest. I need a little time.
When you say “1st filter” do you mean you did some coding or scripting? Because that cross hatch has potential esp if it did not go lighter near the edges. I can’t give specific advice because I’ve never delved into the guts of GIMP fx.
But in the original, or in watercolor, it’s the paper that gives a textured look, or even the shape of things. Without it, it looks less interesting ( to me)
Yes, I wrote the filter with g’mic. It was my first.
The canvas has already a life of it’s own here : Testing > Prawnsushi. You can change the color too. I use it sometimes in my other scripts.
@okieman you could also give stylize a try:
1 Like
Well, then put in on paper, like the original. Printing is always good.
Yes, no need for texture if you print evrything.
But why bother faking it and printing when you can just use a brush and paint it?
Anyway, I never print, I live in the digital world 
I only stack everything in a hard drive and forget about it. Printing will only fill the house…
Oh btw the canvas texture is optional.
2 Likes
Here is a bit of sky restoration from the @Ofnuts original, only built-in GIMP fx. I’ve lost track of how many cooks were in the kitchen. But this is a good “thinking exercise”.
1 Like
Have you tried converting the image to indexed mode? I played around with this several years ago, and cannot fully remember all the details. In essence, change the image to index mode, and select how many colours you want - so far like posterise. But, if I remember rightly, you can then save the colours used to a palette. You can then edit that palette to change the colours and reapply the palette back to the original. To further process the image, you have to change the image back to RGB mode. Sorry, if this sounds a bit hazy, but it is at least ten years since I last tried.
Writing this reminded me of the technique and I have just been playing around. I am currently doing a project photographing the vegetation on verges, margins and waste land, to highlight the biodiversity of such places. This is of course green on green. I have just done a quick test using indexed mode, and found it quite helpful separating out very similar colours.
Sorry, I see you already have tried. Apologies for not reading the topic more fully,
No sweat. Both Indexed and Colors>Posterize have a similar ability. I like Posterize better for two reasons: 1-It shows me a preview the instant I select a new number of colors, and 2-The aesthetics are more pleasing. I pulled up a test image just now and tried both tools. I noticed that, with Indexed, there was some odd look like gravel in an area that was supposed to be smooth.
This might be color dithering which, as far as i know, simulates smooth transitions with noise.
Well, yes, but actually no.
It looks like noise, but noise are attributed to randomly generated values, and dithering usually doesn’t involve randomly generated values, but ruleset to defines how colors are inserted.
@Reptorian Damn, my first answer was “simulates smooth transitions with dots”. Changed it at the last second.
I briefly remembered that, but what I was seeing was more like golf balls than dots. This is a 300ppi image tested at 16 colors. Here is the section I noticed. From an image of small trees in a field, in fog, sidelit by morning.
Really looks like dithering.
You can deactivate this in Gimp when you index the image to 16 colors:
Here’s the difference :
Dithering:
No dithering:
1 Like
Wow; two things going on here …
I almost never touch Indexing and don’t know much about it.
Also, for some reason, I thought dithering was preferred. Turns out, not always!
You did vegetation on your filter?
What a silly question! Of course I did, I don’t like empty spaces.