Hi, I would like to know how would you develop the following image taken in north germany 
This is my version:
darktable 3.9.0+1634~g54e57ec83
DSC09200.ARW.xmp (14.1 KB)
DSC09200.ARW (24.2 MB)
This file is licensed [Creative Commons, By-Attribution, Share-Alike]
Thanks for sharing. I will try to present a version later…just a quick comment on my end with my display the trees look a bit crunchy…
I rather enjoy the crunchiness. The dry vs the moist. Still, the ripples could be comparatively a little softer to accentuate the differences.
I see quite a lot of potential in this photo from a technical perspective and an artistic one. I hope it receives the attention it deserves.
Thanks for sharing. A first quick try in GIMP. Just local (zonal) adjustments to brightness and contrast.
DSC09200.ARW.xmp (15.9 KB)
Very nice version! I like the foliage better than mine. It seems that you used the display referred workflow. Funnily enough I don’t have any experience with that workflow, because I discovered darktable when the new scene referred workflow was already activated by default.
Anyway I’m learning the modules that you used there. Thanks!
It is a scene referred workflow, pratically is a manual filmic curve.
I do in this because is the only way to have in darktable a simple rgb tonemapping without fancy things.
For this image I have putted tone equalizer after the log conversion because is easier to use for me
I see some haloing in my edit (after the resize), your edit is haloes free
Really saturated… but makes the sky look nice.
I made a subtle version with the least processing possible using PhotoFlow + G’MIC to let the composition shine.
I’m having a hard time trying to understand your edit 
Where do you do the tonemapping? In the unbreak input profile module or in the rgb levels module?
Thanks!
Thanks for your edit! If I see it correctly, you use tone curves and shadows and highlights instead of filmic rgb. What advantages do you see in this approach?
If you look at my other recent edits, you will see that I do not use the “legacy” methods in general. I also like to use filmic rgb. But if I can get the effects I want easier with the old modules, I am not reluctant to use them.
As far as I understand, it’s not problematic to use these modules at the end of the pipeline, when the high dynamic range has already been reduced. In summary, I use what helps me in practice.
Nice sky! You also do no use filmic. Are you using the display referred workflow?
I think I’m going to take a look at this way of editing.
I have to confess the color in my eidt was deeper than I might choose to do just more or less to make a point based on the OP comments. As to your remarks I have been experimenting a lot with not using filmic… I will often just try setting the exposure using autoexposure or with a certain icc profile and then I will use the tone eq, color balance and diffuse and sharpen… For that edit I could just use chroma and pull it back a bit maybe masking for yellows … I tried that and the result was less intense than what I originally came up with… I find in a way that editing something esp like a sunset that you did not experience is really boiling down to personal taste and bias. I bet there are several versions of this image that could be edited and on their own if it was the first time I saw the image, I would say wow nice sunset…Even if your memory is foggy or you have bias you as the photographer will still have a memory …perceived or accurate or whatever that others can only guess on as they did not experience the real life version of what has been captured.
