Sorry for the shortform…as Chris noted…“with resepect to”
Easy to make it ‘pretty pink’ but who knows what the original color was … or do we really care.
Those look very natural close to the original flower. I like the rich colored (yellow) staminal that is convincing. Also, the petals have nice transition of colors. I will check your processing via xmp. Thank you!
I think you get a fair idea from the unprocessed raw or you could pull out the JPG…with flowers there is always lots of room for creative edit for sure especially vibrant ones
Why do you prefer to sharpen in GIMP rather than in dt? Which tool do you use in GIMP?
my version - maybe sharpened it a little more than usual (using contrast equaliser) but the stamen seemed pretty soft? i pretty much used my standard process (i shoot a lot of flowers - was taking some of the peonies in my garden just this morning ; )
_DSF5730.RAF.xmp (35.0 KB)
2 Likes
@aurelienpierre - damn i was quite pleased with mine until you came along with your new and improved 3.7 version : ) 
i like the colours in mine but you squeezed out a lot more definition - nice job!
1 Like
We’ll have shiny new toys under the Christmas tree
2 Likes
just right (to my taste) ! can you reproduce basically the same with 3.4.1 and post the xmp ?
No, I can’t, sorry. The code necessary to do it is not in 3.4.
the horror ! my fatal enemy…
3 Likes
Some versions of my edit had it…it was the sharpen module or contrast eq I forget but I did get rid of it…mine was much darker…almost black
8 Likes
When will the diffuse module get merged do you think?? Soon after 3.6??
If it is related to Possibly a new deconvolution module for Darktable, then it may still take a while. I think the time spent is trying to get it to be fast enough for practical use.
AP why dithering for this image and you modified the defaults to random and -60db…what guides that decision and setting?? Just curious