@gadolf Thanks for the kind words. Because of the short focal length, the head and chest are in an almost caricature proportion to the rest of the body. If I had a grasp on how the liquify module worked, i would like to further exaggerate this and then look to Gimp/G’mic to make it somewhat cartoon-like. Just a thought. 
1 Like
@gadolf I followed up on what I had in mind.
Using the warp transform tool in Gimp and G’mic/Artistic/Illustration Look at default settings.
5 Likes
That’s cool, a really distinct look! Thanks.
You’re welcome. Thanks for the kind words! A while back. a good friend had a dog that yours really reminds me of. In a way, this was a tribute to her as well!
Thanks for the heads up, @sls141. Nice work!
I saved the sidecar file from the first, less exaggerated version.
I want to study it better.
Usually, I’m not prone to such effects, but the one you got might be interesting in some occasions, and indeed made this nice image even more interesting.
If I use it, I’ll credit as the @sls141 filter
1 Like
Good fun! Looking forward to more adventurous takes in your future PlayRaws. 
1 Like
Thanks! I didn’t spend a lot of time with the warp transform tool. That’s all new to me. I found a few videos on using it for caricature and can definitely benefit from a lot more practice using it in that manner. I had to use the default settings on the Illustration Look filter because of the error message.
With RawTherapee you can achieve an effect similar to @sls141 with the ‘tone mapping’ module:
I couldn’t help myself from doing this once my G’MiC previews got fixed thanks to @rich2005.
I used the color version in my first post with a few small tweaks.DSC08790.ARW.xmp (16.6 KB)
G’MIC inpaint to get rid of the stick in the foreground.
G’MIC Dream Smoothing with default setting except the iterations maxed out at 10.
Then blended the Dream Smoothing with the original, at 90%.
Gimp Shadows and highlights and the airbrush to tame some of the highlights that were too much.
G’MIC Black & White at default settings.
1 Like
@sls141 Nice! Getting down to the nitty-gritty, what I am uncomfortable with is the fan-shaped halo around the dog in the clouds.
I see what you mean. That is in the first edit but less pronounced. The shadows & highlights adjustment seems to have done that. It’s easy enough to airbrush over that. 
@s7habo
You placed several modules that normally come before filmic in the pixel pipe after filmic. E.g., color balance, channel mixer, exposure, and sharpen. I know that channel mixer sometimes gives strange results when used before filmic, so there can be advantages to moving it, but what about the others. Would you explain the benefit?
I hope you don’t mind me answering this one…
The modules that @s7habo placed outside of the exposure->filmic part of the pipeline do not influence filmic (=result up to that stage) any longer.
If you first tweak/set exposure and filmic and later on start working with the color balance module in its original place in the pipeline (or one of the others you mention) you influence the way filmic behaves because you just changed the input parameters that filmic works with (input was exposure module settings. It now is exposure+color balance settings).
The difference isn’t always easy to notice/see but it is definitely worth considering when you are editing an image.
This is one of the reasons why holding on tightly to the linear RGB way/order of doing things isn’t always a good idea. You do need to be looking out for halos, artifacts and the likes. But isn’t being critical of the end result a necessary part of the edit, even if you do everything by the linear RGB book?
1 Like
It’s quite simple: After I have set up filmic to my satisfaction, I want to continue my work there.
For example, after filmic I want to increase the contrast in specific areas. Then I use the color balance module afterwards. When filmic is above color balance, it sometimes protects the highlights too much, which I might not want, etc.
LOL @Jade_NL was quicker 
1 Like