4 ms·
We have Krita now. I don't know much about it, but it seems to be able to do many of the same things.
by gpvos 6y ago
We have Krita now. I don't know much about it, but it seems to be able to do many of the same things.
- BeetleB 6y agoKrita can do quite a few basic things, and a few advanced things that Gimp can't, but they're really not in the same league. If you're a serious photo editor, Krita is quite lacking, and will always be - they do not intend to be a photo editor.
- archerx 6y agoI rather edit my photos in Krita than suffer through gimp any day.
- BeetleB 6y agoFor most photographers, that's the equivalent of "I'd rather have ugly photos than use Gimp." If Krita does what you need, that's fine. But for even basic "serious" photoediting, it's lacking. Krita, as they themselves point out, is a drawing program, not a photo editor.
- archerx 6y agoYou make a lot of assumptions. You have never seen my photos yet you feel ok to call them ugly. So much for being objective right? Keep assuming though, you know what they say about it.
- BeetleB 6y ago> You have never seen my photos yet you feel ok to call them ugly. I did no such thing. There's a reason my comment had a qualifier.
- mackrevinack 6y agoonly thing I don't understand in krita is the stamp/clone tool so I open glimpse (gimp) if I need to do anything that involves that. otherwise I do everything in krita these days. the interface is nicer, the hotkeys make more sense and I find it easier to work with layers