5 ms·
Call me paranoid, but I think it's harmful for Krita when someone frames it as a Photoshop alternative - because it really isn't. It is a program targeted spec
by Gualdrapo 2y ago
Call me paranoid, but I think it's harmful for Krita when someone frames it as a Photoshop alternative - because it really isn't.
It is a program targeted specifically at digital painting. Yes, it can do some "basic" image manipulation like Photoshop does, and even you can do some animation stuff too - but it doesn't intend to target everything image manipulation wise as Photoshop does. I for one as a graphic designer use more tools alongside it, as GraphicsMagick or Digikam's Showfoto, because there's some stuff that it's easier to do with them, or they can do some stuff Krita can't.
People hears that Krita is "a photoshop alternative" in countless comments, blog posts and etcetera and can get frustrated when they find something is lacking. And they can be one of those people that bitch about FOSS because they couldn't manage to do that specific task they can with propietary software.
- hallarempt 2y agoWell, as Halla, the Krita maintainer, I kind agree. Image manipulation is not a goal. But for animation, we have a very specific goal. What we want to see is someone doing a looney Tunes like hand-drawn animation in Krita. And I've seen some, so mission accomplished!
- RobotToaster 2y ago> And they can be one of those people that bitch about FOSS because they couldn't manage to do that specific task they can with propietary software. I doubt they will bitch less if people recommend GIMP.
- shortformblog 2y agoI’ve used Photoshop for 25 years, a decade of that as a professional designer. I disagree. Krita is a worthy Photoshop alternative. It has things in areas software explicitly marketed as a Photoshop alternative does not have. Plus it feels intuitive, like Photoshop. I sort of feel like this shield is unnecessary and in some ways harms Krita, a great tool.