3 ms·

Thanks for that. I'm a fairly casual user of GIMP, using it just to tweak graphics for web pages rather than "serious" creative design work. I use GIMP simply

Thanks for that. I'm a fairly casual user of GIMP, using it just to tweak graphics for web pages rather than "serious" creative design work. I use GIMP simply because I wasn't aware that any other acceptable open-source Photoshop-alternatives even exist. How would you compare Krita, Paint.NET, and the Cinepaint fork for untrained web graphic users?

mschaef 12y ago
If all you're doing is tweaking icon-style graphics for web pages then Gimp is still a good choice. Where Gimp really starts to fall short is when you need color management, alternative color spaces, and bit-depths beyond 8bpp. For me personally this means that I don't use Gimp for photo editing; For that, I switched to Adobe Lightroom a few years ago. It's not open source, but it's inexpensive, it works very well, and has a feature set that's closely aligned to a photographic workflow.
paulmd 12y ago
I have not used the other two for comparison, but Paint.Net is my go-to recommendation for casual graphics editing. It's not Photoshop or Illustrator, of course, but all the features you need for basic photo adjustments and light-duty layout type stuff. At a glance, Krita looks pretty nice for doing artworks from scratch.