Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Krita 5.0 Beta Released With Better Performance, UI Polishing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AHOY
    replied
    Originally posted by mppix View Post
    Yes, GIMP invented GTK.
    No, GIMP stable has not made it past version 2.0 so far (fyi, this is the version used in used in Gnome's 'golden days').
    No, GIMP does not follow the Gnome ui guidelines.
    Yes, the interface would likely improve a lot if they did
    When you get to the third paragraph and realize I'm not only talking about some buttons in the UI let me know. GIMP like GNOME was made by New Humans for New Humans.

    Leave a comment:


  • mppix
    replied
    Originally posted by AHOY View Post
    For GIMP you could add more money, more developers, a new interface, CMYK, 2 clowns, NDE, compatibility with the entire Adobe Suite, and it would still suck because it's using GTK and it suffers from an incurable disease called GNOMEtitis.
    I had a good laugh on the expense of the author of this statement.

    Yes, GIMP invented GTK.
    No, GIMP stable has not made it past version 2.0 so far (fyi, this is the version used in used in Gnome's 'golden days').
    No, GIMP does not follow the Gnome ui guidelines.
    Yes, the interface would likely improve a lot if they did

    Leave a comment:


  • RomuloP
    replied
    Originally posted by rabcor View Post
    But I really should check it out because it's been idk 2 years maybe since I last gave it a shot, hopefully it's a bit better now. Those new brush engines look freaking incredible, they're starting to encroach on corel painter's territory now which is awesome.
    I recommend you to do this, because mostly it will depend on the brush and adjustments made to it, I've not take my time to move from 3.x upward as I tend to prefer solid builds, but I think that it is a good time to move to 4.x. I've taken some hours to play with 5.0 and got impressed with performance evolution, here is my experience with smudge brushes at 1000 pixels on a 6.9k x 9.9k canvas, sort of A1 300 ppi and instant preview on:

    Leave a comment:


  • Darksurf
    replied
    I absolutely love Krita. I seen it a few times, finally gave it a try, I love it way more than gimp. Sorry, but Gimp's UI is a nightmare. Krita has streamlined and merged a bunch of tools and functions into brushes in a really good way. Eraser? Brush. Blend, smear, dodge, burn, stamp, etc? Brushes. The toolbox is simplified and uniform. It feels like Photoshop CS2 in my old Photoshop days.

    Leave a comment:


  • AHOY
    replied
    Yawns. Whatever feature Krita is missing is just that, a missing feature. Add more money and even more competent developers and it can be another Blender.

    For GIMP you could add more money, more developers, a new interface, CMYK, 2 clowns, NDE, compatibility with the entire Adobe Suite, and it would still suck because it's using GTK and it suffers from an incurable disease called GNOMEtitis.

    Once Krita reaches that sweet spot it's going to grow exponentially and it will eat the world. That's the power of open source and a project with direction and who listens to feedback.

    Leave a comment:


  • RomuloP
    replied
    Originally posted by Mavman View Post
    You did not dive too deep into the photomanipulation, but i don't use Krita for digital paint. I use Krita just for photomanipulation!
    It's at least just as good as Gimp or PhotoShop..
    I personally don't see it as question of better or worse... These tools are just different, and will improve in different ways the diversity of skills that the most diverse people out there have. Each one of those tools boost my time to result, precision, among other things, differently in different tasks.

    I know there is other ways to correct black tonality or cyan saturation in CMYK without Photoshop's selective color adjustment filter, but I suck at that in other tools and Photoshop give me the the capability of being more precise. I know there is other ways to paint in CMYK completely avoiding colors contaminated by K component or guaranteeing no more than 25% k component but Krita makes this a lot simpler to me thanks to per layers color spaces and non destructive filters. And at same time GIMP level filter make me more productive and preciser than Krita one, even if with some work around, I can get both to do the same.
    Last edited by RomuloP; 20 August 2021, 04:35 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mppix
    replied
    Originally posted by Mavman View Post

    U serious?!?!?!?!

    I've done professional photo edit in Krita many many many times before!!!
    Actually, i don't understand all the complaint about feature lack in Krita for Photo edit... Seriously!

    Explore the software correctly. It's everything right there! And when some - very specific - feature is not there (it happened a few versions some years ago) there is surely a workaround to accomplish the same result (without leaving krita)
    Quite serious sir. Nobody says that you cannot edit pictures in Krita.
    However, saying that Krita competes with Photoshop or GIMP (even GIMP cannot always compete with PS) put you in the amateur corner (where it may be a good or even better solution). Anyhow, this is an example of an open-source professional workflow (quite old, and does not describe proofing/printing)
    https://petapixel.com/2015/10/19/my-...aphy-workflow/

    Leave a comment:


  • Mavman
    replied
    Originally posted by rabcor View Post

    Also to the people saying that Krita has less features than GIMP or is worse than GIMP For photomanipulation? That's just misinformation

    ...

    The way I see it as someone who has used both programs quite a bit, everything GIMP does Krita does better, I did not dive too deep into the photomanipulation aspect of things however so I might actually be wrong about this, I acknowledge this, but Krita is actually very decent for photomanipulation, it's not on photoshop's level, not by a longshot, but neither is GIMP.
    I totally agree that krita being worse for Photomanipulation is "just misinformation".

    You did not dive too deep into the photomanipulation, but i don't use Krita for digital paint. I use Krita just for photomanipulation!
    It's at least just as good as Gimp or PhotoShop.

    You can do anything in it you can do in either of the other two.
    Last edited by Mavman; 20 August 2021, 06:49 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mavman
    replied
    Originally posted by mppix View Post
    You can professionally edit a photo in gimp (plenty do) - but not in krita.
    U serious?!?!?!?!

    I've done professional photo edit in Krita many many many times before!!!
    Actually, i don't understand all the complaint about feature lack in Krita for Photo edit... Seriously!

    Explore the software correctly. It's everything right there! And when some - very specific - feature is not there (it happened a few versions some years ago) there is surely a workaround to accomplish the same result (without leaving krita)

    Leave a comment:


  • Mavman
    replied
    Originally posted by mppix View Post

    Krita is _not_ more complete/powerful than GIMP but it is more intuitive
    And

    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
    This is correct. To be exact Krita is in fact less feature rich.
    I've worked in all three programs and I have to say that i do not agree!
    Regarding Photo Manipulation I have yet to find something i can do on Photoshop or in Gimp that i can't accomplish in Krita.

    As such ( Regarding Photo Manipulation ) i do not agree. I won't say it is more complete, but i would say it is at least as complete as Gimp or Photoshop.

    Some things may take a little more, yes. But then again, the same thing is truth for some other features when i try to use Gimp or Photoshop

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X