Krita 5.0 Beta Released With Better Performance, UI Polishing

[rabcor]

With instant preview I've already worked with 500 pixel size smudge brushes and almost no lag. Still not took my time to test 5.0 but my eyes are glowing for this 'paint thicknes' among new engine features, its almost real oil there

Yeah, almost no lag at 500 pixel size brushes is not good enough for me, I mean sure, most of the time you don't have to work with brushes that big but usually in the beginning of a painting you do, especially when working at large resolutions, sometimes it's nice to go even all the way up to 1000 pixels to lay down a base for whatever you're gonna be painting on top of it, and sometimes you're just using weird niche techniques that work better with large brush sizes, there's all sorts of possible reasons but 'almost no lag' is not good enough for me. An even just slightly lagging brush is an awful experience to me.

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.

[oiaohm]

I guess we should compare krita to inkscape not gimp then.

inkscape is a different beast being 100% vector graphics focused. Krita is raster graphics that can work with vector graphics. Gimp and photoshop also raster graphics that can use vector graphics in different places but these places are limited.

Mind you Krita level of vector graphics support is good enough to get it recognised as a usable vector graphics editor but that is not its core engine. Krita I think is the only one that in fact stands in the middle between vector graphics and raster graphics that is a editor for both.

Krita being a odd ball here does make it hard to compare at times. Like should krita be compared to adobe photoshop/gimp or should it be compared to adobe Illustrator/inkscape... or should it be compared to both groups. I would say both groups because krita does sit in the middle.

Yes some of the reason why Krita is seams feature count equal to gimp when its not is the fact the vector side of Krita is developed out more.

In vector features Krita is weak to inkscape and illustrator and in the raster graphics features krita is weak compared to gimp and photoshop. But for a person doing drawing work not having to change tools and have a good mix of raster graphics features and vector graphics features makes Krita a good tool. In total feature count krita is weak to both gimp and inkscape but is this important.

Having the most features is not the most important thing. Have the right mix of features is a very important thing to productive.

This is why it so hard to compare krita. You cannot really say krita has the most feature not compared to gimp/inkscape. But there is also no other software in active development really like Krita that walks the middle line between being raster graphics editor and being vector graphics editor.

Also Krita is also 2d animation software. Again krita not a massive heavy feature version of that either.

Krita kind of the 2d version of early blender where where its not really the best class in one particular area but its good enough all areas that it alone would let you get your work done. When you have to be changing software a lot it does disrupt your creative process. Items like this seam very feature rich users because they are a fusion of tools even when they are in fact very light on in features but the features the user has is the ones they will be using more often.

[mppix]

inkscape is a different beast being 100% vector graphics focused. Krita is raster graphics that can work with vector graphics. Gimp and photoshop also raster graphics that can use vector graphics in different places but these places are limited.

Mind you Krita level of vector graphics support is good enough to get it recognised as a usable vector graphics editor but that is not its core engine. Krita I think is the only one that in fact stands in the middle between vector graphics and raster graphics that is a editor for both.

Krita being a odd ball here does make it hard to compare at times. Like should krita be compared to adobe photoshop/gimp or should it be compared to adobe Illustrator/inkscape... or should it be compared to both groups. I would say both groups because krita does sit in the middle.

Yes some of the reason why Krita is seams feature count equal to gimp when its not is the fact the vector side of Krita is developed out more.

In vector features Krita is weak to inkscape and illustrator and in the raster graphics features krita is weak compared to gimp and photoshop. But for a person doing drawing work not having to change tools and have a good mix of raster graphics features and vector graphics features makes Krita a good tool. In total feature count krita is weak to both gimp and inkscape but is this important.

Having the most features is not the most important thing. Have the right mix of features is a very important thing to productive.

This is why it so hard to compare krita. You cannot really say krita has the most feature not compared to gimp/inkscape. But there is also no other software in active development really like Krita that walks the middle line between being raster graphics editor and being vector graphics editor.

Also Krita is also 2d animation software. Again krita not a massive heavy feature version of that either.

Krita kind of the 2d version of early blender where where its not really the best class in one particular area but its good enough all areas that it alone would let you get your work done. When you have to be changing software a lot it does disrupt your creative process. Items like this seam very feature rich users because they are a fusion of tools even when they are in fact very light on in features but the features the user has is the ones they will be using more often.

You have not arguments from me
I really like Krita, it is just not the most specialize tool for anything (and that is both, a critique and compliment!)

[Mavman]

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

And

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

[Mavman]

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)

[Mavman]

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.

[mppix]

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-free-and-open-source-photography-workflow/

[RomuloP]

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.

[AHOY]

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.

[Darksurf]

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.