https://mastodon.online/@dominikasafko/112270427923307005
Just a friendly reminder example for all those people who only ever heard of GIMP and not wanting to let go of their Adobe products because they don't like GIMP. Krita deserves more wide spread attention. https://krita.org/en/features/
Krita is more of a painting program.
Doesn't matter as it has functionalities for doing normal editing too.
It does, but the ui isn't really designed around that. I draw in krita and edit images in gimp. Doing it the other way would suck for both uses.
Why would it suck to edit images in Krita? It's just you are not used to. There is no other reason. I go even further and say it probably suck less to edit images in Krita versus GIMP, for general purpose. That's why I am switching to it.
Because the experience is designed around different use cases.
In Krita primary use cases are for painting and drawing so those tools and features are front and centre, easier to reach and remember.
In Gimp the focus is on editing, filtering, effects
I think you are wrong. Both tools allow for editing images in general purpose. What exactly do you even mean? The tools are there like in GIMP and as easy to reach and remember. Just because the one program has better brushes than the other does not invalidate the usage of everything else. And even if you were right, it would be helpful if someone creates tutorials like on GIMP.
I mean, you're free to continue using your crescent wrench as a hammer if you find it drives nails for you decently well and you are comfortable using it that way. But it was neither designed with that purpose in mind, nor does anyone expect you to use it that way, so no one will be writing how-to guides on it.
The comparison does not work, because I think Krita is a better general purpose editor than GIMP. You can keep declaring Krita being a hammer, but you are wrong. Krita is not a single tool, it is a set of tools that includes a hammer and a drill. While GIMP lacks the hammer and only has a drill. These metaphoric comparisons are just misleading.
The UI is not the problem in Krita (can be personalized anyway), it has more features for general purpose editing than GIMP. You just keep telling people that Krita was not designed for the task. It does not matter. Because it has the functionality and is well build for general purpose editing. You are just victim of the marketing.
Hmm, I'm not expressing my opinion, these are the statements from the creators of the tools themselves
Krita is a professional FREE and open source painting program. It is made by artists that want to see affordable art tools for everyone.
It IS a painting program, the reason why you can do a lot of the same things that you can in GIMP is because all of those features are useful in both to both painters and editors
GIMP is a multi-tool it can do illustration but it's focus is more general purpose and more on being an GNU Image Manipulation Program
Again, these are not my opinions, these are objectionable facts taken from the source.
If you disagree with these you are fine to do so, but telling people they are wrong is just ridiculous and looks wilfully ignorant or argumentative
Just because a statement as an objective fact, does not make it to one. If a program is suited for general purpose editing is an opinion. And what the developers say doesn't matter in this point. We have our own judgement and opinion.
But you are doing it yourself (with the argumentation it being an objective fact). So if you call people out, then don't do it yourself. If people are wrong, then I will tell them they are wrong. Krita is a better general purpose editing tool than GIMP is.
But guys like you are just repeating what others say, even if its wrong. Krita is not a painting tool, it is a tool that does painting and general purpose editing. It does not matter what you call the application and how it is marketed from the developers. It is better suited as a general editing tool than GIMP. And I use GIMP since 2008 or so.
Well you haven't convinced me
So you.
Would it be understandable to compare Gimp and Krita to Photoshop and Illustrator? If so, which is closer to which?
Not really both Krita and GIMP works mainly on raster images like Photoshop. Illustator is a vector graphic software. The closest foss relative of which would be Inkscape.
The thing is, Photoshop was born as a photo manipulation tool but the drawing functionality has become an industry standard (I think mostly because they give free licenses to students). GIMP is a photo manipulation tool and Krita is a digital painting software. They have overlap but neither of them aim at replacing Photoshop as a whole. GIMP may be the closest match. Krita is more comparable to ClipStudio or Corel painter imo.
Thank you for the insight! I rather work with logos, icons or other flat and vector drawings usually, a lot of the time upscaling or working up from zero so Krita looked rather irrelevant with how the those types of tools were not readily apparent. I'll check Inkscpae for this.
And/or Scribus. It can also import .ai files, sometimes even to something recognizable.
Sorry, but NO. Scribus is a page layout app. It is not intended for image creation/manipulation. That is truly using a shoe for hammer, or a hammer for a screwdriver or a screwdriver for a butter knife.
You can use Word for page layout or image manipulation too. Again, screwdriver for a butter knife. Right tool for the job and all.
You're right. I think I was confusing it with InDesign.
Illustrator was once more like FontForge + Inkscape. I haven't used any recent versions though.