Krita may have started out as a photo editor, but that’s clearly not its focus today.
Editing features were not removed, so it’s still a capable image editor, formal focus or not.
Krita may have started out as a photo editor, but that’s clearly not its focus today.
Editing features were not removed, so it’s still a capable image editor, formal focus or not.
danielton1@lemmy.world 1 day ago
They were either never added, or they feel clunky to use. Either way, the GIMP is better suited even if it’s uglier.
Krita is a great tool for artists, but I’m not going to force myself to use it instead of the GIMP, and I’m not going to tell others it’s designed for something it’s not. I’ll keep checking in on it, but until it does what I need it to, it’s not going to become my main tool for photo editing.
woelkchen@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
No, not for all use cases outside of painting. I listed a couple, you ignored them. Using GTK on non-Gnome systems is an objectively worse experience other than mere looks. GTK’s brain dead file pickers for example. Absolutely unusable.
github.com/Acly/krita-ai-diffusion and github.com/Acly/krita-vision-tools don’t exist for Gimp either (I know of two that work with cloud services but not local).
“Yes, the focus shifted to painting a bunch of years ago but Krita still started out as “KImageShop”. There are many image editing features available” is an objectively true statement I made. People saying that Krita is not suitable at all for image editing are in the wrong. Krita handles both editing and painting.
That’s fine and I moved on from Gimp.
danielton1@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
I didn’t say the GIMP is better for all use cases. I said it’s better for my use case. And it’s really weird for you to get this defensive when both applications are FOSS.
woelkchen@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
I made a factual clarification and you were the one who got weirdly emotional after that.