I actually think this is great. I've enjoyed using Krita (even though its sometimes a PITA to get setup) and its rapidly surpassing everything GIMP spent a dozen years trying to pull off.
Krita's just lacking a OSX build. I've been using the windows build for a while. Krita's focus is on digital painting. I would say Krita is more comparable to Corel's Painter instead of Photoshop.
Not once in that demo video did I see the usability monster leap out and try to stomp on anyone's balls. So it doesn't really invite comparison with the GIMP.
Does it have the "magic" tools like content aware fill, patch tool, and spot healing brush that Photoshop does? These are kinds of things my professional artist and photographer friends appreciate about the app.
I am the lead developer of a application called Leonardo that we hope will be a future "Photoshop killer" when it comes to digital painting: http://www.getleonardo.com The main focus for us is speed and Leonardo is way faster then any other application including Photoshop (and it is still raster based).
Leonardo is not finished yet, but it is possible to sign up on out beta list.
Will it support vector drawings also? The screen cast with "nobel english" was very nice and the tool you used to draw the box was cool, never seen that before.
Is there anything about this tool that is superior to an inexpensive commercial app like Pixelmator other than being FOSS? I'm interested in comparisons to Pixelmator specifically.
It seems to me like someone excitedly posted this without really understanding what Krita actually does, or perhaps the differences between an app like Photoshop, an app like Illustrator, and an app like Corel Paint.
I don't think something like Photoshop can be killed so easily. If Photoshop is Facebook, then this doesn't look like the successor, but like G+. Might have better features, but doesn't have the community.
And PS also has a huge set of commercially created plugins, filters, etc.
It's a pity, though. I really wish some FOSS project would make an end to PS!
Photoshop is not mainly a painting application, though it can be used as one.
The strength of Photoshop is in its automation, ability to integrate with all kinds of things, ability to open a hundred different formats by default, plugins, 16-bit-per-channel support, color management, work with huge files, etc etc etc.
This looks like a competitor for ArtRage or Corel Paint.
http://krita.org/faq/item/16-krita-features contains some information on the features supported by Krita, including 16 bit per channel colorspaces (including Lab, a much-vaunted Photoshop feature). Krita is also available with support for OpenColorIO, and integration into the asset pipelines found e.g. in VFX studios is part of its mission statement (support for Photoshop's file formats has been steadily increasing along the way).
You're entirely correct about Krita's focus on painting (a focus it has greatly benefited from; see also my other comment), but it turns out the kinds of foundations required by a good painting application offer utility in many use cases.
> The strength of Photoshop is in its automation, ability to integrate with all kinds of things, ability to open a hundred different formats by default, plugins, ....
This, as far as I can see, sums up Gimp very well. With its open scripting and plugin system (Python) which not only allows anyone to write simple automation scripts, but allows people like me to find importers, exporters, filetype support, scripts and plugins for free, for about anyhting thinkable.
How does Photoshop compare to the Gimp in these areas? I am aware of the differences in usability, obviously. But purely on technical grounds: is the automatability and extensability of the Gimp comparable to that of Photoshop?
[+] [-] archagon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nitrogen|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrey-p|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zeruch|12 years ago|reply
Make it crossplatform and you have a BIG win.
[+] [-] rebootthebox|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GigabyteCoin|12 years ago|reply
Standing on the shoulders of giants certainly makes it easier to see.
[+] [-] pekk|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justin66|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CamperBob2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shittyanalogy|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonah|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rmc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] henningtegen|12 years ago|reply
Leonardo is not finished yet, but it is possible to sign up on out beta list.
[+] [-] Yrlec|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sovande|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slashdotaccount|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kendalk|12 years ago|reply
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
[+] [-] wingerlang|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WoodenChair|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TillE|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexdowad|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trackofalljades|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frik|12 years ago|reply
But if I set the background color to 0% opacity (aka transparent) the drawing becomes ultra-slow like 1 pixel per second :/
[+] [-] frik|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] erikb|12 years ago|reply
And PS also has a huge set of commercially created plugins, filters, etc.
It's a pity, though. I really wish some FOSS project would make an end to PS!
[+] [-] llii|12 years ago|reply
Then start using them if you aren't already. A community doesn't come out of thin air.
[+] [-] coldtea|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dutchbrit|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wlesieutre|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ye|12 years ago|reply
The strength of Photoshop is in its automation, ability to integrate with all kinds of things, ability to open a hundred different formats by default, plugins, 16-bit-per-channel support, color management, work with huge files, etc etc etc.
This looks like a competitor for ArtRage or Corel Paint.
[+] [-] sho_hn|12 years ago|reply
You're entirely correct about Krita's focus on painting (a focus it has greatly benefited from; see also my other comment), but it turns out the kinds of foundations required by a good painting application offer utility in many use cases.
[+] [-] berkes|12 years ago|reply
> The strength of Photoshop is in its automation, ability to integrate with all kinds of things, ability to open a hundred different formats by default, plugins, ....
This, as far as I can see, sums up Gimp very well. With its open scripting and plugin system (Python) which not only allows anyone to write simple automation scripts, but allows people like me to find importers, exporters, filetype support, scripts and plugins for free, for about anyhting thinkable.
How does Photoshop compare to the Gimp in these areas? I am aware of the differences in usability, obviously. But purely on technical grounds: is the automatability and extensability of the Gimp comparable to that of Photoshop?