Why did one succeed so spectacularly and the other fail so spectacularly?
Because gimp has a gimped development process and all the artists who know how an image editor is supposed to work contribute to Krita.
It always seemed like Gimp had and still has the most neckbeardy neckbeards a developer team can have while. They're fucking stubborn, the development is slow as fuck and the program has always been a fucking chore FOR LITERALLY NO FUCKING REASON AT ALL.Blender was similar at least to me until they changed a fuckton in 2011 or something. I really hated Blender but now it's a huge part of my hobbies and I'm so glad it exists. Also, Blender has many contributing developers and from what I can tell from the forums and their YT channel 2.8 will be fucking amazing.In my opinion Gimp can fuck right off and even when Krita is supposed to be a painting program and has been in development not as long as Gimp it actually is usable without you getting grey hair in an hour.
Gimp got roflstomped by Krita. Anything Krita can't do a 50 buck Affinity Photo can.
they butchered the UI to the point where its unusable (literally). plus the default brushes are atrocious blender UI is bad, but at least you can get around it with shortcuts and quick menu's
Gimp actually has the worst UI I've ever seen. I know people meme on Blender all the time, but it has a fucking amazing UI compared to Gimp.Also like others mentioned Krita is just a plain superior open source painting tool all around. The only thing Krita is really lacking from my experience with it is photo editing tools, but my main focus is hand painted textures anyways so it's not a huge deal.
What pissed me off with Gimp the most was that nothing is there where you expect it. Also, you have to jump through all kinds of hoops to achieve the most basic shit and they don't fucking listen to critique. You can be a fuckton more productive with fucking PS from 1997 than the latest Gimp version. Krita, all kinds of desktop Linux distributions, Blender and many more improved so incredibly much over the years but Gimp just fucking stays shit. Maybe they really want it to stay true to its name.
Gimp's only useful to make seamless textures, and even that's been superceeded by online generators and Photoshop plugins.The only other thing I liked about it was that their poly lasso tool was adjustable, something Photoshop really should have considered a long time ago.
Gimp just got a major update you fuckcunt, its brilliant now
>>624038Krita has a "wrap around" mode specifically for seamless texture creation. Shortcut: W
>>623998one has literally millions being pumped into by AMD and Valve and another has 1.5 autist throwing 5 bucks spare change
>>624086Eh, I kinda agree but the damage has already been done and the whole point is that they took forever to fix it and make it worthwhile. Just NOW they fixed it when they could've been doing it in the early 2000's. Plus you have better alternatives. Gimp is too far behind.
If I am not mistaken, GIMP was more of a playground for developing the Gtk+ framework. It was made by developers, for developers. No surprise it sucked (sucks?) as an artistic tool.
>>624086No cunt, it's still massive shit.
>>623998I think Gimp works great for pixelart and image manipulation.Great for making sprites for Gamemaker games and such. Haven`t really gotten into Blender yet but I will once I get the time. I only have some 3D experience from CAD softwares like Autodesk Inventor so I can`t compare that.
>>624086>its brilliant nowlmao
>>624164Krita works really well for pixelart now so yeah, even that point got taken away from Gimp
>>624001>In my opinion Gimp can fuck right offOr you could channel your negative energy into making it suit your needs. It's free software. Having problems with developers, take the code and do it yourself.
>>624170I see people really don`t like Gimp is the meme around here.
>>624173>>624180>Or you could channel your negative energy into making it suit your needs.Lol, there's literally no reason anymore for that since Krita became actually usable. Putting any more time and effort in Gimp is a waste.
Blender is useless garbage.Gimp is flawed but useful.This:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GrafX2is what your really want.
>>624173>expecting artists to be good enough in code>fix it yourself memeI swear you foss fanatics are sometimes flying in cloudville.krita users can contact their devs directly, that's what makes it GREAT. instant feedback(I poked dimon in slavbook sometime and he did fix things that were pestering me so yes it fucking works)
>>623998Gimp developers are just like Blender a few years ago, that's why has been surpased by Krita in the last 5 years, I don't want money, I don't want submisions the program is mine etc .... that's what blender used to do
>>624244>expecting artists to be good enough in code code is art reeeeeeee If you don't like gimp, just use krita then. But don't be rude towards a piece of software which allows you through it's licensing to change it to your needs. If gimp would have been proprietary and hold a monopoly, and it would have still sucked, then I would have agreed with your attitude. My point is even stronger considering: >The origin of Krita can be traced to Matthias Ettrich’s at the 1998 Linux Kongress. Matthias wanted to show the ease with which it was possible to hack a Qt GUI around an existing application, and the application he chose to demo it with was GIMP. His patch was never published, but did cause problems with the GIMP community at the time.>At the 31st of May, 1999, the KImageShop project officially kicked off with a mail by Matthias Elter. The basic idea back then was to make KImageShop a GUI shell around ImageMagick>KImageShop was renamed to Krayon, which also appeared to infringe on an existing trademark, so Krayon was finally renamed to Krita in 2002.Krita literally emerged from the need of having a normie gui on linux manipulating software available at the time. Which is what I sudgested you to do with gimp. I really like Krita, and this comes from a guy who generally dislikes KDE stuff, becasue bloat.
>>624251krita got kickstarted and gimp didn't, so that's a factor to consider
>>624251>normie guiSo proper user interfaces are now "normie" GUIs?Fucking autistic devs, man.
GIMP IS A PHOTO MANIPULATION TOOL, NOT A DIGITAL PAINTING TOOL.RETARDS.GIMP IS PERFECT FOR DOING PHOTO MANIPULATION AND QUICK GRAPHIC DESIGN SHIT.IF YOU WANT TO DIGITAL PAINT YOU CAN USE KRITA OR MYPAINT.FUCK OFF.PLUS YOU CAN LINK IN REAL TIME BLENDER AND GIMP TEXTURE PAINTING.REEEEEEEEE
>>624267>GIMP IS PERFECT FOR DOING PHOTO MANIPULATION AND QUICK GRAPHIC DESIGN SHIT.capslock more and we might forget about the fact that it still has no adjustment layers in twenty fucking eighteen and struggles with anything above 8bit
>>624273To be fair, the 2.x release added support for higher bpc. I think it can manage some floating point files better than Photoshop now, though I haven't tested it in depth.It took Krita to snap the devs out of their bubble, but it may be already too late, though.
>tfw photoshop trial expires and you have to buy it
>>624294>What is CCMaker?
>>624309É espanhol, não português.
Does Krita run better now?Last time I tried it, it really lagged with certain brushes
>>624328Yup, they improved the brush engine. I think there are some video demos on their site.
>>624267>GIMP IS PERFECT FOR DOING PHOTO MANIPULATION AND QUICK GRAPHIC DESIGN SHIT.No it's not, it's full of quirks and surprises which make me want to pull my teeth out every time I use it. Wanna move a layer? Better click on the square at the middle of the manipulator or nothing will happen. Gimp is UX hell. Krita is a digital painting program, yes, but it is also a much better alternative to gimp for both photo manipulation and GD.
>>6243284.0 still exhibits lags with certain engines in windows but you need to have a really huge particle brush to make it actually lag on linux
>>624321Sopa de chango who cares?
>>624527São espanhol, malfodido.
open-source applications in general should learn a thing or two from blender's development model, specifically the funding model. blender provides many ways to ask for money that funnels into development. open movies, seminars, the blender market, selling usb sticks which support the 2.8 development work.almost all other open-source programs don't go beyond the "plz donate, thx" effort
>>624548I think I found a new way ton can grab cashhe can educate other opensource nerds on how to jew cash
I like gimp tho, 2.10 has some good improvements over the last version (2.8)
If you think Gimp is bad, try Inkscape.
>>624551Jesus, if you're going to insult and be a try-hard, learn to spell correctly you retarded faggot.
>>624719>If you think Gimp is bad, try Inkscape.Using it daily, it's fine. It's no Illustrator replacement but it is amazing freeware but again, fuck useless Gimp.
I actually like Gimp over photoshop. Probably because it's what I used for years before getting Creative cloud when that came out, but for anything I don't just do in Illustrator or Ligthroom, Gimp is straight to the point and I like it. I might do my raster edits in Gimp and then I will take it over to Illustrator for the final image. As far as texture kind of work I think it works well for that to I guess, but I prefer just doing the majority of the work in Blender instead of hopping back and forth.Besides, the color/contrast options in Gimp are exactly what I want if it's something I'm not looking to just take to Lightroom.
>>624722but I wasn'tI genuinely want ton's success so that his package can compete with autodesk and force them to fix their shit
>>624001The problem of Gimp is the large cost of the pre-existing technical choices. The last major version of Gimp had a huge development cycle (6+ years) because they were forced to refactor massively the codebase and eliminate the idiosyncrasies.Gimp is coded in C. Worse, Gimp uses GTK (technically, GTK was created from Gimp, but whatever), which is a very peculiar dialect of C because of their type-system. Even worse, most of the transformations had been developed ad-hoc with no regard to genericity. That's why it had been so difficult to implement industry standard color spaces or new features.Gimp basically needed to be rewritten. The work was huge and not particularly sexy, it took a long time, but with the last version it had mostly been completed. I expect great things for the future of the software.
>>624548krita was kickstarted, they got funding to hire dev's and then they released a tool that can compete with paid ones like SAI.from what i know, gimp is coders project made online, there is no clear direction to where it is going. most of the stuff in gimp are plugged in
>>624000I use Gimp if I want to go for a lifeless computer generated aesthetic since I never use it's terrible brushes for anything.
>>624086The only thing that changed was now it loads ridiculously slow off my SSD. It's the slowest loading program on my computer now, including the OS. It's pathetic.>>624180I'm a FOSS fag who uses gnome as my daily driver and even I think GIMP is fucking cancer. Kill it with fire and put it out of it's misery.
>>624719spoken like someone who never had to use sodipodi
>>623998Theyre both good, i wonder why...
>>624251>Krita literally emerged from the need of having a normie gui on linux manipulating software available at the time. Which is what I sudgested you to do with gimpSo then we get another image software that's better than GIMP in only a few years.
>>624251>don't be rude towards a piece of softwareLol
Noob here. When did Krita get good?
>>625381I hate open source crap but I think the latest version of Krita is very good, I use it quite often for more "organic" stuff in my game (such as wall graffitis, children's drawings, stuff that I would usually draw on paper).
>>625392>hates "open source crap">uses the Internet
>>625392>I hate open source crapone of the most stupid posts I've ever read on this board, lmao
>>625381Somewhere around 2.8. The G'mic filters are helpful for 2D and 3D stuff https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c_BZZbIBPs&t=2m6shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAUEAIPUhNchttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YigbVY9s6gU&t=1m8shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hv3yRUof-chttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bvi7p3sRIJM&t=1m20s
>>625405Open source software are always inferior versions of the real thing. Keep sticking to your crap, you guys love being failures.
>>625634if we didn't have this crap as an option available not only you would have to buy photoshop, but entire separate non-pc based photoshop® workstation™ to work along with 3d© studio® workstation™ you bought before you doofus
>>625634>Open source software are always inferior versions of the real thing.As I said, you are using the Internet, whose infrastructure is mostly built on top of open source software.Confront the truth or neck yourself.
>>625664I have photoshop and I didn't pay for it. Don't need a separate workstation either.>>625673I am talking about art software here.
>>625693>failing comprehension this hardDid you not read the if? >>625664 was saying that that would be the case if open-source software never existed, because it'd be incredibly easy for industries to completely monopolize without competitors.
>>625693>I am talking about art software here.Gee, I don't know, pretty sure what I'm using right now includes a couple of open source components, and it qualifies as "art software".
>>624164Did alot of shit on Inventor in high school, seems like comparing Inventor to Blender is like comparing MS paint to AutoCad now.