Discussion: official website of Krita

The official website says krita is a professional tool. raghukamath says the target audience is children and beginners. I’m frankly confused!
Снимок экрана_2020-01-31_18-55-28|400x182
I reformulate the question so as not to offend the children: why on the official website of Krita are drawings and interview with nonprofessionals?

on the official sites of other applications - and even here - are quite beautiful drawings. When a person first sees the site of Krita - he thinks: yeah, this is some kind of tool for children.

Not just children and beginners. I meant our target audience also includes children and hobbyists along with the professionals. We cannot alienate ourselves with these groups (children and hobbyists) since they will be professionals of tomorrow :slight_smile:


Thanks, more or less explained. strange choice to show it, but quite acceptable

It’s not like they are the first thing you see, when visiting the website. Everywhere else on the website there are quite impressive artworks.

I think everyone agrees that since Krita is a feature-rich, powerful, professional tool, it needs some representation to show people that yes, Krita can be used for professional artwork. There is a Gallery on the website - now it links to “top” sorting of the art category here - and all the interviews. We also plan to include some artworks on the Welcome page, and there is also always pretty splash screen with Kiki drawn by Tyson Tan.

But on the other hand, when we launched this website - especially the first week - we were blown out for what the quality of pictures that people started to post. Looked like everyone took their absolutely best one to post :slight_smile: And really, there were so many, so good, we haven’t expected that, I think.

In any case, Irina is often inviting good and/or interesting artists for interviews. I believe kids are from the “interesting” category :wink: people who started contributing to Krita with plugins or code are also from that category I think. But even then, we can only invite people who appeared in our social circles somehow - by putting #krita or mentioning @Krita_Painting on their artwork on twitter or mastodon, for example. I guess now we could draw from Krita Artists website as well.

Also yeah, appealing to beginners and kids is somewhat important because… Krita is free, which means it’s often chosen by beginners or people without much money or from countries where the exchange rate to euro or dollars is terrible. I’m no PR expert so I cannot tell you whether showing art from less skilled users is doing good or harm to Krita’s image.


Krita is for everyone, not just the professionals! That’s usually the idea behind free and open-source software :wink:

I understand the idea behind featuring the best of the best front and center for marketing purposes, but there’s value in being inviting to newer or younger artists as well. This community will remain a lot more pleasant if we refrain from talking down to people who’s artistic abilities doesn’t meet a higher standard.


thanks. well said. I started to use Krita when I saw David Revoy’s comic about Pepper, then I thought - wow - free software can do good drawing

I’m a child at heart, and proud of it!

1 Like

That’s another important thing, yes!

@Paul one of the things that differentiate Krita from other software are ideas it is built upon. It’s not only free like Medibang: it’s not only free like free beer, but free like freedom. It is built with effort of dozens of volunteers (throughout those 20 years), Krita only got the first paid developer like 10 years ago and a second one like three years ago, now there is a team of five, but it still relies on contributions from volunteers (for example there is no paid tester, no paid user support, the budget is way too small). The idea behind free and open source software is to create together something that is available for everyone for (nearly) any purpose. Hiding Krita behind paywall would defeat that purpose; hiding Krita’s code would defeat that, too, for all people who want their own versions of Krita with some changes (like there is someone who compiled their own Krita to get different images on the splash screen). As I said, I’m not a PR person, so I cannot guess consequences of showing or not showing beginners’ pictures on the website; but I can say that since those ideas are quite important for people working on Krita, it might be that losing a group of professionals because they think the program is too simple for them (without even checking the program themselves, even if it’s free) versus using even a smaller group of beginners or even said children because they feel unwelcome, the second group might get the priority.

I believe you got mistaken :wink: It’s not a program drawing, it’s you. Of course there is a huge difference between Paint and Krita, so to make things a bit easier, let’s compare it to Medibang - it’s a simpler program, but I’m pretty sure most things can be done there as well, especially those with this “digital” look, without much texture. The same goes about SAI or Gimp. It’s just, there are things that can be done faster in more feature-rich program like Krita. There is higher chance you’ll get your dream brush with Krita. But not ideal brush wouldn’t prevent you from creating a good artwork - so I never judge the program by the artwork that is produced, I need to test the program itself to see if it’s convenient enough, feature-rich enough to compete with Krita.

But yeah, I know there is this mindset that the better the program is, the better the artwork will be (and you need Photoshop, otherwise don’t even try) - but the truth is, after a few basic features (layers, basic textured and blending brushes, opacity itp.), it’s not a matter of a few more features, but a matter of time: the better the program is, the faster it will take you to the end of the process, with less annoyances in the meantime :wink:


I understand. but it seems to me an important nuance: positioning as a professional tool, suggests - showing quality work. Krita is more than a professional tool. MyPaint is more suitable for sketches and on the MyPaint site such work would be appropriate. \
the question of what to do with your own site is a personal matter of the developers of Krita \
open source does not mean that any open software is intended for everyone. software has a target audience. Krita is the best professional painting tool. Accordingly, professional artists are its target audience.

It really shows the inclusiveness of Krita, and its non-elitist stand as compared to what Photoshop and even Affinity Designer showcases. Its a brilliant way to make all artists of all levels feel welcome <3


I remember a moment on a convention where I overheard photoshoppers badmouthing artists that use any other software.

I for one like the way Krita is fully inclusive for anyone, of any age, or any level of artist and advertised as such. I still find it weird that software has some snobbery around it. In my eyes it doesn’t matter what you created something in, it’s more the fact that you actually create something that matters.

Many people underestimate Krita and what it’s capable of just because it’s free.

1 Like

Adobe is interested in making money. That dictates their advertising and marketing strategy. When people see amazing art being made with Photoshop - many naively attribute the result with the software. That’s how advertising works - it exploits this behavior in humans. The amazing thing about that human trait is that some people misinterpret the software being responsible for the result as fact (again - naively).

Krita measures its success differently. Krita is successful when people are passionate about it, not when the executives meet their goals and earn their 6 figure bonuses.


I read the answers and the feeling as if I plunged into the world of magical pink unicorns.

I foolishly thought that this is a professional tool, which, due to free software, gives more opportunities for drawing and use in any serious projects, games, teaching in art schools. but here on this site you explained to me that in fact the target audience is amateur.

if someone doesn’t know how to draw, this is no reason to say that his drawings are bad, they are just different and everyone has the right to self-expression)))) and a really great place for self-expression: the official website of a professional drawing program. It is also necessary to tell competitors, otherwise they do not know))) see what kind of daub can be done using adobe. Download adobe - draw a daub

Heh, just as we talked yesterday on IRC about cultural shock :wink: (it wasn’t about you, it was about something else, but seems fitting :wink: )

I think there is both a bit of different approach - that Krita has secondary goals - and the fact that there is a lot of different subjects talked about.

For example I personally do see bad art as bad art, and yeah people can talk how it is still art, but it looks bad.

Second of all, regarding the website: when you first open the website, all artworks are good. If you go to features, there are three seconds, Features - which again consists of well-done art, although this lineart, while well-made, I’m not a fan of - then there is Gallery which points to https://krita-artists.org/c/artwork/l/top so I guess you can’t complain here, then there are those interviews. I checked it myself and… well it doesn’t really look all as bad as you portray it?

That’s the last 9 interviews. Just from the thumbnails I can see 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 being high quality and I don’t think you’re talking about them, are you? 1 and 7 are a bit more amateurish in my eyes, while 4 and 5 are more in the middle range - I checked that 5 image and it’s actually better than it looks from the thumbnail since there is good anatomy, quite nice colors and everything, and 4 is really going in the right direction, a few years and they will be a professional too if they don’t already work as a comission artist (I haven’t checked, but really, I wouldn’t be surprised).

So in my eyes out of 9 thumbnails 5 (the majority) are high quality, 2 are medium and 2 are amateurish. Considering it’s “interviews with Artists” - which you can read as “interviews with users” - I think it’s a good thing. If there were only bad artists there, yeah, maybe it would give that impression, but half of it shows good art and the rest of the website showcases good art, too. Because Krita is free and available for everyone, quite a large portion of the userbase is amateurs, and interviews reflects that. They do not show the “target audience”, they just show the audience.

Also keep in mind those facts:

  • Krita doesn’t have anyone responsible for or expert in marketing. We have a webmaster, we have developers, manual writers, user supporters, but no one for marketing or PR. Just nobody came up who decided to help Krita team out. (And still, Krita is thriving recently :wink: ).
  • Krita is mostly dismissed because it’s free, because of this fallacy “if it’s free it’s not good”. I think that might be a much more important fallacy to fight, although as I said, not a PR person…
  • You can use a program that doesn’t consider you a target audience and be completely happy with that :wink: (Like people using Krita instead of Gimp for photo editing because Krita has non-destructive editing and color management, or for visual effects because of the high bit depth). The downside is that it probably won’t make new features for you. In Krita case, I’m not sure if it’s applicable - Colorize Mask, for example, saves time for both kindegarten kids (if they only can use it) and professional artists.
1 Like

Why are you so obsessed with the difference between professionals and amateurs? The important questions are: Does Krita do what you need it to do? And does the development continue in a direction that’s useful to you?

Krita wouldn’t exist without amateurs. The volunteers who’ve started Krita and continue to work on Krita are mainly amateurs who wanted and still want a good software for themselves. As it happens, what amateurs with a little ambition need is the same what professionals need, so where’s the use in differentiating?


Also one more thing… why are you upset about this? That’s not a question meant to deflect your concerns, it’s genuine, I want to understand, since then it would be easier to reach a conclusion I believe. Now I can only guess - is it because you value Krita a lot and think that Krita deserves better than a bad art on the website? Or you’re afraid that if you’re a professional, you’re not a priority for Krita team and you’re afraid it won’t improve or the development would go in a different direction that you want it? Are you upset because you tried to show Krita to other people and they didn’t want to try it because of the art on the website? Or maybe you feel you wasted a lot of time because you didn’t give Krita a chance because of the bad art on the website?

I’m sorry if I completely missed the point. Note that my question is not “why do you think Krita should showcase good art on the website” but “why you don’t like the fact that Krita showcases bad art”, why are you personally invested in this? The possible reasons I mentioned above all shows a bit different issues that we could discuss to lighten your concerns, too, like the development direction, which can be different from “what art is on the website” (which is valid conversation topic too, as you can see from how many answers you get :wink: ).

Oh and @Rebecca said it right, I think from the Krita developers team most people are amateur artists and that’s how they started with Krita; I am, for example, a proud professional because I made one long animation that I was paid for so I guess it counts :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

:+1: :+1: :+1: :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: :kissing_heart:
I am amazingly pleased to talk with you) really. I got an answer to my question, albeit in a slightly strange form: yes, not the best works are presented here, look, this is slightly better than mediocre. and this. the question was that the website managrs were chosen not to represent the best work, but what came across. and the answer was: there are no people who would be engaged in promotion and there is no well-thought-out development strategy. is sad. but krita is still the best drawing tool. despite the deficitarian promotion strategy

the reason that makes me personally sad in these points:

  1. “is it because you value Krita a lot and think that Krita deserves better than a bad art on the website?”
  2. “Are you upset because you tried to show Krita to other people and they didn’t want to try it because of the art on the website?”

You have this idea that Krita has to aggressively compete with other art software.

I guess if you want to understand us “pink unicorns” (seriously?) you should probably read up on the open-source software movement.