Why is Krita so underused by professionals when it's so much more powerful than other programs

[MYT]

Seriously, why would anyone use any other programs when Krita is straight up better in so many ways, for FREE?

Krita’s clone layers alone is better than Photoshop’s smart objects, it allows you to edit the layer on your current project instead of having to open up a separate file, you can even clone a group as a single clone layer, plus if you want a smart object equivalent, you have file layer as well. Krita’s transform masks provide none destructive transform for normal rasterized layers, unlike in photoshop where it is only possible on smart objects, and combining it with clone layers it’s ridiculously powerful. Krita has multithreaded brush engine that performs way better than the single-threaded Photoshop and Clip Studio Paint brushes, and is only behind Procreate that traded more layers and the ability to paint beyond canvas for the brush performance. You can make a group of layers as one clipping mask in Krita just like in Clip Studio Paint, unlike in Photoshop where you need to convert the group to a smart object in order to make the group a clipping mask, or in Procreate where you don’t even get group blending mode, let alone clipping masks. Krita is the only program that can paint in HDR. Krita have way more brush customization options than all the other programs, it can customize each individual behaviors of the brush such as size and opacity etc, based on tilt, pressure, rotation, stroke direction and speed, etc. Krita has a popup palette with brush options to change color and brushes super quickly. Krita even have a search bar for all the functions you want to perform, none of the other programs has this.

And there are even more features that I haven’t mentioned here, it’s just a no brainer for any professionals, but for some reason it’s so underrated and overlooked. All of this features can speed up the painting process significantly if artist were to dig deeper, but for some reason nowadays, people rather spend over $1000 on a 13 inch iPad Pro as their main drawing device to use procreate that have less features than all of those programs, just to have a “simpler” or “cleaner” experience. Krita isn’t like Blender where it isn’t really better in anything particular compared to specialized programs like Houdini, Maya, and Zbrush, and can only beat them in versatility, Krita literally beats every other program including industry standards in terms of feature set and customizability, I literally can’t switch to any other programs anymore after learning just how powerful Krita is, it literally will be the dumbest decision ever for me to switch, so can some body explain to me why it’s not as popular as Blender, or other art apps like Photoshop, Clip Studio, and Procreate? What is going on here? Is it because 2d artists aren’t as technically savvy as 3d artists, and thus less inclined to dig for those features?

[CrazyCatBird]

You can spread the word about Krita among your friends and when they discover how awesome Krita is, they will tell their other friends, and so on. There are videos showing Krita 's features in action too.

[Selk]

I completely agree with your statements. And as you rightly say: "And all those that remain to be mentioned.”

After having tried dozens of drawing programs and after so many years, it doesn’t make sense. The iPad thing is also the worst. I have personally thought about buying an iPad on more than one occasion, but only because I would like to have Fresco and Feather 3D on the go. But I’ll be patient with Feather 3D and I have alternatives to Fresco on Android, even if they’re not as simple.

As for programs as good as Krita, perhaps ArtStudio Pro is the only one that can compete with it, and it costs €35 while Krita is free. And it works on tablets that cost 1/4 of what an iPad costs.

[MYT]

I disagree about ArtStudio Pro being a proper competitor to Krita. It doesn’t have clone layers, it doesn’t have group clipping masks, it doesn’t have file layer or smart objects, it does’t have transform masks, it doesn’t have mesh transform, it doesn’t have the extensive brush customization like Krita, it just doesn’t have everything that make Krita great for me, it’s not even close to being as good a Krita, and it’s only slightly better than Procreate in terms of features, and for $30, that’s a **** no for me.

As for the iPad Pro, the only reason I will get an iPad over an android tablet is that it just has WAY more performance than the best android tablet for heavy apps like Nomad Sculpt and the upcoming Blender, the M5 is literally more powerful than my R7 7700X 8 core desktop CPU in both single an multicore, and have GPU performance of a RTX 3050 laptop, on a tablet, without a fan, it’s just a shame that Krita, which would have take advantage of the CPU performance of the M5 isn’t on the iOS App store, Krita has a lot of multithreaded processing like the pixel brush engine and their compositor; on bigger canvases, adjusting opacity and filter masks already lags on my 8 core Ryzen 7700X desktop, I don’t think an android tablet with a mobile chip with less than half the multithreaded performance is going to cut it.

[Selk]

I don’t know what kind of demanding work you do with Krita. But I’ve been using it for years on Samsung tablets, both low-end and high-end, and it’s always worked perfectly on both.

[MYT]

Welp, I work on 8K canvases with 500px+ size large brushes with 60+ layers and bit depth of 16 bit for the extra dynamic range to avoid color banding, plus I use clone layers extensively with different masks applied that will require even more processing power to update all of them simultaneously, so yeah, it’s going to be ultra demanding, simply adjusting a 8K layer’s opacity maxed out my 7700X desktop 8 core and manage to lag the slider. The whole reason that I use Krita is precisely because of those power features, and those power features requires good multicore performance.

[Chepaki]

That’s just a hypothesis but perhaps it’s because Krita doesn’t really have an identity? Like, something it specializes in :0 It’s just known as the best free art software, so why would people use it rather than anything else if they can afford other things? :3
Krita may be better than a lot of programs in different aspects, but these other programs have a specific identity they’re more optimised for . What I’m trying to say is that, all of the features other programs are really invested in are the ones that they’re known for (basically the ones that match their identity and that their users care about).

For example, Photoshop is more known as a great photo editor. Another example is Clip studio paint that you mentioned too. It’s the leading app for manga, comics, webtoon, and anime for a reason . All the features they’ve been adding in the recent years are not all over the place, they feel specifically designed for that type of artist . I can’t say the same with all the things you’ve mentioned Krita does better than other programs… It’s not really a specific field? If that makes sense. I’m specialized in manga and anime myself, and I can’t deny the appeal CSP has over Krita for me. I used it before and it didn’t need to spend a single second setting up, I just opened it for the first time and used it as is! It immediately felt like home (though I still use Krita lol :>). Sure, Krita’s brush engines are powerful, but CSP’s feels a lot more intuitive in a way that is specialized for my style. What I mean is all the things Krita does better than CSP are kinda worthless to me? :PP Not worthless! But to some artists like me not very useful… It just makes it a lot more hard and confusing! That’s why CSP and such programs are better for a lot of people. (As for procreate I believe it’s only popular because of ipad users )

Even non professional programs like Fire Alpaca have an identity and a specific audience. It’s more for a simplistic anime style art. The first time I began using krita as an anime artist (like 2 years ago). I felt extremely uncomfortable. I had used many programs before, paid and free, and I’ve never felt this way with anything other than Krita. I think it’s because of this lack of definite purpose, which confused me immediately. It felt a bit like I was using a translation of traditional art inside a digital software… which was a bit weird ! I’ve learnt to like Krita, but I think most people who feel this way would give up instead! I just kept customizing it and adapting myself until I got used to it…

3: … I’m sorry, english is a bit hard for me, tell me if something makes no sense!

[MYT]

I don’t agree that the features I’ve mentioned are useless to any artists especially manga artists, clone layers, transform masks, and better brush customization, are all useful for manga artists, they are features that saves you more time than you spend in understanding them.

For example: transform masks, it enables you to transform non destructively by not having to apply the transformation, it means all the control handles will stay exactly where you left them, which is something CSP can’t do even with file objects because you have to apply the transform to do anything else. This is insane, for example, you have a texture that you want to apply to a surface by transforming it using Krita’s mesh transform tool, you can just use the transform mask to wrap the texture onto the object, and then come back whenever you want for further adjustment while having all the points and handles exactly where you left them. If you understand what I mean, you’ll know how much time this feature can save. There is also clone layer, where you can clone from either one layer or a group, and have it live update as you change the source layer, you can use it to do reflections, repeat the same patterns on a wall while only having to edit one pattern, or even clip it onto every lighting layer from the same source and basically change the color of all those lightings with one layer. All of these can speed up manga production, or jus any production significantly, so I don’t understand what you mean by those feature not being useful in your use cases, all these features can be applied universally because of how versatile they are.

The extensive feature set isn’t the flaw of Krita, it is its strength. I don’t buy the idea that a program should be simple to use first, features second, because features like this makes the amount of time you spend learning its features irrelevant considering how much more time they can save you. It’ just a stupid argument, it’s like saying that a bicycle is better than a car for transportation because it’s easy to learn and maintain and does not require you to apply for a license, I mean good luck going anywhere on a bike, the amount of time you waste using a bike will dwarf the amount of time you spend learning how to drive and maintain a car, hell, with your logic I can even argue that walking is better than driving because you basically already learned how to walk, it’s just a dumb mindset. I also don’t agree with the focus argument, a lot of solutions are derived when thinking outside the box, and if your tool doesn’t give you enough options to think outside the box because it’s so focused on established workflows, you can’t came out with your own better workflows.

I bought CSP before I knew how powerful Krita is, it’s one of the dumbest decisions I’ve made, because now I basically never touch the program anymore, it’s just inferior in every way to Krita’s feature set.

And lastly, no, Krita doesn’t lack identity, because it has every identity other programs have, and then some, in fact, it has so much identity. It’s like arguing a box full of tools lacks identity compared to a hammer, it includes a hammer, if you don’t need other tools, then just don’t use them, and in the case of Krita, the tool box is literally free, you can’t even argue that you spent money on the other tools that you don’t need, IT’s FREE!!!

[Chepaki]

Oh, I think you might’ve misunderstood what I was trying to say a little bit! :0 I wasn’t arguing that Krita’s features are useless (they’re all really good tools).

What I meant is that while they’re definitely useful, they’re just not something I personally find myself using much, and I think that’s true for many artists too. That doesn’t mean those features are bad or unnecessary… just that not everyone benefits from the same workflow or feature set! :> The point wasn’t that Krita is worse than other programs, or that having many features is a flaw!! You’re putting words in my mouth… I find you quite presumptuous for that ._. It’s more about how Krita feels like it doesn’t have a specialized identity. Programs like CSP or Photoshop are very focused on a specific kind of user or workflow, so people instantly know what to expect and feel at home right away. Krita, on the other hand, is extremely versatile… which is great! but that versatility can also make it harder for some people to know where they fit in. Imagine needing just a few tools… then opening… Krita!!!

When I said it can feel overwhelming, I didn’t mean it should be “simpler”. It’s just that for many artists, having to learn so many tools they might never use can make the experience feel less ergonomic. Some people don’t enjoy spending time learning every tool. They just want to open the program and draw comfortably right away. That’s one of the main reasons why software like CSP can feel better for specific artists, like manga or anime creators. :3

As for the bicycle vs. car example… I actually think that’s a perfect example for my point! Different tools suit different needs. For someone who only needs to travel short distances, a bike can absolutely be better than a car : it’s lighter, it’s cheaper, and easier to maintain as you said. The car isn’t worse :^ it’s just not necessary for that person’s situation (subjectivity seems to be something you struggle to grasp :PP). Well! The same goes for art programs: Krita might be like a powerful all-purpose truck, while CSP or FireAlpaca might be like… a specialized vehicle… like a golf cart ! You wouldn’t bring a pickup truck to golfing… would you :0?! You wouldn’t, right? You could… but it would be not convenient.

Having every feature imaginable doesn’t always make something better for everyone (again, keyword : subjective Sometimes people just prefer a simpler, more direct experience that fits their specific needs.

And about Krita’s “identity”… when I said it lacks one, I didn’t mean it has no personality or value. I meant that it isn’t strongly associated with a particular type of artist in the same way other programs are . Saying “it has every identity” kind of proves that point, actually!!! if it’s everything at once, then it’s not clearly one thing. :’D That’s not necessarily a bad thing! It’s just a reason why some artists might not pick it up as their main software, even if it’s incredibly capable and FREEEEE!!! (as you phrased it…).

So really, my comment wasn’t meant as criticism : more like a reflection on why people might feel that way about Krita despite how strong it is. I was trying to… think with you to answer your question… that’s why I said it’s a hypothesis. But you took it very… spicily from what I’ve seen! Someone calling my points “stupid” isn’t something I expected to see today :3 Specially from someone who had truly nothing to back up their aggressive bashing of my claim, which centered subjective as a main idea! (I hope this time I highlighted it enough ). I’m truly a bit taken aback?! here’s how dry I am…

I totally understand and agree that Krita is a powerful, feature-rich program. :> My point was more about personal preference and workflow comfort, not objective superiority… “you can’t even argue” thiss~ “you can’t even argue” that~ I was not arguing with you… Stop seeing things so linearly you goofball!!!

[NotBob]

@Chepaki

having to learn so many tools they might never use

If you are not going to use a tool, you would have no need to learn how to use it or what it is for. I have no idea what all the capabilities of Krita are, have never used 80% of the tools on the standard toolbar, and I never felt overwhelmed by the possibilities.

Granted, I am not a professional, my opinion may not apply in this thread.

[mmiller]

I’m always indignant when many excellent artists use apps like Krita and Blender and don’t participate in those apps’ communities.
I’m also very indignant when people give up on Krita after just one day of experimentation. Even more so when people prefer to use proprietary programs ‘the wrong way’.
I always say it loud and clear: I used Photoshop for 20 years and if I managed to switch to Krita… then you can be sure that Krita is powerful.
There are very few things where Krita falls behind compared to Photoshop, for example.

With that, I mean that I agree with you.

[Selk]

It could even be because people feel that if they don’t pay for something, it’s not as good.

And it’s frustrating that people don’t want to see it. When (unless you need a specific tool) you can do all kinds of jobs or hobbies without paying anything. Contributing when you think the creators deserve. Don’t be stingy.

Krita, VLC, Inkscape, OBS, Audacity, Blender, Kdenlive, Davinci Resolve, Synfig, OpenToonz…

Even the most played video games in the world are free, and practically all of them don’t require you to pay anything unless you want cosmetics.

I’ve tried so many drawings apps on PC:

Sketchbook, Photoshop, Krita, PainToolSAI, Painter (corel), Paintstorm Studio, Gimp, Clip Studio Paint, Adobe Fresco, Realistic Paint Studio, Inkscape….

Also on Android:

Krita, Sketchbook, Clip Studio Paint, Infinite Painter, Infinite Design, Ibis Paint, Medibang, HiPaint, Concepts…

I really enjoy creating drawings, analyzing apps, testing all their features, sharing videos with the community, testing and researching… And after all, I always end up drawing in Krita.

There are many apps that have unique features that I wish Krita had. I hope that with time and support, it can be achieved. Or maybe I’ll win the lottery and become the patron of Krita

[Agitato]

I feel like the main reason is price. 3D software packages are wayyyyy more expensive than 2D ones, so there’s always been much more incentive to use/fund/develop Blender, especially back when it was first blowing up.

CSP (and similar software) is a one time purchase (and with frequent sales), so if you don’t want the annual upgrades, you’re set. No need to look elsewhere for the vast majority of users, and odds are you’re using the same software most artists also use (useful for sharing/downloading resources etc.).

For professionals, being on the same software as your coworkers (or at least using the same file formats) is more important than having the most features, so long as it does what’s needed.

My 2 cents

[Ralek]

In short:

• Near impossible barrier to entry (requires heavy tweaking to get working ‘as good’ as other programs, performance-wise)
• Lack of polish or weird workarounds on tools which ‘professionals’ use more often than others, or are used to using.

All of this is made worse by lack of funding. And the lack of funding is because of the above two, so it’s a catch-22.

[alvawings]

I used to use Photoshop as my main graphics tool before I switched to Krita. I’ve been on Photoshop for about 15 years, and as was already pointed out by Agitato, people still stick to established, commonly used graphics editors because they need to share files and/or tweak files created by others. At my last corporate workplace, they’d never switch to Krita exactly for that reason.

Krita is better in every way for me than Photoshop, so I mostly use Krita these days (occasionally I’ll use GIMP for photos and Inkscape for vector graphics). Krita’s free (no subscription!), has great drawing tools which means a lot to me as to someone who started as a traditional artist, lightweight, can handle a lot of layers while maintaining great brush speed, etc. Also, has a customizable top bar! What I really wish could be added is a tool box customization (like in GIMP). I don’t use all the tools they have on the toolbar, so it’d be nice if I could switch some of them off.

[EyeOdin]

Honestly i could name a few things. But a thing no one talks about is the logo. First thing you see and the gradient makes it look kinda dodgy. I think a 2 color logo would help it look more sofisticated out of the gate.

Also we need to do something to promote. Like a video on youtube wiyh a movie or something so people can clcik on it and see the possibilities quickly.

There coukd also be a subscription for orofessionals to have support . that would ensure pros have a garanty to not feel ignored on the forum and would ensure revenue maybe.

And krita t shirts

[aqko]

Stereotypes often lead to misunderstandings about software features. For a newcomer to digital painting who lacks real hands-on experience and has only heard vague differences between various tools—like “A is a versatile image processing software, B specializes in vector graphics editing, and C is a professional comic creation tool”—it’s easy to form biased views based on hearsay.

Krita isn’t as well-known, with far fewer users compared to other software. Most beginners aren’t recommended Krita when choosing a drawing tool.

The overall volume of information about Krita online is also quite limited, which has led to some frustrating phenomena: even a small amount of content can significantly shape people’s impressions of it. I recommended Krita to a friend in China, and he asked me, “Are you sure this isn’t an AI drawing software?” After investigating, I found that in his online environment, nearly all Krita-related information consisted of tutorials on using AI drawing plugins within it.

Clearly, if we want Krita to quickly become a popular tool, it would require influential opinion leaders to publicly declare their use of it and create legendary works solely with Krita.

Otherwise, we’ll have to rely on the existing user base for gradual, grassroots promotion.

[Takiro]

@EyeOdin

There could also be a subscription for professionals to have support . that would ensure pros have a guaranty to not feel ignored on the forum and would ensure revenue maybe.

I’m not sure if a professional support subscription would generate more income as it would cost to pay the people who do the support. From my experience it takes a critical mass of paying users for it to generate any revenue and I don’t know if Krita would be able to do it.

I think the sad truth is simply that Krita is not “much more powerful” than other programs, like the title says. When I talk with other artists one of the reasons is that it simply can’t to everything what Photoshop (or CSP) can and unless there is a absolute perfect drop in replacement that is “Photoshop but free” they don’t really care about what Krita could or can do better. Krita is pretty good for painting but most professionals I know want to do a lot more than just painting and they want it in one suite. And they want interoperability, which ironically Photoshop doesn’t really have but that’s okay because “everyone uses Photoshop anyway”.

Additionally Photoshop is what they learn at School or University or in their apprenticeship and they get taught by people who learned it 30 years ago when it was the only good software and get told that this is still the only option if you want to do anything good.

Also, people are generally to lazy to try something different and new (I once was one of them although I came from Paintshop Pro, when that was still a thing)

I mean we had many topics like this already a few times on this forum, the arguments have changed little.

[EyeOdin]

Yes we all know that but there is a difference now a days compared to before.

In the past PS was not evil adobe, and was full package PS. Besides Krita there was a ton of other free painting apps. Krita was not the only one. This situation was not like blenders situation.

Now a days adobe became evil, lost support on many key features and became complicit with A.I. Krita is now the only free app as other prior free apps become payed making Krita’s situation the same as blenders situation now.

This means Krita can now do the blender strategy now and make it work. And not be lost in a sea of similar free apps.

Inter coperability with other apps is something i have been fighting for ages. But it needs documentation and a decision how other apps should read *.kra and *.ora files in their apps. Last time i checked this was left unfinished still. There is a link with instructions but other devs were still unhappy with the instructions i have not checked it again to see if kra got implemented after my attempt to make Krita format supported there.

Krita is not a suite but it is a giant among the open source apps so it can set a standard. Krita does need to capitulate to *.psd but make *.kra its own *.psd that other apps open. Adobe will never open *.kra but if the open source programs that replace the adobe suite open *.kra it does not need to. Not having to export it would make the difference.

And as for the mass adoption. That needs to be adopted at universities to change and for that it needs to be adopted to some extent by the industry. Universities love free stuff that will be easy. We just need to become present for real in the pro stage to make it all happen.

Either way will qt6 rolling in it is time for promotion and hype

[Voronwe13]

Beyond what others have mentioned, if there’s a way to encourage schools (especially high schools and universities) to adopt it for digital art/media classes, that would go a long way towards growing the user base among professionals as students graduate and go into the workplace. Not sure how to do that, especially since Adobe actively does the same thing, with a big promotion budget to help them, but I think that is a good place to focus (especially since students are often poor and appreciate free…).