On my old PC (a real museum piece), Krita takes forever to start up and open files. I had the opportunity to try the same configuration (same bundles, same plugins) on a SAMSUNG notebook from a couple of years ago, and Krita is lightning fast! I was even able to use the memileo brushes, which are unusable or almost unusable on my old PC. The hardware seems to be really crucial for Krita to work well.
2 Likes
Krita is just not as efficient as CSP at loading brushes and resources.
If you really want Krita to startup faster now, create a bundle with all your most used brushes in it. Then delete the other bundles yourself in file explorer at %userprofile%\AppData\Roaming\Krita, you have to ensure both the .bundle and its respective folder gets deleted. Krita doesn’t have an easy “Delete Bundle” button right now so we are limited to this.
I will be doing this since Krita currently takes 40 seconds to startup on a decent pc with SSD, Photoshop and CSP takes around 12 seconds in comparison.
I think it’s for the fact that people prefer industrial softwares even if they were horrible more than high quality open source softwares even if cheap. i have both Krita and CSP installed in my laptop and Krita is literally superior and drawing in it is more comfortable
If Krita was “literally superior” than all other painting programs it would’ve already been adopted by much more artists by now. Not exploring why people may prefer industry programs like PS and CSP and putting Krita on a pedastal doesn’t lead to any productive discussion on how Krita could be improved to make it more appealing to professionals.
1 Like
As I somehow agree with you that there is a constant need to question things and make krita a better app, the fact that krita isn’t more adopted can be explained by other factors other than the quality of the product. It can come from people looking for conformity and head to industry standards without checking other alternatives, it can come from the lack of support for krita, there’s far more tutorials out there for CSP and PS, and probably other stuff I didn’t think about . I talked to many animators and the reason they wouldn’t use krita for their job is the lack of camera control inside krita, but also the lack of the curve tool ( as called in CSP ) for cleaning lines and lack of gap close options ( added in 5.3 ) for filling frames fast. I’d love to fully animate in krita, but on my side, I rely heavily on opentoonz for that, as it has already all the features needed for animation !
Edit : I should add that the arc curve tool and 2D camera movement are already in the feature request section, so it’s probably a matter of time ( months, years ? ) before it gets integrated into krita.
1 Like
Have you ever considered that the “pros” at Krita don’t have powdered sugar blown up their backsides? No sponsorship deals, invitations to events to showcase their sponsors’ oh-so-great products, including accommodation and meals, etc., of course. Of course, they sing the praises of those who line their pockets, provide them with free hardware, possibly implement one or two of their desired features, etc.?
Krita’s problem, when I see this topic or the countless other topics of the same ilk, seems to be much more that it doesn’t meet the expectations of those who, strangely enough, want to move away from PS and CSP. Why is that? They’re so great! But they only want to switch if they don’t have to burden their little heads with the oh-so-tragic task of relearning their muscle memory, because that overwhelms these small minds.
No, the problem is that they want PS & CSP for free, and for that, the Krita community has to swallow the bitter pill of Krita becoming the thousandth lousy PS clone for this clientele. No, thank you!
Michelist
3 Likes
If you want to dumb down the multi-faceted reasons of why Krita isn’t adopted more by professionals to just a singular reason like “pros at Krita don’t have powdered sugar blown up their backsides” you can. I don’t think it’s productive at all to view it this black and white however.
Yes Krita requires time to learn because it’s not a PS/CSP clone, but there are actual features and UI/UX improvements that Krita could implement to make it more useful for artists. Having an isolationist mindset and calling those who struggle or even find it impossible to adopt Krita due to different workflows as people with “small minds”.
I would be really surprised if you really think Krita is perfect and shouldn’t copy anything at all from PS and CSP like the draggable reordering of brush presets. Do you really think Krita’s limitation of requiring a multi-step process to rename brushes in order to visually reorder them in the Brush Presets docker is an ideal solution? Or should everyone swallow the bitter pill that Krita should be uniquely inuntuitive just because it’s Krita therefore it shouldn’t copy anything from other painting programs.
3 Likes
Of course, there are plenty of things about Krita that could be improved, and this has been happening since Krita was launched, but discussions like this are so disparaging that they just disgust me. It starts with the title of this thread. The essence of many of the writers of these threads is along the lines of: “I want a PS or CSP clone.”
The majority of long-time Krita users like Krita’s interface the way it is, and we are not opposed to seeing new features added to Krita, provided that they are in line with Krita’s vision, which you can read about on the first page of the manual, and that they benefit the user community.
But when the wish of a long-time Krita user (who is probably one of the best experts on Krita) to keep the Tool Options Docker at least as an option and which I expressly support, is simply brushed aside because it does not fit into your concept, then I wonder what Krita’s user base, who seem to like its operation as it is, still counts for, and I wonder what this is all about, if not the creation of PS II?
For a long time, it has mainly, but fortunately not exclusively, been about implementing PS & CSP features because their users miss them here, and that often has little to do with improving Krita, but rather with serving that clientele. However, if you have read and understood the first page of the manual, then you know why many things have not been available for a long time. Krita is a vision, an attitude towards life, and a path.
And by the way, your MR to finally have the brush stroke display in the main interface instead of just in the Brush Editor is excellent!
Michelist
2 Likes
Hi, I paint professionally and have used Clip Studio Rebelle 7 Pro, Photoshop, and Artrage. It’s not true that Krita is the best and beats all competition. The best software for realistic brushes and painting is Rebelle 8 Pro. Without a doubt, there is nothing on the market like Rebelle. It depends on your needs. For example, Clip Studio is widely used in manga and animation. You should know that only (solo leveling) has been done with Clip Studio with 3D software. Photoshop is used for illustrations. Do you know why Photoshop is the most widely used software? The secret lies in the fact that Photoshop introduced brush customization many years ago, allowing you to modify them, and you can easily download thousands of them. There is a large market for Photoshop brushes, and there is a lot of money involved. Krita is a beautiful software, and I would recommend it myself, but Photoshop will always be the most widely used. In the right hands and for those who know how to draw, Krita can be used without any problems. However, some professionals have, for example, three painting software programs because they want to use different brush engines depending on their needs. One of my favorite brushes in Krita is chrome large. No other painting software can replicate this brush. Then, when I’m done, I switch to another software for other types of brushes, just to give you an idea. I repeat, the best software for realism is Rebelle 8 pro. The fact that it has NanoPixel alone is worth every penny for professionals. There would be more to say, but I’ll stop here.
1 Like
being adopted by much more artists doesn’t determine the software’s quality , people prefer FireAlpaca over Krita does that mean that FireAlpaca is better?
I expressed my opinion based on my experience. I said that Krita is a wonderful software and deserves more, but we can’t do anything about it. Photoshop has a monopoly. I make time-lapses to help someone and show Krita’s potential.
being adopted by much more artists doesn’t determine the software’s quality
While that’s true since marketing plays a large role in mass adoption, that doesn’t discount the fact that FireAlpaca may have convenient features that Krita doesn’t have which may play a part in its larger adoption. Krita currently doesn’t have this for example:
You can’t simply see your brush stroke’s preview in your UI unless you open the Brush Editor every single time.
Most people prefer Photoshop over Krita, does that mean it’s only popular because of its branding?
being adopted by much more artists doesn’t determine the software’s quality
It does determine the software’s quality long term.
FireAlpaca isn’t open source, Krita is. The more appealing Krita is for the average artist means more users, more users means more contributors like me who are willing to put the time and effort into making plugins and even contributing to the codebase to add features: Brush Preview - Feature Request - #71 by tenzindraws
Your point would make sense if Krita wasn’t open source but that’s not the case. Krita benefits immensely from more user adoption than any other painting program since its development is openly collaborative.
That is, and has always been, the way it is.
I already wrote it long ago (or not so long?) that in all bigger Graphic Design Studio’s I know they usually use all graphic programs that offer abilities no other program provides, which can be a good bunch. Often they even have a specialist for each program for the programs in the bigger studio’s, so someone who is a master in a single software, but of course they can usually use all standard programs, but there is one program “they can fly with”.
And that is a logical decision, they make their living with that, and they were dumb and would burn money if they didn’t use the tools that let them make things quick, easy, effective, and perhaps the result is even more beautiful.
Why should they work differently than other industrial/commercial sectors do, they want to earn the best loan possible.
That may be the case, but it doesn’t have to be. Yes, it could even be wrong, because most people have never heard of Krita. Krita is hardly present in the consciousness of the general public because it is hardly advertised anymore these days. Unless you stumble across a report mentioning Krita or search for free graphics programs, very few people will ever hear about it. PS & CSP are well known because of advertising, and PS also because of the term “photoshopping,” which has become a common term.
However, there are still many people who believe they should only use what is considered the best or the industry standard, just so they can say “I have that too/I use that too.” Whether they can afford it is a question they don’t ask themselves, as a few here have openly admitted.
No joke, we’ve had users here in the forum who believe that anyone who pays for programs and values licenses is stupid! They bragged about owning virtually all the major commercial programs for 2D, 3D, animation, only the best, and “in the free version,” and that this behavior was practiced even by companies in their home country. One even said that this was the case across his entire home continent.
And then they made demands and claims that Krita had to become much more powerful because Krita didn’t run smoothly on their hardware (probably because they didn’t have the money for reasonably up-to-date or powerful hardware). Sad, at least in my eyes.
The discussion about what the best software is, is fruitless, because everyone has different requirements and often not every program offers everything you need. More important questions would be: What does Krita need to improve? How can we raise more donations for Krita, money that would make it possible to employ more programmers and make Krita better? Unfortunately, many people only want to “take.”
Michelist
2 Likes
Don’t be discouraged. Krita is a very nice and complete software. People who struggle to draw or paint want a thousand options and a thousand aids like Photoshop. Anyone who belittles Krita hasn’t understood anything about digital painting. I’m telling you, I’ve had some experience with different software. Remember Michelist. The fewer tools a software has, the more skilled and skilled you have to be. I myself have used MS Paint. There are also various time-lapses on YouTube and it makes you understand that the software is irrelevant in the right hands. Photoshop is a billion-dollar company. You can’t do anything. They have money and resources.
From my perspective of working in creative industry, I think there are simple reasons.
- Familiarity - People just don’t know about Krita as a digital painting software. Most people in art and design field use what they were trained on, photoshop, and a very few people explore and completely switch to other softwares like ClipStudio or procreate. Krita can’t match the flashy promotional campaigns of other paid softwares. Also there are no creators with big reach using Krita as their main painting software, although I am hopeful about official krita youtube channel.
- PSD format has become a standard of art and design file sharing for some reason. So much so every new painting app is expected to have psd support or it will never take off. Also psd files are used for interoperability in other softwares such as video editors (davinci resolve, after effects), animation softwares (TVPaint, Harmony, Moho). Adobe’s walled garden will ensure it stays that way. Unless open document format becomes popular.
- Text - Text in krita is very painful to work with. Even more painful than gimp. This alone take out Krita from ‘professional’ software category. Good text tool is a necessity for animation, comics and design industry. But the new text tool is coming! And already it looks better than other big softwares text capabilities. So I hope this will finally remove a huge a pain point for many potential users.
4 Likes
Actually yes, Adobe is a multi billion dollar company they got their stuff together. Krita’s only issue is lacking identity and popularity because it’s only offered as “PS and CSP free alternative” or “the best free art software”, CSP itself is a multi million dollars company and was presented as the best software for Manga artists (even though I really didn’t like it since it lacks features that only represented in Krita)
I really wish if I could donate to Krita to improve many things like Vector layer to make it like CSP’s one or IbisPaintX’s , better deform engine since the one we got makes the drawing blurry, better liquify tool and etcs.. My friend is an actual professional artist who uses Krita yet doesn’t know how it works. Art software doesn’t matter if you’re comfortable with it. Many people prefer MS Paint over Krita too even though Krita offers more features and stuff 
I don’t think the issue is actually in the software itself I think the issue is about preferences + Placebo effect where people thinking that switching from ugly bad bad software (Krita) /sarcastic to a brand new paid cool software (CSP, PS, Procreate) will make their art explode and be better automatically
2 Likes
Branding is the main reason yes but to say it’s the only reason once again puts Krita on a pedastal instead of scrutinizing what it does worse vs PS/CSP and how it can match or even surpass them.
2 Likes
I’ve always compared choosing software to buying a new pair of shoes: you don’t just have to like them; they have to fit you well. The reason we prefer one software over another is when it offers the right compromise between its features and our actual needs. Much depends on the field we work in. Some prefer using a single program, while others choose which tool to use based on the desired outcome.
For instance, if I want to paint in a traditional style, Rebelle 8 remains the best choice at the moment because it was born for that specific purpose. On the other hand, those who work in a team or collaborate with other professionals often have to opt for the most industry-standard software to avoid compatibility issues. Obviously, there’s no point in talking about the ‘best software’ since it depends entirely on our needs, expectations, and workflow. That’s why some people can achieve excellent results even with simple, unassuming programs. What matters is being able to achieve what we want.
Personally, Krita satisfies my urge to experiment because I find it to be a program that sparks the desire to ‘look under the hood.’ It makes me feel like a child again, taking toys apart to see how they work inside. We all have a different approach, but in the end, what counts is finding the best toy for us.
3 Likes