Its a painting program not an image editing program. they dont compete.
They do a bit. I often do adjustments and editing on raw photos from my camera with Krita (colour curves, minor rotations, copying heads between group photos so everyone's eyes are open, etc.). Historically GIMP couldn't handle the higher bit depth, so Krita was it.
Oh but they do. If Krita had just a couple more filters, GIMP would be basically obsolete. Out of the photo manipulation I do on Linux, more than 90% I do in Krita.
Doesn't krita have a plugin for gmic?
That's got a tonne of filters.
Looks like it does - that's awesome!
If there's something that GIMP can do that Krita can't, I never encountered it in over two years of using it for front end development and graphic design work.
Same here. I don't do much in Krita but it has been able to do everything I wanted gimp to do, but just nicer of a tool.
I can't find the resynthesize function in Krita for one.
There are some photo-specific effects and tools present in GIMP that are missing from Krita. I remember having to switch to GIMP for some edits, but I can't recall the specific features. 95% of the time, though, Krita is all you need for photo editing.
photoshop isn't a website making program and yet...
Oh you could say the same in reverse for photoshop but i know atleast hundreds of people using it for Digital painting.
Krita has about 2,500,000 users on Windows alone.
Judging by the pace of development, adoption among users and general attitude I think that sooner or later Krita will surpass GIMP and make it obsolete.
I'm not doing any painting in Krita, I'm using it for image editing. I always hated when I had to use GIMP in the past and it ways a joy to discover Krita and find that it does everything I needed GIMP for, but with a sensible user interface.