Gimp...

[Dikkie]

Both should be possible in Krita... wondering if a pixel and vector editor go well together in one app...
If I google comparisons for krita vs gimp or krita vs inkscape ... mostly inkscape and gimp win, also due to the bigger community behind it.

Ok, I read it here already: most of it isn't vector, but primarily a raster graphics editing tool:
Vector Graphics — Krita Manual version 4.2.0

So actually Krita is not good for replacing Inkscape...
And the Scheme macros I've written in Gimp can't be read in Krita neither.... unless I all rewrite them in Python.
So I guess I'll still stay with Inkscape and Gimp for the moment.
Although, to paint around in Krita seems nice and easy... but if the result isn't 100% vector... it's worthless. Will have to give it a try and test it... prolly somewhere in august when I've got time for it.

 

[ToddM]

I started using GIMP as my main photo editing program about a year ago when I finally switched from Windows XP to Windows 7 LOL. Cause Windows 7 wouldn't install my old copy of Adobe Photodeluxe (LOL again). I've had to do a lot of google searching and figuring out how to get things done in GIMP that I could fly through in Photodeluxe. But overall, GIMP is great. Obviously I'm not running a pro photography operation. I'm just a low end flunky who needs a decent photo editor. And for that, I highly recommend GIMP.

 

[Derrel]

I have only owned one Windows computer in my life, a $3000 Sony VAIO, one of their really nice ones. It had windows XP media edition on it, and I was pretty impressed with how well the operating system worked. I have not used Windows 7 except extremely briefly.

 

[Derrel]

I no longer even fire up a pixel based editor. I stick with parametric editing for everything I do now. The storage space savings are tremendous.

 

[smoke665]

This thread is like one of those which car brand is better. Everyone has their software, methods and workflows that work for their specific needs, mine works for me, might not work for someone else. Not really concerned about storage space, or whether its a destructive edit of the image as I have RAW backups to start over with if I ever need to (which I've never had to do to date).

I've used Silkypix, Pentax Utility 5, Correl's Paintshop Pro (actually not that bad if it wasn't for the random crashes), Lightroom and Photoshop now. I do everything except the heavy lifting in Lr, and switch over to Ps when needed. The more I can stay in Lr the better, as it's quicker then Ps for me processing a large number of files.

 

[Derrel]

Not concerned at all with storage space... when a HQ 16-bit PSD file is 128 to 256 megabytes, versus 32 k or so for the instruction set

 

[smoke665]

Not concerned at all with storage space... when a HQ 16-bit PSD file is 128 to 256 megabytes, versus 32 k or so for the instruction set

Again one of those my brand of car is better then yours arguments. What I do works for me, may not for others. The 32k you mention refers only to the editing instructions contained in the Lr catalog. Your raw image file is still in the 40-60mb range and still requires storage. The nice thing about Lr & Ps is they don't care where you store your image files (including those PSDs) as long as it knows where to find them. Using your 250mb example a typical 4tb HDD drive will store 16,000 files, if my math is right (assuming 100% useable for ease of figuring), and costs less then $75. A 4 bay NAS with (4) 4tb drives, using your same number will store 640000 files without swapping, and costs somewhere around $700. My new laptop has a Thunderbolt 3 port which besides being blazing fast allows daisy chaining devices. Through it, I connect a 500gb SSD as a scratch disk for Ps, and a portable external HDD, because of our travels, I need the portability. At some point I may set up a NAS at home but I'm not really in need of it yet. Not all of my images require editing in Ps, because my workflow does a lot of the front end editing in Lr. Most of my PSD files end up being way less then the 250mb so, storage isn't really a concern in my case.

 

[Dikkie]

Not concerned at all with storage space... when a HQ 16-bit PSD file is 128 to 256 megabytes, versus 32 k or so for the instruction set

Who still works with .psd files ? That's for people who worked with Photoshop back in the days.

And it also depends on with what you compare... my sidecar files are 10 kb, that's 3 times less than your instruction set, if you're concerned about storage space Whoaa, I save 20kb each photo

Storage space... it all depends on many factors and how you look on things.
15 years ago there were 3 MP camera's, for the average people who were making the switch from film, it was already too much, you could print A4-size pictures in a sufficient quality, while no one needed it as A6 was sufficient enough for the photos everyone printed for their photo albums at home.
Right now, they make cameras with 30 MP... the average amateur doesn't use these extra MP. It's all taking storage. But marketing makes people believe they need cameras with huge file sizes to make great photos. I know people (without photographic knowledge) who believe this.
I'm not talking about professionals who need to deliver giant photo walls every day... yes, they need it.
My own camera is a 12MP, but I could set the output settings to 6MP to reduce file sizes, it would be enough for my hobby usage, I'm already doing overkill here..

Another thing to reduce storage is to keep the photo you need. People shoot hundred photos for one subject and they use the best one to deliver to their client or to put online (totally compressed for web-view), but they still keep these hundred other worthless photos as backup for if -in any case- they would ever need the other photos in the future. I know people who never delete, who always keep, who never make selections or dare to throw things away.

And as for storage, nowadays you can buy harddrives with terrabytes for so much less money than 10 years ago, it's always getting cheaper for more terrabytes...