Krita isn't on the same level as Blender, but it's not on the same level as other Open Source projects either. I'd put it in the same camp as projects like Ardour, and arguably above projects like Godot (although I'm sure some people would debate me on that).
It's an exceptional drawing tool that is well-suited for professional work and is headed in a really promising direction. It's got a couple of weaknesses (vector layers) but it really shouldn't be discounted as a professional-level tool.
Unless you're claiming that Inkscape is in the same position and has gotten a lot better than the last time I used it, which :shrug: could be true, I don't know. I'm not trying to bash Inkscape here.
I can vouch for Krita and Inkscape pairing well as vector art programs and even doing things that CSP, whose vector layers are pretty well liked, can't match. The issue is that drawing in Inkscape is a little bit broken(it can be done, but the current UX is death by papercut) - thus I approach it through the other program, which is basic but consistent.
So the workflow I end up using for digital inks is: Open both programs, sketch in Krita, copy-paste the vector data into Inkscape, stroke->path, then use tweak tool to sculpt the lines. This adds line weight in seconds-to-minutes. Alternately, I can apply path effects instead of stroke->path, if I want a more programmatic design. If I want to paint, I can copy-paste the shape back into Krita.
As a hobbyist digital painter and 3D artist who has used both Blender and Krita, I strongly disagree with this. Krita is simply best-in-class at digital painting on a PC. Both are exceptional pieces of software.
It did take me a week or two to adjust to Krita’s hotkeys coming from a lifetime of Photoshop, but the software in the end is leagues better for painting.
no but he's right, there's a level of polish that was higher than average there too, i actually thought about it but couldn't remember the name when i wrote.
