Krita has come a long way. When I discuss it with people, they often say "Oh, but it's only for digital painting, right? That doesn't fit my needs." However, in reality Krita is a full-fledged Photoshop replacement. I believe Krita is limiting itself by marketing it as a digital art tool only. The conversation usually goes like this:

> Person: Man, GIMP is really frustrating to use.
> Me: You should try Krita, it's a lot better.
> Person: But Krita is for digital paining, I'm trying to edit images.
> Me: Krita can do everything GIMP can, and more.
> Person: Hmm, if you say so. Maybe I should try it.
> Person: *never tries it*

I get that digital painting is Krita's main thing, and I appreciate it, but it actually has the potential to challenge Photoshop as the leading image editor. It could be adopted by professional organizations and give Adobe a run for their money. In Free Software, this is what I like to see - a community solution challenging stereotypes and overtaking the corporate, exploitative, mainstream option.

Incidentally, Krita also has the best PSD compatibility of any open source solution, including **layer styles** which is something Photoshop people can't live without. The transition from Photoshop -> Krita is a lot smoother than Photoshop -> GIMP. Krita offers similar tools, similar behavior (eg, no "floating" layers), and even similar keyboard shortcuts. I've been thinking about this for a while and it seems like there is a lot of untapped potential here. With Creative Cloud moving to a subscription model, people are looking for a change.

Please let creative professionals know they don't have to be chained to Adobe. Krita can work for them.

for what it's worth I agree! but I remember that the print option is missing and is needed for a photo editor ...