I hear this criticism a lot, but it's simply not true. What doesn't help is what people mean by "photos" or "photo editing".
RAW Photo import and editing is currently limited in Krita, and you cannot export RAW formats.
But even professionals tend not to use destructive layer based editors like gimp/krita/photoshop/painter/paintshop pro etc and are instead using dedicated software like lightroom, rawtherapee and darkroom.
But if your output format is not RAW, then you have more than enough to edit "photos".
You have layers, masking, vectors and spatial bitmap editors. That's all any of these editors workflows have been since the 90's. Anything else is extra.
Put me in front of Photoshop on modern mac or IFX Amazon Paint on Irix and my workflow and (sloppy) output would be the same.
I didn't say you couldn't edit photos in Krita, just that it wasn't best in class for that use case. Probably because it isn't really a primary goal of the project.
It's less about what features are technically supported and more about what workfkows the ux is built around, at least for me.
I am just an amateur though, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.
RAW Photo import and editing is currently limited in Krita, and you cannot export RAW formats. But even professionals tend not to use destructive layer based editors like gimp/krita/photoshop/painter/paintshop pro etc and are instead using dedicated software like lightroom, rawtherapee and darkroom.
But if your output format is not RAW, then you have more than enough to edit "photos".
You have layers, masking, vectors and spatial bitmap editors. That's all any of these editors workflows have been since the 90's. Anything else is extra.
Put me in front of Photoshop on modern mac or IFX Amazon Paint on Irix and my workflow and (sloppy) output would be the same.