I mean, personally, I make a lot of layers and save my work a lot, and I make use of the undo/redo stack. Again, like, it isn’t perfect, but I used to do pixel art in the Palace editor. Like, maybe my standards just aren’t very high.

I’ve been working on game assets using GIMP and it’s been totally sufficient. But like, maybe Krita could add to my workflow. I’m not opposed to the idea of tuning my work flow to get better results. I do have concerns about spending excessive time learning new environments for only marginal benefit considering how wide my net has to be, but if it’s a big time saver it might be worth it.

I edit photography and for serious work, I agree with you. The FOSS lover in me really, really wanted to like GIMP but I find myself just having it there, taking space most of the time. For light work and simple touch up work GIMP is fine, but if I already have Ps or hell, even Lightroom fired up, then I might as well used those for quick fixes as they exist closer or are part of my regular workflow. Guess the issue seems to come down to if you are willing to pay for the software. If one wants to spend $0, or one has light-use needs, then the use case for GIMP increases. But if you need more professional software, then you are likely to just pay for the industry standard for the extra features.

That is not to say that GIMP is useless, which is what I think some people may be thinking. I have been meaning to look at Krita, if only due to curiosity for a while. So thanks for reminding me.