SrPx

I know what you mean by not just useful for making favicons. I used to make ICNS & ico files for the apps of the software dev I worked at (and for other apps studios that worked with us), and also, making icon packs to be dowloaded for free for people. Those got to rank to the top (google) for the chains I wanted, hehe😎 . It was long ago, I'd typically use very specialized apps for that (Photoshop wasn't able to even do just the ico thing well back then (dunno now) and anyway we produced cross-platform, so I needed as well all the ICNS stuff (and back then SVGs/PNGs for Linux, too). I remember having to study both the Windows Vista (and later Windows versions.... till Win XP it had been kindda easier) and Mac OS strict specs to produce both types of libraries, with their design rules. OH. WOW. Just realizing... IcoFX still exists.... Oh, my. Hugely evolved (win, mac icons, but also android, iOS, etc.) Frankly, I was not aware Gimp could do ico libraries. Nice. PD: I'd add the feature would be useful as a global one. Both for Designer and Photo. Some have mentioned the technique of just reducing the image from 512x512 (or 1024! I've done such icon sizes) , but that works till an extent; at some point it's extra optimal if one can do pixel art, as at 32x32 and below, it realy is gonna look better if making the by pure pixel art techniques. Pixel Persona has the 1 pixel tool as well, it is just as good as a pixel pusher, would make the deal in Designer for that, but it'd be nice for other reasons to have it also in Photo. Plus... I have the 3 apps, but some people may only have Photo (Photo can be used as a standalone digital painting/illustration/pixel art/graphic design/game art solution, despite being focused on photography and image editing in general).

Paint me interested. 😎

Among these, special upvote for Unsplash. Very high quality material. Or... I like it a lot. Pixabay... I have read people reporting several images not being really free. Also, I have noticed myself several images really being just a hue/curves change of some other free or copyrighted image elsewhere or even in the same site. Maybe it is a bit less cured than others ? It appears to me so. I don't know, though. Anyway, is a risk anyone has always with free images for which you don't have a license of whichever type of use/uses, or a document ensuring it is really CC0 (it's a zero, not the "o" vowel). (better than Public Domain, as, it appears public domain is not equally valid in every country). I only say this just to recommend being extra careful... for educational material, though, fair use covers these issues pretty well, my worry is mostly for commercial products, which is most of a designer's/illustrator's output. The files from commons.wikimedia, and other serious depots with a Creative Commons license attached to each file (but those licenses are often more restrictive than people think) are safe. While I am at it, another strong recommendation, at the level of Unsplash, it would be https://www.pexels.com . All images are licensed with the site's license (free for commercial and etc), or CC0. So, amazing.

Very good resource. I would absolutely add in the fonts category https://www.1001fonts.com It lists both commercial and free, but it is as simple as to click the label just in the search field, so that it becomes "green", and then the results are only free fonts. I found it important to mention, as IMO, currently, is the best site for fonts. Among other things, because the information for each font is quite in depth, it is better presented, and it has a lot of fonts in the catalog. Together with https://www.dafont.com (careful, seems a lot of imitators and even scam sites have appeared with similar names.... THIS one is the right URL) it is my second choice (used to be the first). You can as well select to have only free fonts results by setting several settings in advanced search. Not as fast as setting it so at 1001fonts, but still, the place has many free fonts. IMO, these two are an absolute must in that list.... But to each their own.

Yes, it (Photo) is very capable of painting. And this last 1.9 version is sweet in many senses. I think for digital painting and specially concept art (in the way it is done at game companies) and matte painting, Photo is a better solution than Designer's Pixel Persona. And... vectors are great for... vector based illustration, and specially graphic design. For similar reasons I think Photoshop, while being mostly an image editor, is fantastic for digital painting (it is the software REQUIRED for concept artists in the entire industry!) , and so is Affinity Photo, as a lot of the essential advantages of that use of PS, are in Photo, too. There are some important tools you don't have in the pixel persona in Designer which you have in Photo (I made an in depth comparison for my own use some time ago). That said, I know I would be able as well to do digital painting in Designer's pixel persona, but would be pointless, as the advantages of using a "PS like" tool like Photo, disappear in that pixel persona of Designer, so, for that I'd rather just use CSP, SAI or Krita (I can't stand Rebelle, Open Canvas and Paintstorm Studio inability to deal with bigger than 10x10k (or similar) pixel canvases...). Which are AMAZING tools for painting. But some of us value very highly the versatility offered to an illustrator, painter and general graphic professional doing other tasks besides just painting (but these advantages are also in painting) , reason why still can see an edge on using Photo or Photoshop for Painting instead of Krita, Art Rage or Corel Painter, to name a few. And currently the brushes in Photo do behave quite well (you have two modes of line stabilizer, and several other features that provide the essentials, in my book). I'm a realistic painter, with many years of experience, and yup, I'd totally would paint with Photo (my tools of choice are tho CSP, Krita, and since recently PaintTool SAI 2.0 (best painting app in performance, till crazy levels, tho minimalist UI, and it is "only" a painter (quite more so than Krita) , not for everyone). Designer is a very good purchase for vector based illustration, and in my opinion, specially for graphic design. For my (non painting) workflows, is an absolute must, I use it together with Inkscape.

But uninstall first 1.9.

**WOW**. Have been disconnected as terribly busy lately (happily)... The list of improvements since latest stable !!! 😮 😎😎🤑 And actually I was hoping for exactly those improvements! Huge Kudos... But I need greater adjectives to describe it, in this, my second language...

Several times I've visited Figma, in its updates, what it can do , etc,... great for what it is designed for, fast and flexible prototyping, working with a team, for webs and apps... As a graphic design (specially for print, more complex designs, etc) package, with enough tools... Quite basic compared to Affinity Designer or Inkscape. IMO. Scribus... Not an easy UI, that's for sure. But seems it is capable. Can't say more as I've only used publishing tools when some project have needed it, not versed on it.

PS have been used since always as a painting tool as well (by game studios, film related studios, illustrators, the comics industry, etc) It is since CC 2018 that it has a line stabilizer. This is great for line work, and wasn't there for 21 years (now let's complain about Affinity taking time to add features.... ), actually, they added it AFTER (funnily, only months after, haha...if I remember well) Affinity Photo had implemented its line stabilizer. Also, at some point in the CC (don't remember when) they started accelerating the brushes by the GPU. In theory should allow bigger brushes, and smoother performance (indeed, deactivating GPU in preferences makes impossible to paint well) , but in reality, PS CS 5.1 (CS as well as all the non-CS) allowed very fast brushes, no lag, also with PS 7.x (Adobe 6 (all this now pre CS) was kindda buggy compared to 4.x and 5.x) one would paint greatly. It is in terms of stuff for photo editing (well, many features like non destructive editing are HUGE for any field) where, IMO, more improvements have happened. For painting, one could use a PS CS 5.1, CS 2, 7.1 (TGA transparency bug was fixed in 7.1), or even 5.x. The 4.0 did not have historic UNDO!!!. And ... if I remember well, neither the evolved text tool it got in 5.x. But a CS 6 is IMO yet today very usable in most fields (the CS versions IMO will get finally made unusable by making it incompatible with some OS update, not because those would stop being useful... like happens with many things) . The content aware stuff, I got used since 95 to make it "by hand", and like all, that's time that piles up on your workflow.

Probably wouldn't be game over if Affinity released Photo on Linux after Photoshop. Would gain less people to its cause, yep, but.... It is what has happened on Windows and Mac. A large portion of users get rid of subscriptions when they find a permanent purchase product (that can be upgraded, and that upgrade get purchased when and if needed... me, am gonna buy each upgrade) that fit their needs. Yes, would be game over if solely aiming to get the Linux users that are fine paying monthly rent for a commercial software ;). And yes, there could be many of those. But that division and flow would happen as well if Affinity would arrive before PS. There is a type of user that needs Photoshop (compatibility with client files, a particular feature or mode, etc) and other than can't stand subscriptions (imo, this is a large group in all the platforms), is a freelancer/hobbyist... I believe the Windows/Mac situation would replicate on Linux, despite the order of appearance... It's a bunch of years (since '95 at least, tho I'm bad remembering dates) of Photoshop in Windows and Mac OS before Affinity appeared ... But it has been quite a meteor in the graphic apps world, anyway, achieving a lot of customers. And despite being already long years competitors there (Corel, Xara, PhotoLine, etc) , they are described as The alternative...

It seems to me that you can donate other ways (to Gimp) . https://www.gimp.org/donating/ Yep, it's to the coder for GEGL (by Patreon) , but that indirectly means the CMYK mode, which is SO crucial for so many workflows. Besides, NON DESTRUCTIVE editing capabilities (lack which many have mentioned as a disadvantage too important in Gimp) and many other matters. GEGL is a revolution for Gimp. And the other guy as supposedly would help in animation features (yep, not really helpful for a DTP workflow). But more importantly... I was a bit shocked to hear that, as I know by other sources how much in need of help they are... And also, I never donated to them (my bad), I've only donated to Blender and mostly, Wings 3D (open source, too). I'm not selfish, I just prefer putting that money in helping (and I do) directly people I know, with more dire needs. Thing is, it does seem that the Gnome "middle man" thing is only a matter of legal/taxes stuff, but the donation does go to the GIMP project. You probably could get in direct talk (email or whatever) with the group to get more detail about this point. If I were them, I'd explain it kindly to every potential donor! I mean, if we read it carefully : (emphasis, bold: mine) Donate to The Project Donating money to the GIMP project is easy! The GNOME Foundation has graciously agreed to act as fiscal agents for us. Contributions to the GIMP project can be made by donating to the GNOME Foundation and specifying the GIMP project as the recipient. The GNOME Foundation is a tax-exempt, non-profit 501(c)(3) organization and all donations are tax-deductible in the USA. If it is about the doubt of the money reaching the intended destiny... well... is like donating to any other cause, isn't it ? I've donated to Oxfan Intermon, Red Cross, Doctors without borders, Unicef... You will be always with that doubt... A leap of faith is needed. Otherwise, just keeping your money and buy a software and an OS (ie, Mac OS if not liking Windows telemetry and all that) that let you focus in creating art rather than in the lack of needed software... I myself have full trust in the existing native Linux applications. I feel they will get there, at least for full time freelancers and middle size studios.

Gimp is evolving way more than it seems, like Inskcape, I have used it professionally at companies for many years, and it is very capable: It was when it was (both) quite less evolved than now. The code is old, and this has stopped faster growth for a long time. Adding a CMYK mode (savagely discarded by most graphic apps in Linux for decades) has only been made possible thanks to the GEGL library, which is allowing many more great stuff. I expected to not see ANY step towards a CMYK mode until 5 or 10 years more, or any at all, while it's being worked out now, this year. Weird as they have other features of very advanced nature. You have tho always been able to proof preview and export a CMYK file (like happens with Clip Studio, Paint Shop Pro, etc). I've read too many times how they badly needed the funds to get more permanent, full year people working on the project. How they were crippled only with 2 or 3! . So, the stubborn aspect of them is long gone, almost as much as with Blender. Blender devs were very closed at some point ( I have direct data) but are now (since years) the extreme opposite (and very recent changes in how they plan to work from now are going even more in that direction, totally in sync with the users community, bigger in that than any company I've seen for a while, in closed commercial and open source companies/groups/individuals). So, Gimp's issue, at least from outside but actually being really interested in them improving, caring for it, so, digging a bit more, do seem to be related to an old code base, and LACK OF FUNDS !!. But I really see a ton of passion and love for the project in them, really. And they have a strong community of loyal like heck and VERY advanced users. No... I hate (more than ever before) to disagree, but the problem is bigger. Linux is a force of nature in terms of number and percentage of programmers. And I would say, in skills and capability... You see tons of network, system, coding, cloud, etc, related apps of many sorts, tons of libraries related to these fields, too. Tons of new distros, new desktops, you name it. During certain years, I had more linux friends in my personal life than people using other OSes (as used to hang out with an always growing and changing linux dev group, to have dinner, go to places and stuff. None of them were interested in graphics at all, let alone making graphic apps. And ended knowing people from everywhere). I've spoken to one of the main Krita founders about the whole issue... had some great coffees, and really, they made some super clever moves to get the funding (one of the strongest, getting the app in the Microsoft store, which is ironic to say the least). So, it has been needed to get people not only great in programming, but also in business and organization, not so common combination. It's gotta be these rare unicorns, as mostly, these people are quite alone (in money and help) in the entire community, as , again, no strong interest among devs (neither companies) there for graphic design and etc (opposite than in Mac world, or Windows). Blender, like Krita, is another "rara avis", but the story of Blender is super peculiar... A NeoGeo internal (commercial) app that Ton and the company ended up pulling out to the public as a commercial app, and way back in 1998 (the tool existed in some form already in 1995). It got a HUGE, huge push from the community of users, to make it fully open source, each one putting money. But the owner of the app was willing for it! There was no need to put pressure on him or the company to do that. He actually wanted it. Am fine with that approach. For a lot of years, Blender was quite like Gimp, so not really comparable, even by far, with Max, Maya, XSI or LW. Still IMO is quite behind, but right now is super usable for any mid range studio, local TV and every freaking freelance om earth (I know by experience) with some patience. Every story that you see of a graphic app in Linux is.. . long in time, and very painful. And it has been so for lack of interest by the dev community. Compare it instead to Firefox, Libre Office, Apache, LAMP stuff, many programming related libraries (that are chosen by commercial Windows based dev companies, over Windows libraries or solutions... I've seen that from inside), the actual gazillion of distros (while it was WAY more important to build first a solid collection of pro-usable software (for graphics), IMO) etc. I think there's a ton of other entities and individuals to blame or to expect to "fill the gap" first, before we can start looking at commercial closed code companies like this one... But hey, to each his/her own.

Krita allows fully working on real CMYK mode and exporting with the color profile, if I am not wrong (I don't know for sure in every detail as in Windows, I just export from CSP or Krita to any Affinity app, to export the final thing from there. Or work fully on Affinity apps, which are covering quite what I need). You can also use Scribus (export from wherever to Scribus) as it works with CMYK and color profiles. The "exact", color-accurate workflow depends heavily on how you would handle the color profiles and export/import operations (and monitor calibration, etc). Gimp supports a kind of preview, and exports as an actual CMYK file, while is not using a true CMYK work mode, the export is a correct CMYK file. When you are preserving the same color profile, unless you change the colors in the file manually, due to some wrong visualization (due to a problem in the app or monitor/calibration), it should be safe. This year with the GEGL library they were to finally add a true CMYK mode, but I have not seen that yet (checking now the wiki roadmap, seems is WIP yet, but that's something!). To be 100% fair with them, neither PaintShopPro ever had it, nor Art Rage, Rebelle 3 (neither 4), neither even the huge old Corel Painter, unless they've added it very recently. And Clip Studio Paint actually does sth similar to Gimp, it's a proof preview, although you export as a real CMYK file, but neither has a real CMYK mode. Inkscape was going to have a true CMYK mode in 1.0, but it became to buggy in my Windows as to even test it (I got notified here that also happens in Mac), while 0.9x had been "kind of" stable always. That's a royal pity, as I use Inkscape to "help" Affinity Designer in certain features (nothing stops anyone to keep installed a 0.94 or so, it's open source, many repositories of older versions). Or use one of the less visual methods: Ghostscript, imagemagik, CMYKTool. There is a free engine, LittleCMS, but one thing I can't try as I have no Linux installed (neither time) anymore, and what might be extremely interesting is the tool that this group or company has made (20$ , but if it works smoothly, it's well worth it). Is a visual app, so might be very convenient for many, Little CMS Color Translator 3 . For all I know, that engine (and surely, everything based on it, like this app) is about the most reliable path to go in Linux about this matter. But again, I haven't tried any of this : https://www.littlecms.com/translator/ I've cried for a much greater attention to CMYK in several linux related forums like since 2002.... But I kept reading even in the apps main faqs and roadmaps, that CMYK was 'not needed, that was redundant, innecessary, tied to "proprietary" formats, or simply, not a priority at all' . It was funny to see the roadmaps and how they pushed it even after animation, on inskcape, for example. Thing is, they are somewhat realizing now, most apps devs on Linux, how key it is, and how much it has not gone away as some predicted. I work in RGB and do a final conversion to CMYK ( if needed, if not, I just do some checks to not get out of usual print ranges, but leave the conversion to the RIP, in a PDF/X-4). Provided one has the monitor well calibrated and all correct in your Linux (I have not gone far in that path...) I have seen some pros doing work with CMYK export (without a CMYK mode, only preview/proof), but is a difficult territory, at least compared to the Windows/Mac situation, where from the OS to the apps all seems more worked out for CMYK and color management... IMO. So...yep... as I mentioned often... not all the guilt is in the horrible (joking) corporations or companies... that stubborn resistance to implement this key thing for an entire industry, when they (developers of several graphic apps on Linux) were adding much more secondary features, is one of the several factors to the current inconvenient status quo (one other neither recognized often is the little interest of developers, coding all sort of network, cloud, general code related and system apps every day, and very, very, very few dedicated to graphic apps. I believe Gimp (as of now, the main "photoshop" for an entire OS....) team has only 3 persons, in a permanent basis (which surely aren't full time, but volunteer work, just that they are kind of permanent. Blender instead, I believe they have full day staff). So, there you have it. Of course, the market share and all is a problem, but (then wouldn't be a factor at all) with the development force of nature that this OS is populated with, they'd be able to create whatever they wanted (I have seen almost no change in the situation in more than 20 years! Blender and Krita are brilliant exceptions), if the desire for such apps would be even slightly common. Yes, users on Linux need it BADLY, and ask for it (not only here!), but devs in the environment, not that much, to say the least (so, that would be an interesting front of action to consider, to make a real change in something bigger than just getting certain graphic apps graciously "ported" or even working with an emulator (versus sth developed fully native and open source, sustainable, etc)).... Anyway, I think Gimp and Inkscape will get there, at some point. Krita already has CMYK support, somehow.

Actually, what I meant is that I've read pure 2D motion graphic professionals adapting their workflow to Fusion, coming from After Effects. It takes some adaptation effort, tho. Probably for a heavily AE based workflow, with a client using it in an established pipeline... nope... but for freelancing stuff that does not require it (a lot of that)... I'd do it even with Blender and/or Synfig.. .There's a bunch of people already doing 2D motion graphics with just Blender, annoying as it sounds, it ends up being and looking like pure 2D motion graphics (there are very good tuts about it, specially how to set up Blender for it. It's a must watch if going that road). Besides , for 3D (or mixed) ones I'd rather do them with Blender than with any other tool (IMO more flexibility, it's a pure 3D tool, not some trick embedded in a monster 2D tool that eat loads of RAM.... (AE)). I'd consider seriously giving a shot first to 2D motion graphics tuts with Fusion (latest), but also with Blender and other tools. After all, motion graphics is basically animation (of certain characteristics)...

Have you tried Fusion 17 from BlackMagicDesign ? I've read some pros on the field saying they have been able to adapt to it...