Jump to content
saint77

Open Gimp and krita files

Recommended Posts

A strong argument of getting on board with affinity is its ability to integrate into a workflow using photoshop, like using photoshop plugins, brushes and edit photoshop files. MANY will and already have replaced photoshop with affinity, since speed, ease of use, price point etc are all heavily in favour of affinity, and moving from PHOTOSHOP to AFFINITY is easy peasy. WELL DONE AFFINITY!!!

HOWEVER, i came from the opposide side having used the much simpler gimp and wanting a stronger tool for graphics, and notice you have ignored the linux/gimp crowd out there by not making sure affinity can open gimp files. I have several files made in gimp which i would like to edit in affinity, but it is not possible. Gimp being open source, i dont think compatibility with gimp files would be hard to implement in affinity. Same go for krita files. It would also open doors in favour of affinity into the linux world of graphics.

Please consider my suggestion of implementing this, compatibility with formats of other image editors - especially gimp and krita - is a good selling point! I noticed you have support for .svg in affinity designer, which is excellent and mean i can import logos etc i made in inkscape!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Developing support for native file formats like Krita's *.kra and Gimp's *.xcf files is very time intensive and will never be perfect, because each application supports different native functions, and these have to be mapped to equivalent ones in Affinity Photo.

In short, unless the native file format is regarded as an industry standard one, it is just not worth the hassle, time, and money.

And Krita, Gimp, and Affinity all support Photoshop PSD files, so why not use that as an intermediate file format? Not quite perfect results, but good enough in most cases. At any rate, a native Gimp and Krita importer wouldn't be perfect either. Things like layer groups, layer blend mode, and opacity are all retained.

PS I have no major issues with exporting Krita files as PSD files into Affinity, Photoshop, or PhotoLine. In terms of PSD compatibility and feature support it's #1 Photoshop (obviously), #2 PhotoLine (import is better, but export not as good as Affinity), #3 Affinity Photo (export better than PhotoLine), #4 Krita.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Medical Officer Bones said:

Developing support for native file formats like Krita's *.kra and Gimp's *.xcf files is very time intensive and will never be perfect, because each application supports different native functions, and these have to be mapped to equivalent ones in Affinity Photo.

In short, unless the native file format is regarded as an industry standard one, it is just not worth the hassle, time, and money.

And Krita, Gimp, and Affinity all support Photoshop PSD files, so why not use that as an intermediate file format? Not quite perfect results, but good enough in most cases. At any rate, a native Gimp and Krita importer wouldn't be perfect either. Things like layer groups, layer blend mode, and opacity are all retained.

PS I have no major issues with exporting Krita files as PSD files into Affinity, Photoshop, or PhotoLine. In terms of PSD compatibility and feature support it's #1 Photoshop (obviously), #2 PhotoLine (import is better, but export not as good as Affinity), #3 Affinity Photo (export better than PhotoLine), #4 Krita.

 

ok ... well not being a coder, if thats the case, i agree with you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PSD basic support (usually rasterizing layer effects, etc, typically making each layer just bitmap based, and often having to re-create text layers or re-apply the text style and effects) saved the day many times for me while using CSP, Gimp, AP, and Krita, so, yep, I'd opt for that.


Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo licenses, Windows 7, i7  860 (2009) 2.8 GHz,  8 GB RAM, GTX 1050 2 GB, HD 7200 RPM.  Wacom Intuos 4 XL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, SrPx said:

PSD basic support (usually rasterizing layer effects, etc, typically making each layer just bitmap based, and often having to re-create text layers or re-apply the text style and effects) saved the day many times for me while using CSP, Gimp, AP, and Krita, so, yep, I'd opt for that.

if affinity has goal of being THE main rival of photoshop and being a serious contender as the market leader, rather than just a (good) alternative, it sure wouldnt hurt to implement this, along with more filters/effects.

i can think of many situations why this would be useful regarding opening up for importing and editing open source file formats, such as i as an individual could send my gimp or krita files to a printing press to have some big posters printed for my shop or birthday party (affinity seem to becoming a full desktop publishing package too now with affinity publisher). For the price many will buy affinity as it gets more known (i wouldnt buy photoshop, only if i worked with this full time, but if affinity has all the fetures i need why would i), but some that only use this a little once in a while or are at linux they would probably still use gimp/krita and if you get in files from customers in a business, having a program like affinity that can open it is a big plus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end, I was having in my project folders only .kra files, (not so much .xcf ) and  most of all *.clip files (Clip Studio paint) ...Finally getting used tho to at each software just have those final versions in the whatever native format, AND  simplified, effects "rasterized" per each layer,  PSD version, highly compatible (apart from the specific PDF / TIFF / PSD in the exact specs asked for each printing company for whatever the project). So, that's what I refer to with PSD. A PSD that rarely would have any sort of problem to open anywhere. Plus, able to be opened by clients who, too often, just use Photoshop. So, that PSD file goes everywhere, later on. Is just that besides saving the usual PNG for the clients to check fast and easily in their sRGB only viewer / phone / whatever with a double click in their mail attachment, I also then do save a PSD with its color mode and color profile, and whatever else would be convenient which I know does not break nothing in all options. So, adjustment layers and FX, etc, all rasterized. Text layers saved as text layers, sometimes later on I need to export a version with those as pure pixels, that depends. No probs as the native latest file in each case is kept as the real master. And is kind of yet another safety measure, in the end, simplified or not,  as is yet another copy.... But that's my personal take, only. It will never save as much stuff as the native format, that's why I save both. That PSD will open in AP, Gimp, Krita, or Clip, without an issue.  :)

EDIT: Indeed, a workflow that quite makes some sense for me would be making a full fledged RGB file in CSP,  and then export as a layered PSD to AP, which has a much stronger CMYK mode and settings, export for print and general color management than CSP. (Actually, I'd prefer to do quite some painting directly on AP... or be able to do it for a 50% of the projects, or at least, a % of paint works in each project). Also, and this is a wild guess, a shot in the dark, I would be to bet that PSD format, unless Adobe starts making sth really evil to disallow opening PSDs in PS, even basic ones, if saved externally (EDIT : I meant, if saved in third party software , but unless that would happen, I'd bet the PSD support in AP is here to stay, as is the PS format, and also the common one for so many commercial pipelines. This happens with every other tool, not just AP. I'd expect that to keep happening as well with Krita, Gimp, Clip, etc. So, is surely a practical format to stick with, IMO.


Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo licenses, Windows 7, i7  860 (2009) 2.8 GHz,  8 GB RAM, GTX 1050 2 GB, HD 7200 RPM.  Wacom Intuos 4 XL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SrPx said:

In the end, I was having in my project folders only .kra files, (not so much .xcf ) and  most of all *.clip files (Clip Studio paint) ...Finally getting used tho to at each software just have those final versions in the whatever native format, AND  simplified, effects "rasterized" per each layer,  PSD version, highly compatible (apart from the specific PDF / TIFF / PSD in the exact specs asked for each printing company for whatever the project). So, that's what I refer to with PSD. A PSD that rarely would have any sort of problem to open anywhere. Plus, able to be opened by clients who, too often, just use Photoshop. So, that PSD file goes everywhere, later on. Is just that besides saving the usual PNG for the clients to check fast and easily in their sRGB only viewer / phone / whatever with a double click in their mail attachment, I also then do save a PSD with its color mode and color profile, and whatever else would be convenient which I know does not break nothing in all options. So, adjustment layers and FX, etc, all rasterized. Text layers saved as text layers, sometimes later on I need to export a version with those as pure pixels, that depends. No probs as the native latest file in each case is kept as the real master. And is kind of yet another safety measure, in the end, simplified or not,  as is yet another copy.... But that's my personal take, only. It will never save as much stuff as the native format, that's why I save both. That PSD will open in AP, Gimp, Krita, or Clip, without an issue.  :)

EDIT: Indeed, a workflow that quite makes some sense for me would be making a full fledged RGB file in CSP,  and then export as a layered PSD to AP, which has a much stronger CMYK mode and settings, export for print and general color management than CSP. (Actually, I'd prefer to do quite some painting directly on AP... or be able to do it for a 50% of the projects, or at least, a % of paint works in each project). Also, and this is a wild guess, a shot in the dark, I would be to bet that PSD format, unless Adobe starts making sth really evil to disallow opening PSDs in PS, even basic ones, if saved externally, but unless that would happen, I'd bet the PSD support in AP is here to stay, as is the PS format, and also the common one for so many commercial pipelines. This happens with every other tool, not just AP. I'd expect that to keep happening as well with Krita, Gimp, Clip, etc. So, is surely a practical format to stick with, IMO.

i get what your saying, but i still stand with the fact compatibility is a great feture to implement. question is if it would affect speed / stability since affinity is great at this and its one of affinitys strongest points. if that is the case, its a def no since it risk getting bloated which we dont want, and it didnt sound like this was as easy to implement as i thought from the other guy here. in that case, its a bad idea. affinity knows more about this than me :)

a suggestion i could throw in here though that shouldnt make affinity bloated was ability to delete single brush-sets, now you only have the option of resetting all brushes (i have a large brush-collection)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To amend SrPx's answer, a number of applications allow for saving to a PSD as well as their native format simultaneously. Krita will do this, as will PhotoLine. The latter has an option which, when activated, will even ask you if you wish to open the native version if it discovers a PLD with the same name in the same folder. Which means opening a jpg will open the source layered version with all the bells and whistles. Saving the "jpg" will then save a new flattened JPG as well as the source PLD file.

This is very, very handy, since saving and opening a PSD (or any other export file format) will save or open the native source format instead, in effect handling this file conversion automatically for the user in the background without having to worry about the actual conversion. Of course, one has to be careful not to overwrite the same PSD with another application.

Affinity Photo, unfortunately, has no such option (yet?), and insists on separating the save and export functions at all times. For interoperability reasons  it would be preferable if a similar option is implemented in the future in Affinity.

...

In my opinion an open intermediate file format spec is long overdue. Ideally this open format includes layers, layer masks, bitmap, text, and vector layer handling, common adjustment layers, colour management, and so on. PSD might have been a candidate, but the trouble is that Adobe stopped updating the PSD specs years and years ago to protect their own interests. That, and the fact that it is an entirely proprietary file format owned by Adobe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice tricks, wasn't aware... My only concern would be that... well, when I save those simplified PSDs (typically only at the end of the project), I do the 'rasterizings' myself... as kind of know what wont open and where....Otherwise, I fear software A or B will have issues in reading the stuff 1:1 ... isn't it so ?


Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo licenses, Windows 7, i7  860 (2009) 2.8 GHz,  8 GB RAM, GTX 1050 2 GB, HD 7200 RPM.  Wacom Intuos 4 XL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.