>>234959
>please go get detailed critiques from your friends about why this software they don't like (or worse yet, don't even use, period) is bad
I'm not gonna do that, that's your problem to deal with, go ask the artists yourself. I already related the experiences I saw already.
>something is or isn't functional
What. There is a difference in quality and features between drawing softwares, there is no objectively perfect drawing software.
Some just do most things better than most others, which is why those select few were the most consistently recommended and used among artists.
>>234969
I didn't imply "most artists" have to use the software, just enough of a quantity of them to show that its worth a damn.
The software that I recommended were ones I've seen multiple competent artists actually use, but only some of them were "professionals" in the industry sense you're describing.
Moreover, industry standard implies at least a solid level of functionality, not that there aren't better alternatives for the particular software, especially depending on the context you're using it, but generally,you aren't going to find artists who think photoshop is just awful, period, just worse than what they prefer to use perhaps.
Industry standards are not really relevant to me, its simply whether the artists have a good user experience and create art worth a damn, simple as. Photoshop is the industry standard, sure, but its not CSP or SAI, which I still recommended as options.