Low contrast backpack,...and yea, midget legs I guess, I don't see the midget arm though. I always felt like you get more accomplished if you spend less time in Gimp.

Its always like that whenever you use a program you're not accustomed to.
Max, I'd recommend getting good at using photoshop, its pretty much the standard for art-making. (And if you're interested in digital art as a career you probably won't get hired if you don't use the 'standard'.)

Yeah, it was like that when I started to draw with a pencil because I was so used to a mouse, lol.

I 100% agree. While I'm not looking to be anything like a company-paid artist in the future I may look into freelancing (off in the distance). Maybe it's about time I put ol' MS Paint back in the attic. :c I'll will consider grabbing PS.

I think i recall seeing a Photoshop plugin that allows you to draw on the pixel scale, Max.

Don't need a plugin to pixel-art in PS.

i dunno, i don't use PS.

The world is a horrible place: Photoshop was never designed for digital art, it was designed for SHOPPING PHOTOS.
Corell Draw/Paint/Smear with Clay on the other hand, was designed for art and is damn good at it.
I'd recommend that.

Objection!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieXwQGRWhhU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJV-nj1CZcc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGe75Vjmens
(Photoshop cs3 + tablet)

Anyhow, you might be able to get away with Corel as a Photoshop equivalent.

Exalion obviously has never worked with the digital arts. Photoshop is much much more lenient than Corel's products. Painter is mainly used for linearts and such, whereas Photoshop is for the rest
Also, the post above me is a terrible example of what can be done via painting in PS.

If you have the choice between Corel and PS, go for Photoshop

The fact you can use photoshop to make digital art is irrelevant: THAT'S NOT WHAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR!

Was originally designed ~= what it is designed for now, at >v11.0 (CS4). Photoshop has a brush system which kicks ass nowadays, which means some work has obviously been put into making it usable for painting, which means we can conclude that painting has become one of the uses it is designed for.
Painter and Draw are fun, but I'd prefer PS over them at the moment regardless. It's more practical.

So I take it Gimp is nothing like PS and Coral Painter?

Nope, but closer to PS than Corel anything.
It's all about what you're used to. If you want to continue making pixel-ish art, but want GIMP for layers and post processing ability, then pick up the pencil tool in it, and get to work. The fact that you can get more naturally shaped brushes in it can also save you time on leaves and such.
I'm just used to PS, some people are used to Painter, some prefer the humble MSPaint. Whatever, your choice.

GIMP is purely and truly a cheaper, yet much worse version of Photoshop.



EDIT:


Better than the last one, right?

Find PS and Gimp way to complex for pixel art. Yes, they do offer those cool layering options and whatnot, but they're just impractical and tend spit out AA whenever they can. I also find Gimp's UI unintuitive and just utter ♥♥♥♥, but that's just me.
So, for me its MSPaint for pixel art, and PS for (trying) painting.