Any suggestions for photo editing software that removes objects?

HAHA, the answers I'm getting are to use a phone, when the question was what computer software does this. I'll ask this on some more photography oriented sites.
Yeah, because the phone I mentioned has the software NATIVELY BUILT into the CAMERA. And it’s highly likely that those phones have a better performing camera than you do.

It was a thought. Because the phone market is Uber competitive you’ll probably get something better and more user friendly. And something you can try out in a store to see how intuitive and well it works. And, that you can sell when done. Try doing any of that with some random software you’ll buy.

Since the software you linked to in OP all seems to be free, why don’t you download and try them????
 
Since the software you linked to in OP all seems to be free, why don’t you download and try them????
Because they are for apps on a phone. I use a computer with a monitor, mouse and keyboard to edit stuff. I find it much easier to have a 27 inch screen to look at than a 6 inch phone display. Look at any Facebook Marketplace listing and you can tell if the pictures where taken with a phone or camera.
 
Why quit farting around and just use Photoshop?

This is about 5 minutes work with the clone stamp+spot healing brush. I'm no Photoshop master, but could probably do better with the full res image since some of the boundaries would be easier to see/better defined.

IMG_2319ed.jpg


I still stand by what I say, though. The single best defense against this is exclusion in the first place. Back up, use a longer lens, and maybe shift a bit to the right. Yes, you'll give up some perspective exaggeration but it saves the post work.

Alternatively just crop it and get rid of the stuff. I guarantee you that even Windows 7 has a built in program you can use to do that.

IMG_2319crop.jpg


Alternatively, open up and let it blur out. Heck, some of the best portraits I've personally taken years ago had a car lot in the background. I used a 135mm f/2 lens, and the people I was photographing were skeptical but I was right and the lot turned into a bunch of lovely multicolored blobs not unlike a studio backdrop.

This would look much, much better done in camera but here's some quick and sloppy photoshop work giving an idea of what this might look like(if it were "real" the focus fall off would be more gradual and the foreground would hopefully be in better focus. This literally was photoshop auto-select the car, pop it into a separate layer, and gaussian blur the rest).

IMG_2319blur copy.jpg


The free Gimp software should do most of this same stuff-it just might be approached/done a bit differently.
 
Because they are for apps on a phone. I use a computer with a monitor, mouse and keyboard to edit stuff. I find it much easier to have a 27 inch screen to look at than a 6 inch phone display. Look at any Facebook Marketplace listing and you can tell if the pictures where taken with a phone or camera.
That’s because any idiot on Facebook marketplace can push any photo they want without any consideration for composure or technical elements.

What camera are you using? What lens?

Modern phone cameras a re very competent, especially when used correctly. And very convenient. I get the desire to edit on a bigger screen……..
 
Why quit farting around and just use Photoshop?

This is about 5 minutes work with the clone stamp+spot healing brush. I'm no Photoshop master, but could probably do better with the full res image since some of the boundaries would be easier to see/better defined.
Yes, that IS what I have been doing as I mentioned originally, but for 50 or 100 pictures it gets tedious. And yes I do crop when possible but it's not ALWAYS possible which is why I'm asking. Those app things I posted make it look like you click and the object disappears like it never was there in the first place. A few seconds operation vs. 5 minutes.
 
That’s because any idiot on Facebook marketplace can push any photo they want without any consideration for composure or technical elements.

What camera are you using? What lens?

Modern phone cameras a re very competent, especially when used correctly. And very convenient. I get the desire to edit on a bigger screen……..

Several years ago I posted two photos on here, one taken with the iPhone I was using then and one taken with a Nikon D3s. I don't remember what phone I had-if I was still using my(then dated) iPhone 6 or if it was my Xr, the latter of which is a few generations old. I used the D3s because it was 12mp just like the iPhone, although it too was dated at the time(but actually still holds its own against current DSLRs, resolution aside).

A few sharp eyes here picked out the D3s images based on two things-it held shadow detail better and the iPhone image was overly sharpened. The former is to be expected, as all else being equal a 24x36mm sensor will outperform a tiny one in terms of dynamic range. My current main camera, a Nikon D850, only has marginally more DR though and the D3s still holds its own that department. Sharpness can be added in post, although it's hard to undo it on the iPhone.

At web resolutions, the main things that still make ILC cameras and the like stand out remain better dynamic range in tricky light, possibly a bit better detail, and the ability to use optical effects(ultra wide, very long, and shallow DOF from large apertures and what just comes inherently from a larger sensor at less than infinity) that phones still can't do, although the 3-camera iPhones do decent in the wide angle department. Of course the ability to jack up the ISO quite high, using large aperture lenses, and better vibration reduction/image stabilization make these cameras shine in low light, even though the low light mode on the iPhone is suprisingly decent.

As far as comparing a decent phone to an older P&S camera, well I can guess which would lose that contest and it probably wouldn't be the phone. Larger sensor P&Ss-1" and bigger sensors-shift the equation a bit but a lot of the advantage in those still comes down to preferring a real camera over a phone.
 
Yes, that IS what I have been doing as I mentioned originally, but for 50 or 100 pictures it gets tedious. And yes I do crop when possible but it's not ALWAYS possible which is why I'm asking. Those app things I posted make it look like you click and the object disappears like it never was there in the first place. A few seconds operation vs. 5 minutes.

Take fewer photos, again be smart about framing, or use software like Lightroom that is geared toward sorting and convenient editing in bulk.

I can process a few hundred photos, including cropping and small adjustments, in a relatively small amount of time in Lightroom and still give each individual attention.
 
Several years ago I posted two photos on here, one taken with the iPhone I was using then and one taken with a Nikon D3s. I don't remember what phone I had-if I was still using my(then dated) iPhone 6 or if it was my Xr, the latter of which is a few generations old. I used the D3s because it was 12mp just like the iPhone, although it too was dated at the time(but actually still holds its own against current DSLRs, resolution aside).

A few sharp eyes here picked out the D3s images based on two things-it held shadow detail better and the iPhone image was overly sharpened. The former is to be expected, as all else being equal a 24x36mm sensor will outperform a tiny one in terms of dynamic range. My current main camera, a Nikon D850, only has marginally more DR though and the D3s still holds its own that department. Sharpness can be added in post, although it's hard to undo it on the iPhone.

At web resolutions, the main things that still make ILC cameras and the like stand out remain better dynamic range in tricky light, possibly a bit better detail, and the ability to use optical effects(ultra wide, very long, and shallow DOF from large apertures and what just comes inherently from a larger sensor at less than infinity) that phones still can't do, although the 3-camera iPhones do decent in the wide angle department. Of course the ability to jack up the ISO quite high, using large aperture lenses, and better vibration reduction/image stabilization make these cameras shine in low light, even though the low light mode on the iPhone is suprisingly decent.

As far as comparing a decent phone to an older P&S camera, well I can guess which would lose that contest and it probably wouldn't be the phone. Larger sensor P&Ss-1" and bigger sensors-shift the equation a bit but a lot of the advantage in those still comes down to preferring a real camera over a phone.
I never upgraded from my d800 because the sequence of iPhones has just gotten so good for most things. Including the “portrait” function when photographing my kids.

To the point that I’m a believer in native sw-based functions in phone cameras for many things.

No, no phone is going to replace my 200mm f/2.8 Nikon glass. Or many of the other good 1.3/1.8/2.8 lenses coupled with FX (or even DX) sensors with superior range. And many of the good p&s have really improved too. Three tiny sensors on tiny lenses are limited by physics…..but those are really the fringe cases.

Not photographing cars in good light… to be compressed and hosted on a website.
 
Oh and I used to take pictures in front of this house,

001.jpg


but now the owners starting parking a car in the driveway so I had to go elsewhere for the photo shoot. I'd love to go back here to resume taking pictures and be able to take out the car in the driveway from the photos.
 
If the goal is to sell, perhaps the "Artsy" look isn't the best, but to each their own.

Still, though, my point is there. Use more care when framing and it's a non-issue. Back up and zoom in and you'll get less background to worry about.
 
BTW, my iPhone 12's main camera has a 1/2.3 sensor, and the Canon ELPH 360 has...exactly the same size sensor.

iPhones also tend to have fairly fast main lenses-something like f/1.6, which is faster than most P&S cameras.

We've long surpassed the point where compact P&S cameras have much of a tangible technical advantage over a higher end cell phone camera. High end P&Ss like the Sony RX series with 1" sensors can still edge them out in some situations.
 
Oh and I used to take pictures in front of this house,

View attachment 135654

but now the owners starting parking a car in the driveway so I had to go elsewhere for the photo shoot. I'd love to go back here to resume taking pictures and be able to take out the car in the driveway from the photos.

I’ve said it before but the photos I’ve seen are usually taken too far away. Are you selling the house or the car in that pic? I agree a phone used properly can get you more than enough great pics for selling a car.
 
I never upgraded from my d800 because the sequence of iPhones has just gotten so good for most things. Including the “portrait” function when photographing my kids.

To the point that I’m a believer in native sw-based functions in phone cameras for many things.

No, no phone is going to replace my 200mm f/2.8 Nikon glass. Or many of the other good 1.3/1.8/2.8 lenses coupled with FX (or even DX) sensors with superior range. And many of the good p&s have really improved too. Three tiny sensors on tiny lenses are limited by physics…..but those are really the fringe cases.

Not photographing cars in good light… to be compressed and hosted on a website.
The D800 was my first reasonably current high end DSLR. I bought it in 2017 right before the D850 was announced(and tanked prices...but oh well I've gotten my use out of it and don't regret waiting a few months for a cheaper one) when it was dated but honestly still very capable-and I'd go so far as to say that if it was the only camera I had in 2023 I'd not be too upset.

I went through some upgrade jumps. I bought a D810 in summer of 2020 because prices had more or less fallen to where I could consider one. There's no one standout feature to me on the D810 over the D800, other than maybe being slightly sharper thanks to the lack of an AA filter. What it is though is all the "massaging" that Nikon did that made an overall nicer package. I appreciate the quieter shutter(MUCH quieter) and deeper handgrip, plus some other small touches like I find the newer style dull blue-green finder readout(I'm drawing a blank as to what it's called) to be much more pleasant to use than the older bright green LEDs in the D800.

I upgraded to the D850 summer of 2022, and there's a LOT to love about the camera. After using it so much, I find AF on the D800/810 slow and too indecisive, while I leave the D850 set to D53 all the time and at most it just needs a small nudge with the joystick(a control I really like) to get it back on track if it loses while tracking. It's kind of amazing-even in more casual situations once it locks onto someone it does a great job of holding their eyes just as they rock/move around. I briefly had a D500 that was every bit as good, but that was too limited of a camera for me and the D850 is much better for me as a general purpose camera. At the end of the day, though, even though the resolution looks a lot higher on paper, it's rarely noticeable for me compared to the results I get with the D800. The improved sensor technology does give it both a noise and DR advantage across its whole ISO range, but at the same time the D800 was phenomenal when it was released and at best maybe I see a half stop DR more than the D800 at base ISO. Noise is maybe 1/3 stop better than the D800-funny enough Nikon tweaked the amplifiers or processing on the D810 and the D800 is actually cleaner at ISO 100(even though the D810 is slightly cleaner at its base ISO 64). None of them are as clean or have as much DR at a given ISO as the Df, which has the 16mp D4 sensor.

Even with high end older glass, the D850 difference really gets hidden. It pushed me to upgrade my old reliable 24-70mm f/2.8G to the newer E VR version, which is slightly better(but also bigger and heavier). My old first generation 70-200 f/2.8VR is still going strong, as I don't use it enough to want to spend the money on the newer E version of it.

I was actually just using my D800 earlier today-it's sort of my dedicated "studio" camera(such as my studio is now, which isn't much). The D810 sometimes rides in my bag with the D850, but it's not used that often-I might put my 14-24mm f/2.8 on it, but that's such a seldom used lens and so heavy that I think long and hard before packing it if I'm going to be walking very far.
 
I’ve said it before but the photos I’ve seen are usually taken too far away. Are you selling the house or the car in that pic? I agree a phone used properly can get you more than enough great pics for selling a car.
As mentioned before, artistic shots with nice backgrounds are what I aim for. If I have a faraway shot, I will also have a closer-up photo of the same scene. Been doing this over 20 years on Ebay and it seems to help get top dollar. Why should I change what works?

And as much as I would hate to edit the photos on a phone, taking the pictures themselves on a phone would be just as irritating. The button controls are on the display itself, so you have to look at where the button is before you can press it to take a picture instead of looking at the item you're photographing. Plus you need 2 hands. One to hold the phone and the other the press the button. With my camera I just point and shoot with one hand and can concentrate on the shot.
 
Funny, I've never really had issue using my phone to take pictures one handed. The shutter button(not really a shutter, but you get the idea) falls right under your thumb and it's easy to develop muscle memory as to where it is.

Using a DSLR one-handed is really only an attempt at desperation and unlikely to work well. I know a lot of compacts can be done one-handed but still the extra hand is good when you can use it to provide stability.

Still, though, I'll keep harping on the same point. Compose to avoid the stuff and you won't have to do masses of post processing.

If you're going to insist on doing it the same way, a program like Lightroom will likely make your life easier. Not only can you zip through photos, but the spot healing tool is relatively good and fast to use. You'll need to manually tweak the size to best match what you're doing, but once you get into the rhythm I doubt you'll spend more than 1 minute per photo. You can quickly and easily crop too and make other adjustments like that.

You can try it free for a week-I'd suggest doing so and seeing if it works for you.
 
I'm using a Canon PowerShot ELPH 360HS point and shoot camera and typically have 120 to over 200 pictures in an ad. Too many maybe, but it gives buyers confidence in what they are buying. I just got top dollar for this old Taurus on Ebay https://www.ebay.com/itm/155272941777?nma=true&si=FW9%2F4ptOwqHKDkOIwGHVKA8AV58%3D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 that everybody here said wasn't worth $2000.
Agreed - lots of pictures instills confidence.

Somebody saw that the fender and bumper were damaged and repainted and still bought for $5k. Amazing times.
 
Back
Top