Help with Editing Software

[Rogerp]

Sorry, I have a very straight forward question for you clever people who use editing software...About all I do in the main is crop and sometimes lighten, I dont really understand layers and all the other technical things that can be done, I just want something very simple at the moment I use Picasa which does most of the things I want. I've also got Serif photoplus X6 but find it a confusing.......All I want to be able to do is Crop (thats simple in Picasa) and remove a telegraph pole and line from a picture.......I saw at the photo show Topaz the guy made it look very easy so I downloaded a free trial, that was it, to complicated....There was another I saw called Macphun and that looked really easy to remove poles and lines, 3 clicks and it was done but not only did it remove it put the background in, how I dont know but its only for MAC not Windows....................After all that rambling what I need is something very simple that will crop and remove things like telephone lines, any suggestions, remember it must be idiot proof...................Thanks in advance....Roger

[davidedric]

Hi Roger,

Not sure if I can help. Removing telephone wires and the like (i.e. replacing them with something that looks natural), is actually rather sophisticated programming. As such, I suspect it is mostly implemented in the more complex packages.

However, even a complex package can have a short learning curve to do simple stuff. If you would be prepared to take on one of the better products, like maybe Photoshop Elements or Lightroom and just learn the bits you need, you might be in a good place. They all have free trials and lots of free video tutorials.

I'll be interested to see if anyone comes up with a more satisfactory answer.

Dave

[Donald]

I'll be interested to see if anyone comes up with a more satisfactory answer.

I think Dave has provided a very appropriate response.

The thing is, Roger, that anything is going to look simple in the hands of an expert whose job it is to sell the package to other people. The fact is that every software package has an attendant learning curve.

There are probably very few people in the world who are masters of the whole, world-leading, Photoshop software. But there are lots of people who are experts in the bits of Photoshop that they need to know to do what they want to do.

Whatever package you get will seem complicated when you start with it. It is all about how determined and committed you are to learning and how prepared you are to devote the time to that learning. Nothing comes quick and easy. For example, the concept of layers seems confusing at first, like you say. But once you grasp it, it makes so much sense and seems so simple. You'll wonder why it seemed so complicated.

[Shadowman]

Look up one of Scott Kelby's tutuorials on Photoshop Elements. He's always removing items similar to what you are trying to edit out. It's a combination of clone stamp and spot healing.

[Kris V]

I'm in no way associated with the company, but maybe you could take look at this.
I don't know how user friendly it is, but it's fairly un-expensive.

[Brev00]

That is a diverse pair of features that you are looking for in your software: cropping and cloning. Maybe not so wide--I will often use cropping to eliminate annoying details--and use cloning when that does not work. Any software will offer cropping so, I assume, you are just looking for the removal of distracting elements. Speaking of elements, I use Elements and can recommend it for those two applications. The only thing is, it offers so much more, you are likely to start trying out parts of the full range of features that are offered. The real advantage of this software for me is how easy it has been for me to learn--slowly but easily. Do a free trial. I am sure there are good online tutorials, but I prefer books. There are several Elements 12 books around that will clearly explain the process of removing unwanted stuff. Be patient. You can remove any step you have taken so you can't hurt your file.

[royphot]

Hi.
Every editing program requires a bit of learning. If you want a reasonable price, like FREE, download The Gimp. It can do almost everything that Photoshop and the more advanced and expensive programs can do.
Roy

[Manfred M]

You might try another approach called "getting it right in camera". While it is not always possible, but it usually takes a lot less time to eliminate unwanted features by changing the shot than trying to fix it afterwards.

No matter what the various software vendors try to tell you; removing something from an image can be extremely challanging takes a lot of practice. Sometimes these tools work flawlessly and sometimes we have to spend a lot of time and effort using basing cloning tools to get rid of unwanted parts of the image. Becoming a competent retoucher takes a very long time, even with the right tools.

In my opinion, the "content aware" tools that Adobe has built into Photoshop CS 6 and CC are probably the best I have seen for getting rid of unwanted parts of an image. I can often accomplish in minutes what used to take me a long time with the clone stamp and more traditional techniques. That being said, full-blown Photoshop is both expensive and has a very long learning curve.

[Shadowman]

You might try another approach called "getting it right in camera". While it is not always possible, but it usually takes a lot less time to eliminate unwanted features by changing the shot than trying to fix it afterwards.

No matter what the various software vendors try to tell you; removing something from an image can be extremely challanging takes a lot of practice. Sometimes these tools work flawlessly and sometimes we have to spend a lot of time and effort using basing cloning tools to get rid of unwanted parts of the image. Becoming a competent retoucher takes a very long time, even with the right tools.

In my opinion, the "content aware" tools that Adobe has built into Photoshop CS 6 and CC are probably the best I have seen for getting rid of unwanted parts of an image. I can often accomplish in minutes what used to take me a long time with the clone stamp and more traditional techniques. That being said, full-blown Photoshop is both expensive and has a very long learning curve.

That's a good approach but unfortunately you cannot always move a telephone pole or utility wires. How I wish though.

[Manfred M]

That's a good approach but unfortunately you cannot always move a telephone pole or utility wires. How I wish though.

Agreed John; but surprisingly often one can work around it and that is my first choice. Telephones are tough, but just waiting for people or cars to move can save lots of time in post.

My second approach is to take the shot so that it can be handled relatively easily in post; i.e. try to isolate it to maximize easy repair and minimize the tough work. A telephone sitting by itself out in the relative open is far easier to fix than one standing directly in front of a building, and even worse if you see it mirrored in a window.

And yes, there are times where one can't win other than doing major surgery, but in that case, it had better be a very nice shot that justifies the effort. And the previous example is one I worked on once; nice old registry office with a stops sign and telephone lines in all the wrong places. I had to rebuild it brick by brick, but got lucky to be able to "borrow" another window further along the building.

[Donald]

To take the contributions of Manfred and John above and think about them in terms of crafting and composing the scene that you are going to photograph ....

There is one school of thought that leans towards the view that because we have, relatively, easy access to software capable of the job, it doesn't matter what happens to be included in the scene. We can always get rid of later.

Another school of thought is that which leans towards saying, as Manfred suggested above, that you need to get it right at the time of capture. Part of the workflow, if you follow this school of thought, is that you need to 'work-the-scene' in order to get the best composition. You then end up either saying that I've got a good composition, except for that pole in the foreground, or you say I cannot get a good composition because of that pole in the foreground.

If the latter you walk away. If the former, you capture the shot and resolve to 'fix it' in post processing.

I am firmly in the camp of, "I cannot get a good composition because of that pole in the foreground."

I am avid fan of post-processing and often spend a great deal of time on that aspect of making the picture. However for me (and I do not at all condemn others who take a different view) having to resort to removing some substantive structure is a sign of having failed to correctly compose the image in the first place. If there was a big pole in the image when I looked through the viewfinder, then I shouldn't have pressed the shutter at all.

But we all take a different approach to photography and impose different 'rules' upon ourselves. My only point is that before deciding that you need to master the skill of being able to clone out poles, etc, decide whether you are someone who's okay with capturing poles, etc in photographs that you know you'll then want to remove in post processing.

[Jim35010]

Just my quick two cents worth! I had an old (older than me) photographer, tell me garbage in garbage out. Take that for what it is worth, as has been explained above!
Now if you do get one of the post processing programs, you can watch tutorals on youtube. This won't eliminate the necessity for a learning process, because some of this stuff is "complex" but you do have avenues of help, just as you do here on CIC..... I personally like photoshop CC, but it expensive, and has too many features to name. But if you need a particular editing tool, and take the time to research and learn it, I think it has anything you will ever need! So you will only have to be learning one software.
Jim

[rpcrowe]

IMO, the more you ask for out of an editing program, the greater the learning curve of that program. Basically, what you are looking for is called in Photoshop "Content Aware Fill". That is also a capability of Photoshop Elements but, the content aware fill has never worked as well for me in PSE as it does in the full Photoshop program (I use CS6). I really do not like Photoshop Elements although I struggled with it for about a half-year until I broke down and purchased Photoshop CS6 (on-sale, the last boxed PS CS6 sets that were sold.)

A very simple (but somewhat expensive) solution can be found in the OnOne Perfect Photo Suite which includes, Perfect Eraser with Content Aware Fill Technology. http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/suite8/

Scroll down to the Perfect Eraser video link and click on it. That will show you what the perfect eraser can do.

Although the Perfect Photo Suite is not exactly cheap, it is a powerful program that can be used as a stand alone editor and will, IO, do most of the things that Photoshop will do and a lot more than Photoshop Elements.

I have found that it is extremely user friendly...

I have no plans to upgrade Photoshop CS6 but, instead, I will keep up with the NIK and Perfect Photo Suite upgrades.

[Rogerp]

WOW....................What a response, thanks to all of you for your suggestions, looks like ive got a bit of playing/learning to do. Thought I was asking a bit much for an easy fix, but you have to live in hope......................Thank you all again.....Roger

[Shadowman]

To take the contributions of Manfred and John above and think about them in terms of crafting and composing the scene that you are going to photograph ....

There is one school of thought that leans towards the view that because we have, relatively, easy access to software capable of the job, it doesn't matter what happens to be included in the scene. We can always get rid of later.

Another school of thought is that which leans towards saying, as Manfred suggested above, that you need to get it right at the time of capture. Part of the workflow, if you follow this school of thought, is that you need to 'work-the-scene' in order to get the best composition. You then end up either saying that I've got a good composition, except for that pole in the foreground, or you say I cannot get a good composition because of that pole in the foreground.

If the latter you walk away. If the former, you capture the shot and resolve to 'fix it' in post processing.

I am firmly in the camp of, "I cannot get a good composition because of that pole in the foreground."

I am avid fan of post-processing and often spend a great deal of time on that aspect of making the picture. However for me (and I do not at all condemn others who take a different view) having to resort to removing some substantive structure is a sign of having failed to correctly compose the image in the first place. If there was a big pole in the image when I looked through the viewfinder, then I shouldn't have pressed the shutter at all.

But we all take a different approach to photography and impose different 'rules' upon ourselves. My only point is that before deciding that you need to master the skill of being able to clone out poles, etc, decide whether you are someone who's okay with capturing poles, etc in photographs that you know you'll then want to remove in post processing.

I see a parallel between what you are describing above "don't take the shot or edit it out" with movie making. An up and coming film maker creates a film set in 15 or 16th century China, scouts out a good locale but fails to notice the utility poles or modern automobile driving down the highway. Should that film maker spend more money on shutting down the highway or cutting down utility poles or find another location? Does the possibility that someone on the Internet Movie DataBase might spot the error negate the splendor of the movie presented? Does the fact that it was spotted make the cinematographer a poor filmmaker or a poor editor?

[Donald]

I see a parallel between what you are describing above "don't take the shot or edit it out" with movie making.

Not sure the analogy is quite the same, but I understand the point being made.

By the way, has anyone ever looked closely at the scene from Chariots of Fire where they're all running along the beach towards the town (which is St Andrews)? Do you know what modern-day 'artifact' can be seen in the shot?

[ajohnw]

The GIMP is a rather complicated package to use all that it offers but cloning, cropping, brightness, contrast and a number of other things are very simple. Best download it and see. It's free

How it powers up can vary but what you will need to open is the toolbox if it doesn't bring that up as installed and also tool options. If these aren't there look under windows - dockable windows, click and they will pop up. If there after you just close it with the main window they will always come back up. There are a number of icons at the top of the toolbox, their options/settings should be at the bottom and change as each tool is selected. If you hover over the icons a pop up will appear giving it's name. The ones you are looking for are cloning and healing. You also get blur/sharpen, dodge/burn and others. If say you click on cloning and then hit F1 the help file will open. If that's insufficient google gimp cloning or what ever.

The GIMP is also a full blown layers package with plenty of instructions available on the web. Youtube - gimp tutorial will bring up lots. Then there are web pages. If some one mentions a Photoshop way of doing something usually googling gimp what ever it is will give a method of doing the same thing.

To crop use the rectangular selection tool, select as wanted and then under image click crop to selection. Brightness and contrast are under colours.

When saving a file or in this case exporting it GIMP will cheerfully over write a file so remember to change the name. Saving files saves GIMP files hence using export to save say a jpg. The GIMP files include what ever is going on, layers etc and can be rather big. It's more of a project save. Make a mistake - edit undo. There is also a graphical history stack.

John
-

[Shadowman]

Agreed John; but surprisingly often one can work around it and that is my first choice. Telephones are tough, but just waiting for people or cars to move can save lots of time in post.

My second approach is to take the shot so that it can be handled relatively easily in post; i.e. try to isolate it to maximize easy repair and minimize the tough work. A telephone sitting by itself out in the relative open is far easier to fix than one standing directly in front of a building, and even worse if you see it mirrored in a window.

And yes, there are times where one can't win other than doing major surgery, but in that case, it had better be a very nice shot that justifies the effort. And the previous example is one I worked on once; nice old registry office with a stops sign and telephone lines in all the wrong places. I had to rebuild it brick by brick, but got lucky to be able to "borrow" another window further along the building.

Manfred,

I've waiting what felt like hours but was only a few moments before I could get a shot without a stray car in the frame. I especially like to do this for nostalgic photos with old architecture that I plan to convert to black and white and I don't want it ruined by a snazzy new automobile.

Concert photos are the worst for getting it right in camera, there is always some stray head wandering into the frame, but in this type of image you usually have to get the shot as is and worry about the edit later as the opportunity is fleeting; at least for a year or two perhaps.

[shreds]

John,

Concerts are something I do frequently and is largely about pre-planning.

Know the venue

Know the promoter

Know the band

Cover off all those three things and whilst you might be time restricted in some cases, all you have to worry about is the lighting and getting the expressions captured. I have even been lucky enough to be allowed to set up a couple of remote flashes on stage to assist. As long as you don't go mad, no one even notices, it just looks to be part of the show.

And that includes doing big well known international names. So I suppose the time spent in developing those connections must be set against hours in front of the screen cloning out heads!

Once went to a photo exhibition, where one guy I know, proudly told me, before the judging, how he had spent hours cloning out overhead wires and poles to create what he thought was the perfect picture.

The judge took one look at it and said,

'I know that location. Its not authentic, you have cloned out all the wires and poles to give it an early twentieth century look, but your subject vehicle was only built five years ago!'

'Next!'

[ajohnw]

Manfred,

I've waiting what felt like hours but was only a few moments before I could get a shot without a stray car in the frame. I especially like to do this for nostalgic photos with old architecture that I plan to convert to black and white and I don't want it ruined by a snazzy new automobile.

There is a technique where 2 shots are taken where the un wanted objects are moving and then painted out from both images leaving the background behind from the other. I tried it on a mosque interior. Didn't wait long enough so had some ones foot left in and also the light levels changed in another area due to the people moving. It can be tuned out though.

John
-