Frequently there are “unwanted objects” in images we produce or in those we find on the internet to use in personal projects.

Inpaint 6.2 is paid software designed to:

• Repair old photos
• Remove watermarks
• Delete unwanted people from photo
• Erasing wires and power lines
• Remove unwanted objects
• Digital Facial retouching
• Remove date stamps
• Erase wrinkles and skin blemishes
• Remove tourists from travel photos
• Fill black areas of a panorama
• Remove text or logo from images
• Remove moving objects from photos
• Easy to get use & started
• Completely non-technical

Well…after a week of “Photoshop Week” at creativeLive, and listening to experts, I can appreciate how difficult these things truly are.

So, let’s look at this software (using their screenshots). There’s a reason for that which I’ll explain later.

Clearly, in this image there’s a problem with the “final result”. The problem is something one would never do in Photoshop: creating a repetitive pattern by cloning one object to fill the space missing object. Also, in the background an ‘addition’ to the left side of the building is made. Due to the resolution of these images, I can’t judge the ‘fuzziness’ in the ‘result’, but I suspect it’s there since the trees are clearly ‘softer’ and lighter than those to the right. Of course, in the sky, this wouldn’t matter and might even pass for ‘blending’.

Looks like a good job, however, this wasn’t done on one step as the presentation might imply. The sky has been cleared up, scratches and missing content have been restored. Also, a wave has been cloned and moved. In restorations, this is perfectly acceptable and the person might be quite grateful for this effort. It’s not however clear where the small restored person came from and whether that frame belongs to the original image or not. I suspect it's a post processing addition because of the shadow along the lower left border of the 'original' which is missing in the 'result'. There's no way with this type of software that the edge could have been so perfectly restored. Also, has the right external border been 'repaired', or what, exactly? This is not explained in the text.

Removing elements…here I have a big problem, and you should too: Advocating the ‘appropriation’ of copyrighted material clearly from a company which buys images from artists and puts a watermark on them (which isn’t present in a purchased image). This is not acceptable in advertising a product. It might also land a customer unaware of copyright law in significant trouble. This is also unacceptable. As for the quality of the ‘removals’ and ‘results’, again, at these resolutions, it’s hard to say.

After seeing the violation of copyright, I did not wish to download a ‘trial’ version and indirectly support that practice. Of course, Photoshop can do that as well, but instructors emphasize the ethical and legal reasons not to do such a thing. The use of that in a screen shot really bothers me.

There is a “Multi view” mode in which a prior or subsequent background can be cloned into a problematic image. That, of course relies on whether you thought “oh oh, there will be a problem here” and take subsequent images from a fairly close angle without moving and that the prior or subsequent lighting is pretty close to the problematic image and that there isn’t, say, wind which also can vary (implications for hair, fabrics and squinting). This could be a problem if there are clouds moving in the sky, changing the lighting, or if it’s a play or night image where lighting could change significantly. If this is someone else’s picture (i.e. family member) there might not be additional images to clone from.

This brings up the limitations of this software. By far the biggest is that this is “destructive editing”. You have to make a copy of the original image/s. That’s because this software doesn’t employ layers or “smart objects”. If you don’t, once you’re done, any changes are unrecoverable. To me, that’s unacceptable.

In the ‘object removal’ mode, you can’t choose the area to clone from as it’s done from ‘neighboring pixels’. That might well yield problems if the problematic area is near a birder of the image or a sharp transition from light to dark or vice versa, namely, smudging.

There is no “Align layers” command either (well, there are no layers) so if there’s a difference in distance, zoom, etc., you can’t compensate between images.

There’s no “Perspective cloning” which would be very important if ‘erasing/replacing’ an object on a pool deck, for instance, or ‘restoring’ any object which might change over distance because of 2 or 3 point perspective. There’s no ‘Vanishing point’ command…

There's no way to adjust the lighting and color hues, shades or tints in the "multiview" mode nor in the simple replacement mode.

It also bothers me that in its screenshots, low resolution images are used so the quality of the ‘repairs’ cannot really be judged, which acts as a “come on”. Quality image editing software shows its abilities with high resolution images.

So, that’s pretty much it. I don’t think it’s worth the $19.99 priced because of its limitations, and because it showed copyright infringement.

Sources:

http://www.neowin.net/news/inpaint-62

http://www.theinpaint.com/