mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Your dog is not ugly, perhaps misplaced in that image, but definitely not ugly. That negative comment was just a bit mean-spirited.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Hopefully the composition would be completely different. Even if each and every one of those distracting obstructions were gone you would likely still end up with a mediocre image from that vantage point. The foreground is not particularly attractive and does not integrate at all with the mountains behind it. If that was a shot I had taken I would have deleted it by now.

Chwlo

No I am saying he is looking for post-production help, not advice on where to stand. Not being rude, sorry no matter how I word it it seems terse.
I don't have a lot of post production abilities at this time, so I have to move and change positions a lot. Most of the time when I get a clear field of view the image I wanted is no longer what I am looking at.

Chwlo

I don't know where he is on his photography journey. You sound like a more accomplished photographer. There is something in his composition that attracts his attention. I take pictures other would critique harshly. But I took it because at that moment I liked something I was looking at and wanted to have an image for myself. I may one day have as discerning an eye as you. But I hope I will remember the journey.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I'm not judging him for taking the shot in the first place, I've taken many that were far worse. What I am suggesting is that it's not worth the effort removing that one pole when there are so many other distractions in the forground. And further even if all of the distractions could somehow be removed without leaving obvious artifacts, and the exposure was adjusted and improved, the combination of that foreground and background would still not result in a particularly good picture.

In that image the eye is naturally drawn to those 7 or 8 trees in the foreground that don't integrate with the forested area and mountains behind them. Besides the distracting foreground trees, the bottom half of that picture is just plain ugly as a result of the utility pole, the fence and fence poles, and the trucks. It is unfortunately just a terrible vantage point to take a photograph of those mountains. I can understand him wanting to keep that image as a keepsake of being there if he doesn't have any that are better, but I would just keep the pole in the image as is, since since removiing it won't help much.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Love it. While he's at it he could also cut down all the foreground trees since they're just blocking the way and add nothing to the photograph.

Linary Loc: UK

I wonder if the some of the posters above would like it if you hi-jacked their threads as they have done here.

To answer your question:
In Affinity, choose the "Inpainting brush tool" and paint over the wires and pole. See image below.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

No disrespect was intended for the OP. I think the point was simply that removing the offending pole and wires were the least of the problems for that image. The trucks, equipment and the fence, not the mention the 7 or 8 standalone trees are still there and are much more of a distraction. When someone asks for assistance with a problematic image I feel compelled to give my opinion, and while some may be annoyed by my candor others appreciate my analysis. Your software, and many other PP programs, can do an excellent job of removing objects in may situations, but in a complex image with an object like the pole extending into the sky, over mountains, trees and the edge of a tractor right next to it, it would be extremely difficult to remove it and the wires without leaving at least some visible artifacts, especially around the tractor and on the mountains. Since you didn't select store original when you posted I can't tell exactly how successful your effort was. The be really successful the area around the item to be removed needs to have consistent color and texture. In a small sized image artifacts may be less visible, but in a larger image they are often more distracting than the item that was removed.

jcboy3

I handle this situation as follows: take one or more photos quickly changing position so the pole and wires obscure a different part of the mountain. Open the images as layers in Affinity. Align the layers using the background (mountain) and not foreground (pole). Create a layer mask and paint out the pole and wires. Flatten the image and crop as necessary. Finish with your normal post processing.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

While I can't comment on how successful your approach might be, I believe the OP wants to works with this single image he'a already captured. Perhaps on some future outing when faced with a similar situation he could try your suggestion.

jcboy3

I offered this as an approach to get in front (so to speak) of this kind of editing issue. Sure, you can use tools to make up parts of the image. But my approach uses actual imagery to eliminate foreground elements; a trick of perspective. Distant trees, of course, are not a problem. But if you have something with recognizable detail, healing brushes or cloning tools will not work.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Exactly. These brushes can be very effective for removing objects on water, or in the sky, an expanse of lawn, a beach, a forest of distant trees, and on other consistently colored or textured backgrounds with sufficient space around objects to replace them with nondescript pixels. Its far trickier to get satisfactory results with objects in the foreground when there is detail nearby such as the tractor right next to the pole. With effort and experience sometimes even that can be done with some success, but at best there will likely be a noticeable smudge which looks like the result of an ink eraser. However, depending on the image and the location and size of the artifact, sometimes it can be successfully "hidden" in a busy scene.

YeloCab1

One other thing I think should be mentioned. I took a picture of an old local store once. There was a power pole next to it and a wire going across the top of the roof. I meant to Photoshop it out but forgot. After I posted the picture on a local memories Facebook page - one of the first comments it got was from a guy who used to work for the power company. He remembered climbing that pole to restore power after hurricane Donna went through the area in 1962 or 63 (I can't remember for sure). If I had removed it from the picture he would have been disappointed!! You never know who will see your pictures or which parts will have meaning to them personally.

TucsonDave Loc: Tucson, Arizona

Wow! It is amazing that no answered your simple questions. Yes, Affinity has an "In Painting" brush tool that is used to remove objects. Actually, you can use the "Clone" tool as well. There are a couple of ways to nicely remove whatever object you want to remove. I would suggest using one or two of the over 100 tutorial videos offered and pick one that demonstrates removal. You might have to check a couple videos.

If you shoot RAW, Affinity will bring up the screen or "Persona" for RAW images - The Develop Persona. A few adjustments can be made and the photo is "Developed" and the resulting "Photo" Persona screen for is shown for further adjusting of the photo. Its in that screen, using a Pixel layer, that you remove objects. This is not meant to be a tutorial for Affinity, but should help you get to the right place