Every day we offer FREE licensed software you’d have to buy otherwise.

Photo Stamp Remover 5.0 Giveaway
$49.95
EXPIRED

Giveaway of the day — Photo Stamp Remover 5.0

Remove date stamp, watermark and other unwanted objects from your photos with Photo Stamp Remover 5.0
$49.95 EXPIRED
User rating: 542 (54%) 457 (46%) 73 comments

Photo Stamp Remover 5.0 was available as a giveaway on August 1, 2012!

Today Giveaway of the Day
$12.99
free today
An easy to use, 1-click iPhone Photo Recovery software - the Photo Saver.

Photo Stamp Remover is a photo correction utility that can remove watermarks, date stamps and other unwanted objects that appear on photographs.

Offering a fully automatic process, the program uses an intelligent restoration technology to fill the selected area with the texture generated from the pixels around the selection, so that the defect blends into the rest of the image naturally.

What takes hours to correct using the clone tool, can be accomplished in a minute using Photo Stamp Remover.

Don’t miss a special offer from SoftOrbits for GOTD users – 70% off all titles during giveaway period! Use PPGCUP code to apply the discount.

System Requirements:

Windows XP/ Vista/ 7

Publisher:

SoftOrbits

Homepage:

http://www.softorbits.com/photo-stamp-remover/

File Size:

11.1 MB

Price:

$49.95

Comments on Photo Stamp Remover 5.0

73 comments
(will not be published)
You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This software is really quite useless unless one is willing to accept a lower degree of quality in the final result than what can be done with generalized image editing software and a bit of time. As a test, I chose an image from my Samsung camera which had a green-and-yellow datestamp in the lower right corner. This was in fact the primary usage case I imagined when I decided to install this software; I have no need nor desire to play copyright god with others' images.

I kept the process simple, since in actual use I would expect it to be able to perform acceptably in this scenario with a minimum of interaction from me, otherwise it defeats the purpose. I imported the image, created a rectangular selection mask around the date stamp, and then selected the remove function. The software spent no more than 15 seconds analyzing the image and then rendered the result.

Most of the resulting blend was nominally acceptable, but about 15% of it was blended much more poorly than I could have done manually, and it was a clearly visible anomaly. The result was not an acceptable compromise to performing the same manually. Thus even though the software had no cost in this instance I would still not use it. I would use GIMP for Windows to do the work, which is open source and also no cost. Actually it's also possible I would wind up just never doing it at all unless I was desperate to un-stamp a single isolated photo.

Reply   |   Comment by Vulcan Tourist  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)

#53, Ric. Quite agree -- with watermark removal software (of which it seems this is hardly the best example) a photographer can "lose" his/her "copyright" almost instantly. And there are certainly some -- maybe quite a few -- who will remove a watermarked copyright notice in order to use or sell on a "useful" photograph THAT IS NOT THEIRS.

However, apart from saying, "Use something better", you provide no useful solution -- if you know of one/some, please elucidate for the benefit of professional photographers on this site.

Because as far as I know, the only really effective way to (almost) guarantee your photos won't be ripped off is to ensure that only LOW RESOLUTION versions are made publicly available. Although for reasons already given, it is hard for many of us to do that.

There is really only one reason to put a watermarked copyright notice on a photograph -- to serve notice to anyone even thinking about stealing it, that it is NOT offered "free" to the public. Just in case they are so naive as to think that it IS.

Tranmontane

Reply   |   Comment by tranmontane  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+5)

I'm afraid that my comment is a bit late in the day. However, I just wanted my say concerning this tool. I wanted to say that this tool is useful in a number of legitimate ways for making minor corrections with graphics. As for someone using this tool to use a watermarked or copyright marked photo or other graphic, that's obviously another story.
I've been down this road a few times, and the law and our court systems are notoriously lame, when it comes to enforcing our rights under a copyright or watermark claim. Generally, people have the right to quiet and private enjoyment of your works, copyrights or not! Thanks to GAOTD and this developer for this program. Oh, by the way, I don't think this is really worth $50

Reply   |   Comment by Billy Kurch  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-2)

There is no easy way to DESELECT the previous selection (Ctrl-D brings up a file folder browser to do ... what?). Please provide a Deselect. (yes you can click on the outside-of-image hashed area, if such is visible to you)
There are no Control key shortcuts shown on menus, yet they do exist, as pressing them causes a variety of surprising things to happen (surprises in this sense is NOT good).
Please add way to blur or feather or smooth the changed image edges.
QuickRemove seems to give better results on complex area (meaning surrounding area is complex) than Remove.
When zoomed, moving selection tool does not 'push' or cause screen to scroll, thus hard to get whole area worked on without lots of manual operate, scroll, operate, scroll, etc.
Nice way that Selection marker brush uses contrast to pick the brushed over zones for removal.
It would be nice to have a pen tool and a blur brush to touch up if a removal works almost right.
Because otherwise, you still have to save the image and then open in another image editor to fine tune or touch up. Which of course, if it is a JPG file, every re-save further degrades the image.
Saving as JPEG has no way to specify 'quality' level. It appears to save at 90 quality. Thus your image file will get larger over time, while still slightly degrading if you re-edit, re-save.

Note that installing this will remove your reg key for GOTD PhotoStampRemover v4.2.

Reply   |   Comment by Bruce Tech Guy  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+3)

Doesn't install on Win7

Reply   |   Comment by Jayne  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-4)

Only tried on one photo but it worked like a charm! Replaced a white house in the background with green trees - looks like the house was never there. Thank you!

Reply   |   Comment by JUDE  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)

Is this software only for personal use? Could someone use it to remove something in a photo that is to be used in an artwork that is to be sold later on?

Reply   |   Comment by Denesia  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-4)

Installed this and the software does a terrible job of removing any watermarks. Stick with a photo editor and cloning tool. Don't waste your time on this one.

Reply   |   Comment by Sean S  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-3)

I wouldn't say this is "flawless" as one commenter stated, but I did manage to remove a watermark from a textured background image. when I tried to remove the watermark from a picture type image, it did some weird stuff - namely took other parts of the image outside of the selection zone and placed it into the "cleaned up"/selected portion. I'll have to play around with it a bit, but one thing I noticed with the textured background was to take small chunks of the watermark out, instead of trying to select the whole thing at once. For example, the watermark in this case was the word "preview", at first I tried removing the entire word, but it created an isometric shape that replaced the word. Then I tried each individual letter and the results are about 90% satisfactory.

Reply   |   Comment by RoLaAus  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+3)

Poorly paid photographers should come to Cyprus! Up to €4000 to video and photograph a wedding. Includes video DVD but prints are extra but CD with watermarked pictures to choose required prints is included.

Reply   |   Comment by Harry  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-2)

at real estate agent pro photographers own non exlcusive rights to use photos per agreement lear nyour laws as u can stil lbe held liable per my legal experience in law school

Reply   |   Comment by anonymous  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-4)

1st a photo once it is taken by federla law it is automatically copyrighted and doens't have to have watermarks or copyright item and

also they are ways to make any water mark very diffuclt to remove eve nwith this software

and this company will be investigated for this as i do notify the porper federal authorites of company and of gaotd supporting this and can be held liable becasue they paid to give this software aware knowing it is not legllay allowable and don't try to respodn to comments as i never read them i have it set up to forward and all all comemtns to my critic websites and the proepr authorities

Reply   |   Comment by anonymous  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-5)

Copying a famous painting is not illegal, as long as do not try to sell it as an original, or try to pass it off as your own work. You can watermark a picture all you want, it does not give you any more protection in most countries legal systems than not watermarking it at all. All you often do is annoy your customers who cannot see the image properly anymore. Just look at how angry people get over large TV station logos being shown all the time; when you are trying to watch something and cannot see relevant parts of the program anymore.

I have used a program like this for a very serious purpose and it really saved me. I had to borrow a camera when I got married and took over 100 photos myself. They all came out with the time and date in big text over them. They looked horrible, especially when reduced to make a DVD I was going to be sending to all the guests who had been invited.

I had already got a program like this from this website. I had downloaded it and not been sure I would ever have a need for it. It took me three evenings and was mind-numbingly boring to remove them all, but I did. The DVD I produced was a big hit and the slideshow of all the stills I had taken looked wonderful now.

If you are a professional and are having problems with your work being stolen, then that is a legal problem, your work is being STOLEN after all and you have every right to feel aggrieved. However criticising watermark-removal software is pointless in my own personal opinion. Think of it this way. If you watermark a photo in an insignificant area, then it can be cropped out. If you watermark over an area that is significant, then you blot out details and no one will buy what they cannot see. I know I don't.

So I copyright all my work, but only put a small copyright on it and on an insignificant place just to remind people that it is copyright. This keeps honest people honest. This can easily be cropped out thought of course, but anyone who is already stealing your work is already a criminal and is not going to be bothered at removing your watermark using a clone tool.

The slight increase in difficulty in stealing your work has not in my experience been worth the loss in sales of more prominent watermarks.

For really high-risk places where your image is almost certainly going to be stolen, the only real solution seems to be a large watermark at low opacity, right over the most important part of the picture. Expect to get few sales of your photo though. See it from the customers point of view, would you buy a car for example, if you were only allowed to see it's wheels?

Reply   |   Comment by Jonah  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-2)

Thanks Dany (#50). I think I'm pretty decent and all that. I'm not running around using other peoples pictures and the last time I used software like this was to get rid of some hydro lines in one of MY pictures. From what I understand it is illegal to use copyrighted material reguardless of what it is. But with things the way they are these days with everything under the sun floating around on the internet, you have to judge for yourself. If you go by what the 'whiners' are saying, then you shouldn't be burning that cool driving mix CD for your trip to the cottage, let alone lend it to someone else. It should be a small comfort to everyone that pretty soon our glorious Prime Minister will be putting us all in jail for just THINKING about downloading software like this, let alone changing someone elses stuff.

Reply   |   Comment by Mothman  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)

Ever have old photos taken by a camera that burns the date and time in the corner and later wish you had turned that feature off? Well that is what this program is for. Photo Stamp Remover is great at removing that annoying time-stamp.

Reply   |   Comment by Ray  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+1)

I agree with the photographers but I just want it to see if it can clone out some of the bad spots in old pictures...

Reply   |   Comment by Vivian  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+1)

Crashes with out of memory error on my (newly installed) windows 7 system.

Reply   |   Comment by damian  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-8)

Interesting debate: everytime a similar SW comes up on GOATD is the same debate, I've been here for over 4 yrs. on a daily basis. It reminds me of DJs that use many music composer's original works to put together "their" own mixes and they become famous without copyrighting.
Another thing, I got hold of some beautiful pics from a mayor publication that is selling them for big money. They have watermarks - not intelectual property claims - and they are not the creators of said pics, I shouldn't use Photo Stamp Remover on them? Pleeeeeeaase!

Reply   |   Comment by Purrete  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+3)

Installed and registered fine on Windows 7, though Avast antivirus objected to it. I agree with the comments about misusing this product to remove watermarks. The purpose of the watermark is to protect intellectual property. Though I am not a professional photographer, I certainly feel they have the right to protect their work and this product circumvents that right. I certainly would not use it for that purpose.

However, sometimes I leave the time/date stamp inadvetently "on" on one of our cameras with a resulting bright gold stamp on the photo. In the past I used Photoshop Elements' clone tool to clean it up. While not perfect this tool does a pretty good job of quickly repairing the photo. I tried it on a number of photos, using the Remove, Quick Remove and Batch modes. I did not try any of the more specific tools. The Quick remove is not usefull, too pixilated, but the other Remove Mode works well. Sometimes a little touchup is necessary, but it saves a lot of time when you have a number of photos that need repair, or you are in a rush to get a project done.

Thanks, GAOTD.

Reply   |   Comment by Larrie  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)

Chris#3 comment: Chris, there are many valid reasons to remove "someone else's" watermarks. I am in real estate, and when I submit MY photos to the MLS, they watermark them. Later, if I re-list that same property, and can't readily find my originals, it would be handy to take "my photos" and remove "their" watermarks. Once I paid someone to take photos of my rental property to use in a website because I did not have a good camera. They placed their watermarks in photos that I PAID GOOD MONEY FOR. This happens a lot with paid photographers as they think they have you over a barrel - enter watermark removal software.

Reply   |   Comment by Dennis  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+13)

Guys,

This is 2012. Not 1972.

Using a photo editor to put a visible watermark on photos is an obsolete and very old fashioned way. It is quite useless as a "protection" because of watermark removal software.

Use something better.

Reply   |   Comment by ric  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+9)

I just tested it, well, what it does is just infuses the pixels around the mark area with the background elements.
Defuses the color around it and is just blending the surrounding area.

The results are disappointing and amateurish.

Uninstalled it.

Reply   |   Comment by Glen3  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+4)

As a professional photographer, who puts watermarks on his photos that are shown on the Internet (my attractive young wife sometimes like to post my photos on Facebook, for instance) I cannot help but view this tool with some dismay.

The very reason I put a "© (my name) 2012" watermark on my photos is precisely to PREVENT others ripping off my photos and using them without paying. I am not talking about copying a photo for personal files -- that will always go on. I mean the wholesale ripping off of high-quality photos taken by quality and professional photographers, and USING THEM in ads and editorials in places the photographer will probably never see them.

It is being done all the time -- I know, as I have been ripped off.

I suppose it was inevitable -- given that with digital, you can do almost anything. But making money out of someone else's COPYRIGHTED work is plain theft, because the photographer did not authorise anyone to use their photos -- in magazines, newspapers, ad flyers or even ad hoardings -- without prior payment. If someone takes a photographer's pictures and uses them to make money for himself, that is THEFT, pure and simple.

Sorry for the "sermon" folks... but when you've been ripped off a few times, you would no doubt succumb to "moralising".... I'm not worried about getting voted down -- it needs to be said, and this is the right point to say it, even though I am sure the vast majority of users here wouldn't think of using this programme for dishonest purposes. (There ARE plenty of quite legitimate uses, as others have pointed out, above.)

For those photographers who wonder what "defence" they may have, the only way of course is to post LOW RESOLUTION photos on Internet websites. But then, nobody particularly admires lo-res pix -- and that is what any photographer would naturally like to have -- admiration.

But not to the point of theft.

Tranmontane.

Reply   |   Comment by tranmontane  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+9)

I can really understand where Mothman is coming from but still. Just because it happens all over the internet doesn't make it right. On a sidenote, are your restaurant specials copyrighted?
@ promytius: Wrong. You're stealing copyrighted material (that's why it's watermarked in the first place...), just because you're not selling it on doesn't make it right or acceptable behaviour. It's the same as walking into a store, get some stuff and then not pay for it because it's for 'personal use' only. Doesn't work like that.
@ fran: I don't doubt for a second that your spirit is all good and decent, but your actions arn't as you're violating their copyright license. They're showcasing their work, not generously sharing it. 'Personal use' is not an excuse.

Besides, the Public Domain is full of absolutely amazing photos, so why rip off artists in the first place?

Reply   |   Comment by dany  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+3)

I agree with Chris H: it kinda works, but just trades the
hassle of clone stamping with its own shortcomings. Like,
its Undo doesn't, undo, anything. So learn clone stamping
or use InPaint; anything but this.

Reply   |   Comment by marinus  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)

Oh, come on. $49 95 for an app which merely adopts the now seemingly ages-old technology of pixel manipulation???

I'm sorry, but I really do get fed up with developers coming along with so-called products tagged with prices that beggar belief. It wouldn't be so bad if the software offered actually delivered something new in the way of technique or application, but that's rarely the case and today's from SoftOrbit's is no different.

Whilst I don't blame SoftOrbits for the registration hiccough that occurred earlier -- glitches can happen to anyone, at any time -- I do have to wonder, on the basis of side-by-side comparison, why it thinks its $49.95 commercial app is remotely worthy of anyone's time when this is freely available to all:

http://www.photo-toolbox.com/free/clone-stamp-tool.html

Free Clone Stamp Tool emulates Photoshop itself in using the ALT/ mouse click procedure to allow for the overlaying of one pixel area with pixels from another, adjacent area. Its GUI may not be as snazzy as the weirdly-named 'Photo Stamp Remover 5.0' but it's a doddle to use: select cloning size, edge hardness and degree of opacity and that's it, job done, several 100 dollars less than Photoshop and $50 less than Photo Stamp Remover.

Sorry, GAOTD, but really: it doesn't matter what daft name today's developer has come up with for its cloning app. It offers nothing in practice that can't be readily achieved by pixel proximity displacement freeware, of which Free Clone Stamp Tool is but one. As to that bonkers price tag: it's August 1st where I am, here in the UK. Not April Fool's Day.

Reply   |   Comment by MikeR  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+23)

When will Giovanni learn the difference between an "App" and a "Program"?????

Reply   |   Comment by Rock  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-10)

This is a fun app to play with. Grab a photo off the internet and try to remove something. I like using the selection brush. It makes it easier to grab small items that aren't square. I downloaded a pic of Romney and Obama and removed their ties.

Found that sometimes going over the same area 2x removes the artifacts if one of the items doesn't disappear completely. Definitely a keeper. :)

Reply   |   Comment by BBQ dude  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+7)

#38 There are so many legal uses for this software, it's a shame they mentioned watermarks in their blurb. As someone who uses clone tools on a daily basis ON MY OWN PHOTOS, I find it annoying that others would label me as a thief for doing so.
Here are just a few things you might like to legally remove from your pictures:
datestamps
litter on grass
dust marks from a dirty sensor
finger accidentally over part of lens
crease marks on old scanned photos

Reply   |   Comment by Kevbirder  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+23)

Good Grief! I can't believe all the whiners and moaners going on about how this type of software shouldn't even be offered. Removing watermarks to steal pics is NOT the only reason to have this type of software!! I use this to remove date stamps from pics and to remove unwanted objects like phone lines, etc. Get off your high horses.

Reply   |   Comment by kay  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+30)

#36, I'm afraid you're incorrect regarding copyright only applying to making money off the photo.

If one downloads an image from a website, removes the copyright from the image if there is one, makes a copy of the photo to display on a wall in a home, that person is breaking copyright law. To do so is no different than going into the photographer's studio and stealing one of their photos, because it has replaced the sale of the copyrighted image. While a copyright notice is not required for an image on the internet (it's implied for ANY image posted on the internet) it's placed there specifically by photographers to MAKE SURE others know that they cannot reuse the image IN ANY FORM without the permission of the image copyright owner.

Illegal use of any kind of software that can remove parts of images would be to use it to remove the copyright of ANY image except one that contains your own copyright, or that contains the copyright of someone who owns the copyright of the image and has directed you to remove the copyright from the image for them.

And whoever has to remove their own copyright, a suggestion would be to make a copy of the image, first, and copyright the copy. Most programs that do watermarks have the capability of saving the results to a different location, which leaves the original intact, so you might check if yours does and use that feature. That way, you don't have to remove anything, later.

I'm downloading today's giveaway just to see how easy it is to remove a copyright from one of my copyrighted images, to see if there's some better way to do the watermark in the first place to make it more difficult to be removed by people trying to steal the image.

Reply   |   Comment by Winifred  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-18)

Gee, anybody notice that comment 7 by "maniyo" is an exact copy of the "Dan Mayer" testimonial from the SoftOrbits website?

So, how much manipulation is going on?

Reply   |   Comment by Annoyed  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+13)

@kthtl #34.. Hi, I can understand perfectly where You're coming from, but over my years of "hunting" for decent Images (for Desktop Wallpaper, occasionally using some enchanting Picture to design "own" virtual Cards for Family or Friends by placing perhaps an artistic Text in them - ALL FOR PRIVATE USE AND JOY!!) - I have to say how grateful I am to those Photo Artists for allowing something "commercially valuable" appear also in hires.. and I never, ever think: how naive they are, but how GENEROUS of them to share good quality Image with Internet Visitor!

I too take very decent photos (not for profit thou) and will.. not publish them on Internet on Sites who'd compress them so much - they would loose WHOLE Quality!! To me, You see, even that simple fact means a lot!:) In conclusion - Please understand HOW majority of decent people think and in what spirit they would use Today's Giveaway??

I am not giving this particular piece of Software massive "WOW", as I personally might have better ones, but as a photo Tool it can Help someone, and cannot be seen as "immoral" as some are painting it!:)
Painkiller pill can cure headache, or be misused.. Let's put our experiences in healthy prospective!

Reply   |   Comment by fran  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)

I agree with #26, the removal is less than satisfactory. Thumbs down.

Reply   |   Comment by Mr Steve Barrett  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+5)

Can't get over all the whiners about the legalities of some of GOTD offerings lately. If a song's out there and you like it..download it. If you like a picture and want to get rid of the word SAMPLE stamped across it..go for it. If you don't, quit complaining and don't use the software. Half of you are probably !@%#$ about this while you're watching that copy of the new Batman movie you got from a bit torrent site. I'm a Chef..maybe I should be chasing after all the customers of mine who go home and make one of my restaurants specials?

Reply   |   Comment by Mothman  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)

I agree with #10. GOTD should not be offering a program like this. The ONLY reason to have a program that removes a watermark on an image is to steal someone else's work. That watermark is there for a reason.

Reply   |   Comment by John  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-40)

Hello All, having downloaded & installed perfectly, registration was a breeze. Having captured an image off the TV I tried removing the BBC logo from the top left corner. Two clicks & 5 seconds later, it was gone. So, that was easy!! Next I took a photo of my car that has a lamp-post "growing" from its roof. Again, gone in four clicks (I had to do 2 passes on this). All that remains is a faint trapezoidal mark where the logo/lamp-post was. All in all a very good result. To all the people moaning about this tool, I can't see the difference between using this prog to remove stuff & using, for example, Picasa. Nobody moans at Google about that prog & it do's so much more!! In short, I'm keeping this little prog because it do's what it says it do's & do's it very well. Thankyou very much.
Have Fun & don't break the law!!
Cheers, Roadie John.

Reply   |   Comment by Roadie John  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+3)

P.S.
In my opinion (not a lawyer) it is NOT illegal to do ANYTHING at all with a copy of someone else's stuff - photo, idea, replicated object, etc. - as long as you don't try to profit from it. Taking a copyrighted image off the Internet, manipulating it in a program, removing any author/ownership-identifying information is all perfectly acceptable behavior. You can print it out, put it on your wall, use it as a screensaver, paint it on your car - you just cannot sell it or use it or display it for any other purpose that personal enjoyment. So clone away!

Reply   |   Comment by promytius  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)

"What takes hours to correct using the clone tool" -
Now that is just inaccurate - if you are spending hours with a clone tool trying to remove, well ANYTHING, and taking hours instead of SECONDS, then you don't know how to use a clone tool. Just a silly, inaccurate and dumb thing to claim in an ad. This has been offered before I believe, and if the same program, has an interesting but flawed 'removal' process. So, marketing advice is: don't try to fool the fools.

Reply   |   Comment by promytius  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-7)

Yes I am a photographer and yes I have had images downloaded from one of my sites. Yes I have had them used in books and magazines with my watermark removed and no royalties paid, in some cases with the thief claiming copyright. The worse scenario was a thief in South Wales who downloaded the image contents of a site, put them on a CD and sold them on e-bay.
I have overcome the problem in part by reducing the resolution of images on my sites to a very low level which does make them useless for hard copy printing.

Reply   |   Comment by kthtl  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+23)

The modification of any image not in the public domain is both morally wrong and a criminal act. This applies whether it is the copyright notice, watermark, or any other part. Anyone who advertises or endorses software tools which extend the ability to do this to others is like the seller of illegal locks-picking tools. I cannot see an innocent use for this utility, insofar as the public does not keep watermarks on their own photographs in any number.

Reply   |   Comment by Ed Long  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-27)

#10: I couldn't agree with you more about removing the watermarks placed by the photographer himself/herself. But that is NOT the only reason photos are watermarked. People put watermarks on photos that are not their photos to begin with, for example, to cite their store name or website online (anyone who has spent any time on eBay knows this). Scenario: I put out a photo to the public domain. Someone takes it to use in their advertisement online & puts a watermark with their store/website name on it. Someone else takes that doctored photo, removes the watermark & then uses the photo for their own purposes. Yes, you can say they should go to the original site & download the undoctored photo, but they most likely do not know where the original public domain photo resides, so this is the easiest way to get it.

Like every other bit of software out there, there are legitimate uses and not-so-legitimate uses and it is up to the user to decide which avenue they will travel. Folks who download today's offering need to be sensitive to the issues and act responsibly.

Reply   |   Comment by drken  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+11)

Date stamps I can understand but watermarks? They are watermarked for a reason and removing one is usually breaking copyright. Seriously, buy the photograph and not this software. This is one of the reasons why most professional photographers don't even publish online anymore.
Thanks but no thanks, I'm skipping this one.

Reply   |   Comment by dany  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-17)

I downloaded and tested this program. I tried to remove objects, and then watermarks, because that is what they seem to say it does so well, and for me the results are disappointing.

If you're removing something from a unified background, this program will work, in any case with the erase tool, but you can do that with just about any photo editing program.

The real problem is to remove something from a complex background, and I have tried several programs, but not yet found one that works better than a clone tool.

With Photo Stamp Remover, the results are very irregular and erratic. Some parts are replaced OK and others aren't. With partially successful results, it might save some time to start with this program and finish the work with a regular cloning tool. Since cloning can be quite meticulous, it still could be worth it to have the job partially done.

Faint praise, I know, but thanks anyway, GOTD. I'll be back tomorrow.

Reply   |   Comment by Judith  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+10)

Hi, I've been dealing a lot with restoring/improving photos and there are countless methods of disguising or removing unwanted watermarks or date stamps from pictures. In the majority of cases it is always about visual (artistic) esthetics of otherwise perfect images, where Private Use cannot be stressed enough!

Yes, there will be those violating this rule and removing traces of "copy rights" to distribute images as their own.., but we are not interested in how it "might" be misconstrued, as practically everything can!

Photo manipulation on it's own can be called cheating in some form?:), and yet where would we be without correcting Software - Magic that came with digital cameras, scanners and digital photography in general - intended for Masses and home "labs"..

Go for any Tool that will help you achieve desired results! Today's Giveaway is one of them:)
One smart tip when removing date stamps from photos in particular - keep original one (in it's tinniest recognizable form if you wish) for future reference.., trust me, guessing dates and times the photo was taken can be a source of family feuds!, lol.

Reply   |   Comment by fran  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+7)

This tool became more work than it is a help. Many common shortcut keys (ctrl+Z for undo, right and left brackets to resize tool size, Shift key to add to selection, etc...) did not work or worked inconsistently. When circling the corner of a photo with the free-hand selection tool, it jumped across the corner as though it was only sampling when over the photo. It also took samples to be used for filling in the selection from unintuitive areas surrounding the selection (gradient single-color selection took samples from a person nearby). I couldn't even locate where to resize the marker selection tool at all.

Overall, the Clone Stamp tool in any photo editor is a more efficient choice.

Reply   |   Comment by Epoclaen  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+11)

FWIW, this doesn't clean the metadata so the "struggling photographer" that many have complained of is not without recourse. Nor, of course, does it remove any invisible stego'd watermark left my more creative efforts.

For those with the InPaint giveaways here (and throughout the web) there's really no point to this since it works no better and is noticeably slower.

For those without access to InPaint, this worked for me so IMHO it's worth the effort

Reply   |   Comment by Tried and True  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+14)

Doesn't work. Tried removing stamps from a couple pics on ebay and it doesn't work. Just leaves a big jumbled mess behind. Thanks for nothing.

Reply   |   Comment by Gary  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+1)

This is a very disappointing download. It does the same job as Inpaint (a regular GAOTD favourite) but nothing like as well.

You just select an area of the image to be removed, and it just over-writes it with a pastiche of whatever happens to be surrounding it. Badly.

Unlike Inpaint it does not allow you to select which part of the surrounding area - or even another part of the image altogether - to reproduce. This means that results are only acceptable if the area surrounding it happens to be uniform, like sky, or a random pattern like leaves.

Anyone who needs this facility would be better advised to download one of the better free picture editors like Gimp or Photo Pos Pro and practice with the clone tool.

Reply   |   Comment by Chris H.  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+23)

i downloaded photo stamp remover 5 hassle-free.
i unzipped the file to a temp directory.
installation is faulty, always unable to connect to gaotd server. :(

i switched to built-in windows 7 zip manager and launched the program from there.
windows 7 created a temp directory under the default user temp directory.
installation was a breeze and was able to connect to gaot server immediately. :)
since i already have previous photo stamp remover (versions 3.1 and 4.2), i opted to install current program at a different directory.
with the provided license key, registration was successful.

upon launching the program, two new brush tools different from version 4.2 and 3.1, undo brush and concealer brush, were available.

if you launch previous versions, you will be prompted to update to the latest version.

i will be testing this program later to remove watermarks from some photos i took with my old but still reliable budget kodak c510 camera.

thanks gaotd and softorbits.

Reply   |   Comment by malachz  –  3 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)
Add a comment

iPhone app giveaways »

Super Lines Giveaway
Classic arcade game! How long you can have?
$5.99 ➞ free today
Attack Force Giveaway
An action packed shooter where you must defend 3 hapless civilians...
$0.99 ➞ free today
LiquiPad Giveaway
LiquiPad is an addictive visual toy that turns the surface of your...
$0.99 ➞ free today
PicShop HD - Photo Editor Giveaway
Beautiful interface, tons of editing options and dozen's of filters...
$2.99 ➞ free today
Simpler Pro Giveaway
Your address book is a mess? Simpler will fix it in few seconds!
$4.99 ➞ free today

Android app giveaways »

Money Lover Premium Giveaway
Money Lover is a great yet simple manager for tracking your personal...
$7.08 ➞ free today
Grey Giveaway
Grey is an infinite, randomly generated obstacle dodging game in...
$1.28 ➞ free today
Switch Dash Giveaway
Tap the screen to switch colour dash but don't touch other falling...
$0.99 ➞ free today
Lemonade - Endless Arcade Game Giveaway
Squeeze the juice!
$0.99 ➞ free today
Suru for Android Giveaway
Suru is a vivid, high-resolution icon pack for Android to install and...
$1.82 ➞ free today