\n
A sculptural lounge chair with a curved terracotta leather frame and a soft cream boucle cushion, sitting where the sofa was, same floor contact and same shadow direction<\/p>\n\n \n \n <\/polyline>\n <\/svg>\n Copied<\/span>\n <\/button>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/section>\n\n\n Change the wall art<\/h3>\n\n \n
A large abstract painting in burgundy, dusty pink and terracotta, filling the existing frame on the wall, same size and same hanging position<\/p>\n\n \n \n <\/polyline>\n <\/svg>\n Copied<\/span>\n <\/button>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/section>\n\n\n Replace the coffee table<\/h3>\n\n \n
A low wooden coffee table with a thick organic slab top and chunky rounded legs, standing on the woven rug where the marble table was<\/p>\n\n \n \n <\/polyline>\n <\/svg>\n Copied<\/span>\n <\/button>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/section>\n\nStep 5. Generate and branch<\/h3>\n Run it, and the result arrives as a new node wired to the original rather than replacing it. The source image stays on the canvas untouched, which matters more than it sounds.<\/p>\n
That is what lets you run the next edit from the same starting point instead of editing an edit, and it is the structural idea the whole template is built around.<\/p>\n
One photo, three rooms<\/span><\/h2>\nThe template’s canvas is not a chain. It is a fan.<\/p>\n
A single image node sits on the left and three connectors run from the same output port to three separate results on the right. One replaces the sofa with the terracotta lounge chair. One changes the wall art to the burgundy abstract. One swaps the marble coffee table for the wooden one.<\/p>\n
None of the three is built on top of another. Each one reads the original photograph, masks a different object, and returns a full size version of the room with that one thing changed.<\/p>\n
The reason to build it this way is comparability. Because every variant starts from identical pixels, the only difference between the three outputs is the object you asked for. The light is the same, the shadows fall the same way, the shelving and the olive tree and the arched window are pixel for pixel identical.<\/p>\n
Chain the edits instead, and each one inherits whatever the previous step got slightly wrong. Fan them out, and you get three clean answers to three separate questions.<\/p>\n
That is the pattern worth stealing from this template, whatever you are editing. Put the finished image on the canvas once, then branch every variation off it.<\/p>\n
What is inpainting?<\/span><\/h2>\nNow the theory, because knowing what the technique is doing makes the failures easier to diagnose.<\/p>\n
Inpainting is targeted image editing. The name comes from art restoration, where a conservator fills a damaged patch of a canvas so the repair disappears into the surrounding paint. The software version does the same job, with a prompt instead of a brush loaded with pigment.<\/p>\n
You supply three things and the model returns one:<\/p>\n
\nThe image<\/strong> you want to change.<\/li>\nA mask<\/strong>, which is the area you paint over to mark as editable.<\/li>\nA prompt<\/strong> describing what belongs in that area instead.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nWhat comes back is the same image with only the masked region rewritten. The lighting, the perspective, the colour grade and every unmasked pixel carry over.<\/p>\n
The mask is the part people underestimate. It is not a selection in the Photoshop sense, where you are cutting something out. It is a permission slip. You are telling the model which pixels it is allowed to touch and, by omission, which ones it must leave alone.<\/p>\n
That makes inpainting the right tool for a specific shape of problem: the picture is nearly right, and one thing in it is wrong.<\/p>\n
How does inpainting work?<\/span><\/h2>\nThe model reads the unmasked part of the image as context, then generates new content for the masked part that has to agree with everything around it.<\/p>\n
Agreement is the hard bit. A new object dropped into a photo has to match the light direction, the shadow length, the lens distortion, the grain and the colour temperature of the original, or the eye catches it instantly.<\/p>\n
So the useful way to think about the prompt is that you are not describing an object in isolation. You are describing an object that has to belong in a scene the model can already see.<\/p>\n
A few consequences follow from that, and they explain most of the results people find confusing:<\/p>\n
\nBigger masks give the model more freedom.<\/strong> A tight mask around an object constrains it to that silhouette. A generous mask lets it change the object’s shape.<\/li>\nThe surrounding image is doing half the work.<\/strong> A well lit, sharp original produces a clean edit. A blurry or oddly lit one produces a patch that looks pasted.<\/li>\nEmpty masks still get filled.<\/strong> If you mask an object and describe nothing, the model will generally reconstruct the background behind it, which is how inpainting doubles as object removal.<\/li>\nThe edit is a new image, not a layer.<\/strong> The result is a fresh version of the picture rather than a stack you can peel back.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nInpainting vs outpainting vs generative fill<\/span><\/h2>\nThese three terms describe overlapping things and get used interchangeably, which is why the comparison is worth pinning down.<\/p>\n
\n\n\nTerm<\/th>\n What it changes<\/th>\n Where the new pixels go<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n \n\nInpainting<\/td>\n A region inside the image<\/td>\n Inside the original frame<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nOutpainting<\/td>\n The area beyond the image<\/td>\n Outside the original frame<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nGenerative fill<\/td>\n Either, depending on the tool<\/td>\n Either<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nInpainting works inward.<\/strong> The frame stays the same size and one region inside it is rewritten.<\/p>\nOutpainting works outward.<\/strong> The frame gets bigger and the model invents what would have been there if the camera had been pulled back. It is the tool for turning a portrait crop into a landscape one, or for giving a tight product shot some breathing room.<\/p>\nGenerative fill is a product name more than a technique.<\/strong> It usually covers both operations behind one button, which is convenient in use and imprecise in conversation. If someone says generative fill, ask whether they mean the inward edit or the outward one.<\/p>\nThe two are siblings rather than rivals, and tools that offer one usually offer the other. In Picsart Flow they sit in the same actions menu on an image node, which is worth reading once because it maps the whole family of edits available from a single picture:<\/p>\n
\nInpaint.<\/strong> Mask a region inside the frame and prompt a replacement for it.<\/li>\nOutpaint.<\/strong> Extend the frame outward and let the model fill the new space.<\/li>\nAnimate.<\/strong> Turn the still into a short video.<\/li>\nRemove background.<\/strong> Output the subject on transparency.<\/li>\nEdit image.<\/strong> Crop, flip and resize.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nWhat inpainting is actually good for<\/span><\/h2>\nThe technique earns its place whenever reshooting or regenerating the whole image is disproportionate to the size of the problem.<\/p>\n
\nSwapping one object.<\/strong> A different chair, a different bottle, a different jacket, in an otherwise finished frame.<\/li>\nRemoving something.<\/strong> Mask it, describe the background, and the object is gone.<\/li>\nFixing a detail the generator got wrong.<\/strong> A malformed hand, a garbled sign, a logo that came out as nonsense.<\/li>\nTrying variations.<\/strong> Same scene, same light, one element changed, so the comparison is honest.<\/li>\nChanging a surface.<\/strong> New upholstery, new wall colour, new tabletop material, without touching the shape.<\/li>\nProduct mockups.<\/strong> Placing a real item into a scene that is already lit and composed.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nThe last two are why inpainting turns up so often in interiors, retail and mockup work. Those disciplines all involve an image where the setting is settled and the merchandise is the variable.<\/p>\n\n Tips for cleaner inpainting results<\/h3>\n\n