Easiest way to remove background from an image

[Ashley...@adobeforums.com]

Hello-
I am using Adobe Photoshop CS3 Extended and I am working on trying to select a portion of a photo to use as a watermark. The photo is of a racecar in the foreground and I want to exclude the background (which is the road). Of the selection tools I really like the Magnetic Lasso tool to get in close on the objects edges but sometimes it selects areas I don't want. Does anyone know how to adjust the magnetic lasso tool once you have it all the way around an object? I've also tried the Magic Wand tool but found I couldn't drag it into a new document so that didn't work. I just need to find the easiest way to accomplish this task. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help!

[John Joslin]

Try the "Quick Selection Tool" it's easy to use with a bit of practice.

[Ashley...@adobeforums.com]

Thanks for the help John. I am having some difficulty though with it picking up the exact outline of the car. I keep going back and forth between the + and - quick selection tools to fix it but it's still not hugging the edge of the car like I want. Any tips on getting it exactly around the edge of the car? I've looked at tutorials on youtube for using the quick selection tool and they all do it in like 1 minute and I'm still trying to get it after a few hours. Any help would be great! Thanks!

[Free...@adobeforums.com]

Keep in mind that the quick selection tool doesn't "know" where the car is. If the contrast is not good enough, the selection will go off. Of course the examples you've seen used images where it would "just work".

Play with the tool settings (diameter and hardness - there's no tolerance like in Magic Wand), or see if one channel has enough contrast.

In reality, you often have to get it roughly right and then finish up with a manual tool. But if you ask me, a car is just perfect for the pen tool, with all those smooth curves...

[Wolf_...@adobeforums.com]

I just need to find the easiest way to accomplish this task.

The pen tool is not likely the fastest way to isolate the car from the background but it is certainly the most accurate. Learn to use the pen tool; you will not be disappointed.

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1x5OZ6N5ZxMk2qJW3uG43AhJSxnCLT>

[Ashley...@adobeforums.com]

Thanks Freeagent & Wolf Eilers for your tips I appreciate it. I was able to get the Quick Selection tool to work for me with some more practice and PATIENCE, haha. I've used the pen tool before but I do need to practice with it more. Thanks again to all who have posted their comments- I greatly appreciate it! Any others who want to post feel free I'd love to get as much help as possible.

[Buko]

I had to take the background from a chandelier I mostly used the quick selection tool but had to combine it with the lasso and the pen tool. remember you don't need to delete the whole background all at once.

[Wolf_...@adobeforums.com]

You an also use the Calculations feature of Photoshop to create an alpha channel and hence a selection of an object.

See: Calculations <http://www.podango.com/podcast_episode/2394/99085/Photoshop_for_Video_iPod102_Calculations__Photoshop_for_Video#>

[Free...@adobeforums.com]

I never really looked into Calculations, but it looks handy. I'll play around a little with that.

[John Joslin]

One thing that speeds things up is that a right-click in the selection gives the option to change it to a path and vice-versa.

[John_Me...@adobeforums.com]

I had to take the background from a chandelier I mostly used the quick
selection tool but had to combine it with the lasso and the pen tool.
remember you don't need to delete the whole background all at once.

Right. In any Photoshop operation, but especially making good selections, it is often a combination of multiple tools/techniques that produces the best results.

[Ed Hannigan]

you don't need to delete the whole background all at once.

Masking is far better than deleting.

[Buko]

yeah but I always work on a dupe layer so I always have the original image.

[John_Me...@adobeforums.com]

yeah but I always work on a dupe layer so I always have the original image.

Point taken, but masking does still hold some advantages in that a mask's edges can be tuned and refined now, later, or any time using levels, blurs, brushes, etc.

[Free...@adobeforums.com]

So what? A partially transparent layer can be turned into a selection can be turned into an alpha channel can be turned into a layer mask

<sucking air>

...any time.

Just a matter of preferred workflow.

[J_Ma...@adobeforums.com]

FA: if you've deleted the pixels, you can't get them back (except by pulling them from a second, untouched layer). Maybe Buko can speak to any advantages having two layers might give (one erased, one unerased; vs one masked).

Advantages to masks don't stop at John's points. I can also unlink the mask and in realtime move the "erased" pixels about. To me, saying it's a matter of workflow is like saying keeping two versions of the same file open, active and updated is a matter of workflow: you'd better have a good reason.

[Free...@adobeforums.com]

J - that wasn't my point. To me, the end result is always an alpha channel for high-precision work. But there are many ways to get there.

I tend to use layer masks for quick-and-dirty hit-and-runs.

But that's just me.

[J_Ma...@adobeforums.com]

the end result is always an alpha channel for high-precision work

Right. But do apply that channel destructively by erasing, or leave it as a layer mask?

[Free...@adobeforums.com]

What I do is to keep a master file with alpha channels. This I never touch. Permanent modifications to the master file are stored as layers or adjustment layers on top of the original.

Then I make copies for specific output purposes, using the alpha channels to make the necessary modifications for that particular output.

The point I was trying to make was merely that an alpha channel can be made in a number of different ways, depending on the circumstances, even by erasing. But of course that's always on a duplicate layer, and I think that's what Buko meant also.

The great thing about alpha channels is flexibility. It can be loaded as a straight selection, but also into a layer mask. But on the whole I find alpha channels easier to edit than layer masks. I use layer masks mostly to "paint in" or "paint out" an effect.

[Free...@adobeforums.com]

Oh, and for the sake of completeness: If the original is a raw file, it goes in there as a Smart Object to keep ACR editability.

[J_Ma...@adobeforums.com]

Can you erase a smart object?

[Free...@adobeforums.com]

Your splitting hairs, J. You're just trying to trap me.

[J_Ma...@adobeforums.com]

I'm not trying to trick you FA. I'm just interested in why anyone would delete pixels instead of masking them. A previous cryptic post by an Adobe engineer and Buko's stance make me think there might be something to it. To be absolutely clear, I don't think masking and deleting are the same thing.

[Free...@adobeforums.com]

I apologize, I misread you. Bit touchy, had a bad day...

As I said, I don't know about erasing on smart objects.

But if I need to cut out an object to set against different backgrounds, then yes, I might use the eraser to finish up the cut-out, to make sure no "background" pixels are left. That cut-out object can then be loaded as a selection, which can be made into an alpha channel for later use.

At this point I would just delete that layer because it's done its job. All I want, at least for the purpose of this discussion, is the alpha channel.

[Free...@adobeforums.com]

J, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you something I'm sure you're already aware of, but you do know that you can load layer opacity as a selection? Because that's basically what I'm getting at here.

[J_Ma...@adobeforums.com]

Yes, but the pixels are gone then. So if you realize you need them back? Erasing seems to me a legacy concept tethered to computing power and disk space. Obviously there are applications of PS where these issues might still exist, and I'd love to hear tips of where that might bleed into the mainstream. For instance, 90% of the time I never tweak the mask as John mentions, so why keep it around at all; why not apply it destructively? Particularly in the instance of...

[Free...@adobeforums.com]

Erasing on smart objects doesn't work (as I suspected, that's why I never tried).

I'm not too concerned about working destructively as long as I have the master file to go back to, or an untouched background layer. If I need those pixels back, I just go and get them.

Personally, I find it hard to work effectively if the layer structure gets too complex. I tend to lose track of where I am. But that's just the way my head works :-/

[PeterK.@adobeforums.com]

One instance of why you might want to delete pixels... if you've masked something out and want to blur the pixels or soften the edges, deleting the background keeps those background colours from bleeding into the colour of your main subject's edges.

[Buko]

I have always worked on duplicate files and duplicate layers in the duplicate files. Disk space is cheap. I my early years I was bitten by the Oops I deleted, saved over, closed the file and now I can't step back bug.

[Ashley...@adobeforums.com]

Thanks everyone for your help. I admit I got lost between Free Agent and J. Maloney's posts back and forth...I'm sure I'll eventually get it but could Free Agent & J.Maloney put what you're both describing in newbie terms? Thanks. And everyone feel free to post your opinions on your preference for erasing backgrounds from an image.

[J_Ma...@adobeforums.com]

Honestly Ashley, I wouldn't worry about it. We were waxing eloquent about the rivulets of thought cascading into waterfalls of creative alternatives (well, I was, at least).

Just save a backup, don't overwrite your originals, and do what works best for you. Savor this moment when you're not sure if your way of working is the best. It won't last.

J

[Lycanthrope]

Hi, As a newbie, I read the posts on this thread with curiosity and
would like to ask the posters what they think of the On One Mask Pro
plug in?

Ive used this sucessfully to remove subjects from their backgrounds.

With the highlighter and path tools its quite good, but obviously
needs some delicate work in low contrast areas.

Many thanks,

Cal.