9 replies to this topic

[ConfuzzledManiac]

How to Remove the Background in an Image:


Requirements:


The Feather Application

Some decent tracing skills.


Step one: Open up your image/paste it into Paint.net and create a new layer on top of it.


Step two: Find a color that will stand out and set it as your primary. Now pick the line/paintbrush tool.


Step three: Make sure the line/paintbrush isn’t too wide, and start tracing around the part of the image you want to cut out (On the new layer you made), be careful to leave no gaps. Also remember you can adjust the lines, so I recommend you use this instead of the paintbrush tool. Zooming in helps a lot here if you can't trace well.


Step four: Once you are done and have a traced border around the part of the image you want, get the Magic Wand tool and select inside the border you made. Any tolerance 40-60 should be fine. Now press Ctrl+I to invert it.


Step five: Now switch back to the layer without the tracing (the image it’self) and press Ctrl+X or press cut. Now delete the layer with the tracing.


Step six: Now open up the feather effect (Ctrl+F) and adjust it so the edges look smoother.



You’re done!

I prefer this method to the “select what you want with the magic wand” method.



Before and after:





Now to add a different background you have to add another layer, and make sure it's below the layer with the turtle/whatever you cut out. Then paste in your background .

Edited by ConfuzzledManiac, 01 September 2010 - 02:03 AM.

[Ego Eram Reputo]

1. In what way is your method different from the one pinned directly above your post? Cutting out images.

2. Images are wayyyyyyy toooooooo laaaarrrgggeee - see Tutorial Guidelines 1a


(I'm going to give you 24 hours right of reply to point 1 before I lock this.)

[ConfuzzledManiac]

1. In what way is your method different from the one pinned directly above your post? Cutting out images.

2. Images are wayyyyyyy toooooooo laaaarrrgggeee - see Tutorial Guidelines 1a


(I'm going to give you 24 hours right of reply to point 1 before I lock this.)

Actually, I didn't realize that! I thought that topic was about using the magic wand solely to remove the parts you don't want (Sorry, was skimming the thread). It is definitely different however. The images are bigger, actually show the tools/history/more than just the image. The wording, in my opinion, is better. (After reading that for a while). Also it says to hit delete, mine says to cut it out. This is a different method, and therefore you have no reason to say it's the exact same method. Besides, why would you do that? For some images that just fills the selection. I prefer transparency. That's cutting out an image, this is REMOVING THE BACKGROUND. Those two are DIFFERENT things. Similar, but definitely not the same. I don't see why you would lock this, this was someone's hard work, that is in my opinion more easier to read than the "How to Cut An Image" thread, and it's not about that even, it's about cutting out the BACKGROUND. Similar, but not the same.

As for the images I can easily re-size them, once you decide to lock/not lock this thread.

Edited by ConfuzzledManiac, 31 August 2010 - 01:11 AM.

[Ego Eram Reputo]

It is definitely different however. The images are bigger, actually show the tools/history/more than just the image. The wording, in my opinion, is better. (After reading that for a while). Also it says to hit delete, mine says to cut it out. This is a different method

<snip>

and therefore you have no reason to say it's the exact same method.

Let's compare the two:

Simon's Technique:
This tutorial will guide you through the process of cutting out parts of photos and other images for use separately. If your final image has a transparent background after completing this tutorial (i.e. you have no plans to add a background) then you should save it as a PNG or GIF (preferably PNG) – for more information see Myrddin’s FileType tutorial.

1. Find your image – i’ll be using this stock photo.

2. On a new layer with a relatively thin width, (depending on the size of your image) cover the perimeter of the part of the image you wish to cut out with the brush and line tools being careful to leave no gaps.

3. Now select the magic wand tool (any tolerance below 60% should work fine) and click inside the outline.

4. Now hold down Ctrl + I to invert the selection, and then select the background layer.

5. Now press the “delete” key and remove the layer you use to draw the outline, then crop the image to the part you have cut-out.

6. Use the feather plugin to make the edges less aliased.


Your technique:

Step one: Open up your image/paste it into Paint.net and create a new layer on top of it.

Step two: Find a color that will stand out and set it as your primary. Now pick the line/paintbrush tool.

Step three: Make sure the line/paintbrush isn’t too wide, and start tracing around the part of the image you want to cut out (On the new layer you made), be careful to leave no gaps. Also remember you can adjust the lines, so I recommend you use this instead of the paintbrush tool. Zooming in helps a lot here if you can't trace well.

Step four: Once you are done and have a traced border around the part of the image you want, get the Magic Wand tool and select inside the border you made. Any tolerance 40-60 should be fine. Now press Ctrl+I to invert it.

Step five: Now switch back to the layer without the tracing (the image it’self) and press Ctrl+X or press cut. Now delete the layer with the tracing.

Step six: Now open up the feather effect (Ctrl+F) and adjust it so the edges look smoother.


It's the same technique. Same tools, procedure, steps, feather plugin, result. The difference is that you have used different words and images to to explain exactly the same thing.

Compare "be careful to leave no gaps" with the original "being careful to leave no gaps". Plagiarism or coincidence?

[ConfuzzledManiac]

It's the same technique. Same tools, procedure, steps, feather plugin, result. The difference is that you have used different words and images to to explain exactly the same thing.

Compare "be careful to leave no gaps" with the original "being careful to leave no gaps". Plagiarism or coincidence?

It is not the same technique! I used the cut, he used delete. Again, tools are different, cut vs delete. You've got to realize that even one minor difference is enough for a separate tutorial, and the different wording, which is easier to understand, is also worthy of another tutorial.

I discovered this technique on my own. I don't see how if one thing matches up it's plagiarism, I put a lot of hard work into this. It is far more then that, I took screenshots, explained every procedure as best as I could (it came out better than "Cutting out an Image"), and this is my first tutorial. Did not expect this type of reaction. Disappointing really.

Lock it if you think it's "plagiarism", but let me tell you that that's just bull and I put my all into this. It is not the exact same, it has a DIFFERENT way of doing it, the title is different, and the gaps thing is really obvious, don't you think? It's like medicine capsules saying "Don't place near children", every medicine capsule (almost) has this, so did they copy each other? No, it is really common sense.

Edited by ConfuzzledManiac, 31 August 2010 - 12:02 PM.

[Rubrica]

OK. Let's assume that you're being justified here. First, cut vs. delete. They both achieve the same thing. EXACTLY the same thing. Unless, of course, you want to keep the background for something else, which is entirely possible. But it's highly unlikely; you're following a tutorial designed to help you GET RID of the background. So, that's your first argument invalidated in that they are doing the same thing.. Next: the wording... where's the problem in the other tutorial's wording? Oh, let me think... there isn't a problem. There can't be a problem, anyway, can there? Because according to you, your wording is perfect, and it is practically identical to the other tutorial's wording. Due to the law of binary relations, this means that there is no problem n the other tutorial, you've just rephrased what the it says.

So, we must now acknowledge that the two tutorials are identical. In every way. I don't care about the title, I don't care about whether the "gaps thing" is "obvious", they're identical. Onto the next thing; in one of your other posts, you clearly stated that you had read the other tutorial before you posted this one in that you were "just skimming the thread". Therefore, it is your own fault you're in this mess; you obviously thought that Simon's tutorial was similar to yours if you took the time to examine it, yet you could only be bothered to skim it? Sounds more to me like you're twisting what you actually did to defend your point of view.

Now, another thing is that instead of politely accepting what is a perfectly valid question and answering it, you have decided to be arrogant. It is very clear you HAVE made an attempt to be polite, however you've really failed. First, you said, and I quote, "as for the images I can easily re-size them, once you decide to lock/not lock this thread.". No. You do NOT say that. It's not up to you to negotiate with the moderators, who, by the way, deserve RESPECT, you do what they ask you to. It is clearly stated in the rules for posting a tutorial that the images must be 800 pixels in their largest dimension, which shows that you didn't actually read those rules.

Finally, the medicine bottle example is a COMPLETELY different situation. Seriously, how is that similar to this?

I'm sorry, I really am. It IS clear that you put effort into this. It shows! The images are good (just, of course, too big) and you have made an effort to write it up well. But when you start talking back to moderators and posting tutorials that only differ slightly from other ones without thinking it through... that's when people start arguing.

Have a nice day!

Rubrica

Edited by Rubrica, 31 August 2010 - 01:59 PM.

[ConfuzzledManiac]

OK. Let's assume that you're being justified here. First, cut vs. delete. They both achieve the same thing. EXACTLY the same thing. Unless, of course, you want to keep the background for something else, which is entirely possible. But it's highly unlikely; you're following a tutorial designed to help you GET RID of the background. So, that's your first argument invalidated in that they are doing the same thing.. Next: the wording... where's the problem in the other tutorial's wording? Oh, let me think... there isn't a problem. There can't be a problem, anyway, can there? Because according to you, your wording is perfect, and it is practically identical to the other tutorial's wording. Due to the law of binary relations, this means that there is no problem n the other tutorial, you've just rephrased what the it says.

So, we must now acknowledge that the two tutorials are identical. In every way. I don't care about the title, I don't care about whether the "gaps thing" is "obvious", they're identical. Onto the next thing; in one of your other posts, you clearly stated that you had read the other tutorial before you posted this one in that you were "just skimming the thread". Therefore, it is your own fault you're in this mess; you obviously thought that Simon's tutorial was similar to yours if you took the time to examine it, yet you could only be bothered to skim it? Sounds more to me like you're twisting what you actually did to defend your point of view.

Now, another thing is that instead of politely accepting what is a perfectly valid question and answering it, you have decided to be arrogant. It is very clear you HAVE made an attempt to be polite, however you've really failed. First, you said, and I quote, "as for the images I can easily re-size them, once you decide to lock/not lock this thread.". No. You do NOT say that. It's not up to you to negotiate with the moderators, who, by the way, deserve RESPECT, you do what they ask you to. It is clearly stated in the rules for posting a tutorial that the images must be 800 pixels in their largest dimension, which shows that you didn't actually read those rules.

Finally, the medicine bottle example is a COMPLETELY different situation. Seriously, how is that similar to this?

I'm sorry, I really am. It IS clear that you put effort into this. It shows! The images are good (just, of course, too big) and you have made an effort to write it up well. But when you start talking back to moderators and posting tutorials that only differ slightly from other ones without thinking it through... that's when people start arguing.

Have a nice day!

Rubrica

In case you aren't aware, deleting does not achieve transparency in some image types. It simply "fills the selection". Therefore it is different, and does not achieve the exact same thing as cutting it out. And even if it did, it is STILL a different method, and the moderator asked me to point out how my method is different. I did just that. I did not say my wording was perfect, please point out where I said that? I said it was, in my opinion, better than the other thread's. I also mention some things it doesn't, like how the line tool is easier to use. I never said there was a problem with the other tutorial, I simply stated I prefer my wording to it's wording, there doesn't have to be a problem for me to prefer something. And just because they are alike does not mean this thread deserves a lock, I don't see how that justifies it. This thread has a different way of doing it, better wording in my opinion, and mentions things the other thread doesn't, it well deserves a thread of it's own.

So now we've acknowledged the threads aren't exactly identical . As for the skimming, I don't see why it matters. This "mess" wouldn't exist if you didn't fail to see this thread deserves it's own thread, not because I made it. In fact if someone puts hard work into something, despite it being SIMILAR (Notice, I didn't say identical) to another thread, then it shouldn't be locked anyways.

Are you kidding me? I don't see a point in resizing the images if the moderator plans on locking this, which I am not sure if he's going to do so. That was perfectly justified, how was I arrogant in any way? He did not demand I do anything other than respond to his first point before 24 hours so he doesn't lock it. I obeyed. He didn't DEMAND I change the image sizes immediately (For good reasons too, he was probably planning on locking it), so I don't see how I didn't do what a moderator told me to do. And I treated him with respect the whole time, since when can't you negotiate with moderators? And let's assume that we can't. Let's quote his words: "(I'm going to give you 24 hours right of reply to point 1 before I lock this.)". He literally asked for a negotiation. Which I responded to. So please learn to read before you call me out on my "arrogance".

It was an example to the plagiarism he claimed. He stated that both my tutorial and the other one has "leave no gaps" (with different wording). The medicine capsule was to make a point, that it is quite obvious to leave no gaps, and just because I pointed it out does not mean I copied the other tutorial. Just as obvious as it is to print "Keep away from children" warnings on medicine capsules. It does not mean I copied anything.

Thank you. But please understand the moderator told me to "talk back" (as you worded it), here it is again. "(I'm going to give you 24 hours right of reply to point 1 before I lock this.)" I was not aware that this method was similar enough to cause an argument and to make you feel the need to join in . If I had noticed the other tutorial earlier I probably would have never gone through the effort of making this tbh, but now that it's made, I really don't think it should be locked. Especially if it isn't the exact same as the other tutorial, they're different, and therefore deserve threads of their own.

Edited by ConfuzzledManiac, 31 August 2010 - 03:00 PM.

[Rubrica]

That, despite the fact that I don't entirely agree with it, is one of the best rebuttals I've read in a while (and, this time, very polite). I'm not going to say anything else.

[ConfuzzledManiac]

Thank you Rubrica.

As for the images I have re-sized them, as I'm not sure if this is being locked or not.

[Ego Eram Reputo]

You've made your point(s). Now I'm making mine: this tutorial, while well presented, is not sufficiently different from the original version to merit a new tutorial.

End of story.

<locked>