delete.

[Intoxicate]

thank you :)

[Kenbro Utu]

It looks like the pattern indicating a transparent background, though that appears quite dark.  

[Intoxicate]

So.... it's a transparency issue? How do I fix it? D: 

I used gimp to get rid of the solid background (simply because it's easier for me that way) and I do all the rest of my post-processing in photoshop, this is the first time anything like this has happened D:

[Kenbro Utu]

You can create a background layer with whatever background you want.  Make sure the dress layer is on top, and whatever you put on the background layer will be behind the dress.  

[KarenMichelle Lane]

The easiest fix is to use the File / Save for Web option and select a JPG format. The transparancy layer will be replaced with your default background color map when the JPG image is created.

[Janelle Darkstone]

I'm curious why you're using Gimp at all when you have Photoshop?  Removing backgrounds is easy in PS.

Yes, since you remove the background, photoshop will have the checkered background to indicate the former background is now a transparent part of the image.  And, like Kenbro said, just drop your own background behind the dress layer and you're set.

One easy way to remove a green screen from an image is to use the eyedropper to make the green the foreground color, then Select > Color Range and mess with the controls until you get a nice, crisp border, then maybe Select > Modify > Expand one pixel and hit Delete.  Quick and easy.

One thing; if this is the method you're using in Gimp with a white background, the reason your right side image is fading is because the selection process is taking away a bit of the whiteness from the dress as well(!).  That's one reason to use the nasty green color of a greenscreen.  A quick and dirty fix for that would be to duplicate the dress layer and add it to itself to get some of the color back.

Hope this makes sense... it's almost 3 am here and I should have been asleep hours ago.

[Intoxicate]

---

Janelle Darkstone wrote:

I'm curious why you're using Gimp at all when you have Photoshop?  Removing backgrounds is easy in PS.

Yes, since you remove the background, photoshop will have the checkered background to indicate the former background is now a transparent part of the image.  And, like Kenbro said, just drop your own background behind the dress layer and you're set.

One easy way to remove a green screen from an image is to use the eyedropper to make the green the foreground color, then Select > Color Range and mess with the controls until you get a nice, crisp border, then maybe Select > Modify > Expand one pixel and hit Delete.  Quick and easy.

One thing; if this is the method you're using in Gimp with a white background, the reason your right side image is fading is because the selection process is taking away a bit of the whiteness from the dress as well(!).  That's one reason to use the nasty green color of a greenscreen.  A quick and dirty fix for that would be to duplicate the dress layer and add it to itself to get some of the color back.

Hope this makes sense... it's almost 3 am here and I should have been asleep hours ago.

---

Gimp has a function called 'color to alpha' that allows me to specify a color and then make that color completely transparent, that way I don't have to fuss with color range in photoshop. It's 10x faster for me in gimp, and the image comes out MUCH cleaner that it would have had I done it in photoshop. 

 

Photoshop simply doesn't have a function that's comparable to that in gimp. 

 

I've been doing this for a while and I've not had a single problem with my method until tonight. 

[Intoxicate]

Also, the image on the left is the image on my computer after i've already removed the background from it in gimp. the second image has no background either.

[Cerise Sorbet]

I thought you might have been using something like that. The problem with that color to alpha filter is that it operates on the whole image. Even a partial color match in the foreground will become partially transparent (looks like the jacket originally had a sort of criss cross pattern).

If you really like that filter, you'll just have to vary your background colors with each clothing item, to make sure you have something that really isn't present in the materials. To save this image, you will want to use a different selection method on the original screen shot.

If you don't mind working with channels, you can get the alpha explosed in PS, then touch up the cloth with a brush to make it solid again.

 

 

 

[Intoxicate]

 

---

Cerise Sorbet wrote:

I thought you might have been using something like that. The problem with that color to alpha filter is that it operates on the whole image. Even a partial color match in the foreground will become partially transparent (looks like the jacket originally had a sort of criss cross pattern).

If you really like that filter, you'll just have to vary your background colors with each clothing item, to make sure you have something that really isn't present in the materials. To save this image, you will want to use a different selection method on the original screen shot.

 

 

---

 I don't use it on the entire image, only the parts that have lots of whispy parts, like hair. I've tried about half a dozen other methods to get this done, this is what works best for me. and like i said, i've not had any problems with it until tonight. 

Either way, the background removal process isn't the problem, because as you can see in the posted image, the image only appears with those gridlines when it's opened in PS. when i've just viewing it in MS photo viewer, there are no gridlines at all. 

Possibly a transparency issue?

[Cerise Sorbet]

You did use that filter on the whole image, it shows in your result.

The Windows image viewer doesn't display alphas correctly, so it's not great to see what you really have.

 

 

[Intoxicate]

---

Cerise Sorbet wrote:

You did use that filter on the whole image, it shows in your result.

The Windows image viewer doesn't display alphas correctly, so it's not great to see what you really have.

 

 

---

 

With all due respect, I know exactly what I did. I didn't use the filter on the entire image. If I did then there would be severe discoloration of the entire image, which is why I only use the filter on the exact areas I need. 

[Skye Arbizu]

When people try to help, arguing with them doesn't make them want to work with you to find a solution.

When asking for help, it is usually better to provide a screen shot that shows more rather than less - such as posting a screen shot of your PS workspace with the image and layers areas shown. This can be especially helpful when you use terms that are incorrect - such as stating there are gridlines all over your image when no gridlines are shown.

Looking at the image (the checkerboard background indicates transparency in PS) and reading what you wrote (using Gimp to remove portions of the image), it appears you have removed the background and have an alpha layer with transparency.

To get rid of the transparency, simply add a base layer and fill with whatever background color you want, or go to channels and delete the alpha channel, or just save in a format that does not retain the alpha channel (.jpg).

Also note that most preview / thumbnail image viewers and even some image programs will not display transparency, so this is why your image appears different in MS Photo Viewer than in PS.

[Intoxicate]

So contesting a definitely -false- assertion classifies as 'arguing'? I wasn't aware that I needed to be so extremely delicate when someone is telling me what -I- did, as if I was a complete idiot who was unaware of my own actions. Someone made a declaration that was definitely not true, and I simply stated such. If that means I'm arguing then that's just a very sad state of communication, where people can't disagree without it being called an argument. 

The screenies I provided are all I have to work with. There are no multiple layers to be seen which is why I didn't bother trying to capture that area of my photoshop screen. Additionally, I wanted to show -both- images at 100% size and since the images were large, there really wouldn't have been room to see the layers section. If you noticed in the photoshop screenshot, you can see the file size of the image and can clearly ascertain that the image would obviously be large in size. 

But regarless of all of this, it appears that coming to the forums for help is nearly pointless if simply disagreeing with someone makes me 'argumentative'. 

I appreciate your input. thank you. 

[Coby Foden]

---

Intoxicate wrote:

---

Cerise Sorbet wrote:

You did use that filter on the whole image, it shows in your result.

 

 

---

I didn't use the filter on the entire image. If I did then there would be severe discoloration of the entire image, which is why I only use the filter on the exact areas I need. 

---

I lightened up your image a lot to better see what has happened. It is quite obvious that the filtering indeed has turned also the dress partially semi-transparent. However, I have no idea why this has happened if you only selected the areas outside the dress (I'm not very familiar with Gimp).

Anyway, Photoshop has excellent tools for removing backgrounds from images - I mean really excellent. There are lots of tutorials in the net how to use those tools in Photoshop. Maybe you could try it?