I'm in need of a piece of graphics software that would allow me to relatively easily remove foreground images from background (for example, a person from a photograph) for use in other media. I have a truly ancient version of Photoshop (probably Win 3.1, if that gives you some idea), but it doesn't really do what I want, and I'd prefer not to spend $80-100 on PS Elements. Does anyone have a program they'd recommend?
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
GIMP is freeware, but I don't know if it has the clone stamping ability to paint out foreground elements.
I'd spring for a student copy of Photoshop CS3 myself. It'll be cheaper. You can find them on eBay.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
GIMP most definitely has clone stamping. I strongly suggest trying it out (using GIMPShop).
There isn't an automated algorithm for this (well, not commercially available; someone published an interesting one relatively recently that uses context from images pulled from a database, possibly one based on keywords relevant to your image, to fill in the gaps), but no automated algorithm would be good enough for this in all situations.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I use GIMP for what you're talking about (although just now is the first time I ever hear the expression 'clone stamping'). I usually just use the wand to select the body of what I want, and then zoom in tight and erase the rest.
Image question: a lot of my images are altered photos (for my music marketing stuff, mainly), and a lot of them have multiple layers (including, often, an alpha layer). What's the best format for me to save them as, so that I can go back and fiddle with the stuff on individual layers if necessary? Most of the common formats (gif, jpg, bmp) won't do layers. Gif will, but only as animation.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, wait, you're talking about taking the foreground image for use in other media? There are good algorithms for that. GIMPShop will be pretty decent, used as JT suggests, combhined with cleanup. The latest version of iPhoto actually has an algorithm to do it automatically that apparently works well in many common cases, but that's mac only.
If you want layers and only care about you being able to edit them, use GIMP's native format, that will preserve everything. If you need others to edit them, use photoshop's format.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Will GIMP's native format work if I use it on a website, or will I have to save two copies of every image (one to work on and one to use)?
I've looked around the web several times for a good explanation of the different image formats and what their strengths and weaknesses are, but I haven't found one that told me what I wanted to know.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Will GIMP's native format work if I use it on a website, or will I have to save two copies of every image (one to work on and one to use)?
When using any non-trivial image editing software, you pretty much always want to use a different format to work on and a different format to publish. That way you can choose a form of lossy compression (if appropriate) and still be able to preserve image quality when you revise it later.
Think of it as source code and object code.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Crap. That's what I was afraid of. I'm going to need to get much more organized, then.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
As a point of mildly related interest, Wikipedia now heavily encourages people to use SVG a lot. Its a pretty neat setup they have, since SVG is easy to change and is an open standard. Firefox can handle it natively while Wikipedia has it setup so that the image renders to PNG when someone is using IE. (I think there is also an image cache since the conversion is slow)
Now, this would not apply for this thread since SVG is vector based and it sounds like you're working with images, but I just thought that was an interesting tidbit.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You'll usually want to work in different resolutions anyways, so I don't think you'll find keeping the original files and web-ready files around is too much of a hassle.
As far as for the web, if the image has only a few colors (even a few dozen), use PNG, unless you need transparency, in which case use GIF. IE does not support PNG alpha-transparency. It does support PNG binary transparency, but many image editors will use alpha-transparency even when it could be binary transparency, so to be safe use GIF.
If the image is more complex, use JPG.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Thanks, everyone. I'll give GIMP a look.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:IE does not support PNG alpha-transparency.
Aha! Well, that solves one problem with how my site renders in IE.
Any tips from the image savvy for how to get background images down to a manageable size? I developed my own textured background image, just because I wanted something that wasn't as bland as a single color or pattern, but it's prohibitively large. Takes like 5 full seconds to load (with a high-speed connection, no less) the first time.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Well, not that long on my connection, but I'm on a pretty gigantic pipe and I can tell its loading, which means it takes forever .
First thing you should do is slice it up. This can be better semantically (the portion behind the menu should be part of the menu element, the rest should be part of the content area), and lets you use two different resolutions, one for the more detailed header, and one for the less detailed body.
Actually, I take that back, first thing you should do is change it to a jpeg (if you slice it up, in might make sense to keep part as jpeg and part as PNG or GIF). Even at photoshop's save for web high res jpeg setting, it takes up only a bit more than a fourth as much as before. At medium, which is probably acceptable, it takes up half as much as at high, around an eigth of the original size. Heck, even jpeg low doesn't look too bad (since what jpeg artifcats there are tend to disappear in the texture), and it saves another third of the size of medium.
I'd probably slice it up, put the top part on jpeg medium (which is quality 30), and the bottom part on jpeg low (quality 10).
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I was just worried that if I sliced it I'd chance leaving a gap due to how the different browsers handle CSS.
I'll definitely try that, though. Thanks.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You can avoid the gap by explicitly setting the appropriate values for the parts of the box model to zero. Also, by testing it in various browsers you can be reasonably confident it works.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I do explicitly define the CSS values for that, and I test in Firefox and IE7, but I don't have IE6, Safari, or Opera.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
This is what IM and friends are for
There are some free sites out there for checking appearance, too, but I generally find it easier to just ask someone.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yeah, I don't IM any more. But I do need to have a mac nerd or two check out things when I make changes. I never think to do that.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Okay, small hiccup. I resaved my menu text as a gif instead of a png. I need the transparency, but I get a lot of aliasing (at least, I think that's what it is) of the text when I save as a gif, whether I do it as an indexed gif or as a greyscale gif. And whether I interlace it or not.
Is there any way around that?
Also, the background images look bad as jpg lo and medium res. Medium is decent, but low is flat out awful. I'm experimenting with those images to find the lowest resolution that looks alright.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If it is, I've got a 2-up view of the original and one set on jpeg low in front of me right now, and I can barely tell the difference, except around your name. Since the name is all black, I'd make that a separate gif with transparency. The gif size will be downright tiny. It will also make it easier to switch out the background in the future, and tweak the position of your name as desired.
As for the menu, I see the gif version on your website. Could you link the png version so I can compare? I'm sure there is a way around it.
Btw, in Safari your content is pushed below the image. I can investigate why a bit later.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yep, that's the image. It's split in two as you recommended, and the bottom jpg is about 40 and the top is 60something, I think. The only thing I can think is that GIMP has different values for jpg resolution, because 10 looked really bad.
I saved both menu.gif and menu.png to the root, so you can access them there.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Photoshop might have a better jpeg implementation, true.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, you need anti-aliasing. If you just anti-alias, it probably anti-aliases against white, which you don't want, since then it'll look bad. You need it to anti-alias against the (approximate) background color, which I don't know how to do in gimp. Google might be able to find it. The option is called matte (when you're saving for web, you select the matte color) in photoshop, and I've found references to GIMP being able to do something similar, though without instructions.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.