Slashdot Mirror


Remove.bg is a Website That Removes Backgrounds from Portraits in Seconds (petapixel.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: If you often find yourself needing to remove the backgrounds from photos but don't have the time to manually do it, you might want to bookmark Remove.bg. It's a simple free website that automatically removes the backgrounds from photos in just 5 seconds with a single click.

Simply use the button on the homepage to select a photo from your computer (or you can also enter a photo's URL on the Web). The website then processes the photo and shows the result in moments. Under the result is a button that lets you download it as a PNG image with a transparent background.

107 comments

  1. I prefer "we do phoshop" by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

    ... although this is much much faster.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:I prefer "we do phoshop" by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can't find a good pho shop around me. There's one that tastes fantastic but I stopped going after they kept getting C grades for health inspection.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re: I prefer "we do phoshop" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The foreground is the most important

    3. Re:I prefer "we do phoshop" by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Informative

      Have people really forgotten about this awesomeness?

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    4. Re: I prefer "we do phoshop" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now they just need to invert this idea; remove the annnoying tart from in front of the interesting thing she's trying to photograph.

    5. Re:I prefer "we do phoshop" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How fucking shit dude, you just made me lose around two hours with that fucking website.

    6. Re:I prefer "we do phoshop" by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      Pho is highly overrated anyway imo. Taiwanese beef noodles are infinitely better because they don't taste like meat-flavored water.

    7. Re:I prefer "we do phoshop" by MemeRot · · Score: 1

      Pho restaurants reign as kings of puns.

      What the Pho?
      Pho King Good.
      Pho Sure
      etc

    8. Re:I prefer "we do phoshop" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pho is disgusting. You might as well eat menudo, haggis or a thousand year egg.

    9. Re: I prefer "we do phoshop" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bellevue WA

  2. These Bulgarians... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there nothing they won't abscond with?

    1. Re: These Bulgarians... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give us your pic- Sure thing, here are all of them!

    2. Re: These Bulgarians... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Magnificent. And not to be criticized by the intellectuals on this site

  3. without a single click by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    okey, it also has SIRI to select the picture? Also NOO, you're not getting my pictures!

    1. Re:without a single click by Quirkz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah. Why is it always "with a single click?" Nothing is ever with a single click. You have to double-click just to open your damn browser. In what world does everything amount to "the very last thing I did"? In that case, I'd like to swim across the English Channel with "a single stroke," write a novel with "a single word," drive across the country on "a single gallon of gas, in a single minute". It's stupid, and for damn near 30 years there hasn't been a software marketing person capable of advertising their product without using the phrase.

      "I promoted something on a computer without using a single outrageous cliche" - now THAT is a statement someone should be proud of!

    2. Re:without a single click by CFD339 · · Score: 1

      Feel better?

      --
      The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
    3. Re:without a single click by forkfail · · Score: 3, Funny

      Chuck Norris could have written this entire post with a single click.

      --
      Check your premises.
    4. Re:without a single click by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every window manager I've used since 2006 gives you the choice between single and double-click to open. What brain-damaged desktop are you using?

    5. Re:without a single click by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Not really.

      *shakes cane* *shouts "get off my lawn!"*

      There. Now I'm better.

    6. Re:without a single click by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      what about The Stig?

    7. Re: without a single click by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Not everyone has to double click to open their browser, which you would know if you belonged on Slashdot.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    8. Re:without a single click by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Why is it always "with a single click?" Nothing is ever with a single click. You have to double-click just to open your damn browser. In what world does everything amount to "the very last thing I did"? In that case, I'd like to swim across the English Channel with "a single stroke," write a novel with "a single word," drive across the country on "a single gallon of gas, in a single minute". It's stupid, and for damn near 30 years there hasn't been a software marketing person capable of advertising their product without using the phrase.

      This. It's a pretty neat utility, but why can't it be "Here's the github so you can self-host?"

      Or better yet, "Here's the command line that it's actually running on the back end" so you can just compile your own version and run it yourself locally on as many files as you like without ever having to touch a mouse or launch a web browser?

      Why the fuck does everything these days have to be a fucking webapp -- with the actual code that does the work hosted somewhere else?

    9. Re:without a single click by Parker+Lewis · · Score: 1

      If he is using Linux and had the text in the console clipboard, then yes, he can just mouse middle click.

    10. Re:without a single click by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chuck Norris could have written this entire post with a single click.

      In Soviet Russia, this post would click you!

    11. Re:without a single click by diodeus · · Score: 1

      It's the tech marketing version of "you can see it from space". (that's how line-of-sight works, duh).

  4. Not 100% accurate by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I tried it, and it's not perfect at distinguishing foreground from background, so the picture of myself I gave it came back with a huge black lump on the side of my faces that should have been part of the background. Of course, I could clean up that minor imperfection in photoshop.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Not 100% accurate by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      Have you seen a doctor?

    2. Re:Not 100% accurate by Mab_Mass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I also tried a few random images from news sites, with similar, incomplete results.

      The real question, though, is how is this site funded? I'm deeply suspicious of giving them any of my personal images, hence the trial with public images only.

    3. Re:Not 100% accurate by CFD339 · · Score: 2

      You should ask for your money back.

      --
      The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
    4. Re:Not 100% accurate by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      It's even better when there's an animal in the picture. Try this one for instance: (photo of lady with Great Dane).

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    5. Re:Not 100% accurate by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I tried 2.

      1 was perfect, the other had people who were on the edge of he frame, they were counted as background.

      I was super impressed though, if it kicked out a full resolution replacement, I'd be willing to pay a small fee for each use (even the bad one would have made life a lot easier).

      Something like pay $5 for 20 credits, get to see the low res sample before using a credit.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    6. Re:Not 100% accurate by MrKevvy · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, just a lump.

      --
      -- Insert witty one-liner here. --
    7. Re:Not 100% accurate by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's even better when there's an animal in the picture. Try this one for instance: (photo of lady with Great Dane).

      Or this photo of lady with Great Dane :-)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    8. Re:Not 100% accurate by SurenEnfiajyan · · Score: 1

      From my experience it works almost always perfectly in relatively not complex cases. But it's still quite impressive. It sometimes worked with non real human images, for example anime, robot half face, etc.

    9. Re:Not 100% accurate by SurenEnfiajyan · · Score: 1

      That was good one.

    10. Re:Not 100% accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a handsome dog.

    11. Re:Not 100% accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does an interesting job when there are multiple people huddled around and touching and animal too.
      e.g.
      https://media.defense.gov/2018/Dec/14/2002072655/-1/-1/0/181204-F-WN564-923.JPG

    12. Re:Not 100% accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the picture of myself I gave it

      Wow ... my thoughts were ... more along the lines of "what is their privacy policy? what happens to my images? why would I trust them?"

      Either this is a naive but well meaning tool, which will get bought by assholes .. or it's already owned by assholes.

      In neither case would I upload pics of myself to test this.

      Then again, I don't take pictures of myself, because I know what I look like.

      I predict they'll either misuse the data, claim copyright on it, or both.

    13. Re:Not 100% accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Her right rib is gone. disappeared.

    14. Re:Not 100% accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or this photo of lady with Great Dane :-)

      Gak, many of us learned a long time ago to click on a link named like that .. I'm afraid to follow it, but so curious ...

    15. Re:Not 100% accurate by Nikademus · · Score: 2

      They might also be trying to get the most possible amount of images tested to train their AI. And then provide a paid service, whether it's for removing background or detecting people in groups automatically.

      --
      I gave up with the idea of an useful sig...
    16. Re: Not 100% accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mebbe by collecting bikini picks?

  5. Where was this 20 years ago? by unfortunateson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    20 years ago, my wife and I ran an independent online children's bookstore. Our catalog/shopping cart was, to a large degree, hand-built by me (yay Perl and FoxPro), and the product images (only for monthly features) were scanned from publisher paper catalogs. It was ridiculous levels of effort to clean those images up (especially with Photoshop Elements, we couldn't afford more than that).

    It was the best of times (a search on Yahoo or AltaVista had as much a chance of finding us as Amazon when you searched for a title), it was the worst of times (not enough volume to get discounts on rapidly-rising credit card and shipping fees). We got out with a small profit... but I would have loved to have had today's image tools.

    --
    Design for Use, not Construction!
    1. Re:Where was this 20 years ago? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Now that we have AI enabled image editing software all things are possible.

    2. Re:Where was this 20 years ago? by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      I hear you. I've trimmed enough backgrounds out of things over the years. Though I think it was in part my first attempt with Photoshop, cleaning up an image of Beavis and Butthead pulled from some MTv ad to put it in the college newspaper, that was one of my first awestruck moments where I realized "wow, I can do amazing things with computer graphics!" It's a skill that has served me well for decades.

    3. Re:Where was this 20 years ago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should have invented it yourself you lazy bastard.

    4. Re:Where was this 20 years ago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where was this 20 years ago
      Waiting for OSS to catch up with Photoshop, websites to mature beyond simple scripting languages, processing power to advance where you could give this away for free, an cloud computing to be invented to do this without spending millions on hardware

      I know what you're saying, but there's a reason this didn't exist 20 years ago. It wasn't possible. 5 years ago certainly. 10 years ago.... Maybe?

    5. Re:Where was this 20 years ago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it great? These days you can be a dog in realtime or make porn of yourself or your crush if you are willing to wait 5 gigayears to train the system.
      Thank you computer jesus! He died with our sons liver.

  6. Why is this Slashdot worthy?/Privacy concerns? by mykepredko · · Score: 2

    I'm curious because I would think that the majority of people that come to this site can probably remove backgrounds it themselves with photoshop/Paint.net/Gimp/Krita/etc. I guess it's less work but I would think that most people here would pride themselves on being able to do it themselves.

    Secondly, I don't see any privacy/ownership statements on this - couldn't this be a way for the owners of the site to collect personal pictures or even gain access to a user's computer?

    Hopefully I won't get slammed like my last post.

    1. Re:Why is this Slashdot worthy?/Privacy concerns? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      Technology is awesome. Instead of spending 40 minutes cleaning up a photo, you can spend 40 minutes developing the product page. So much more gets done.

    2. Re:Why is this Slashdot worthy?/Privacy concerns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Made by kaleido.ai

      A Note on Privacy

      Your images are uploaded through a secure SSL/TLS-encrypted connection. We process them, and temporarily store the results so you can download them. After that (about an hour later) we delete your files. We do not share your images or use them for any other purpose than removing the background and letting you download the result.

      It's right there on the website

    3. Re:Why is this Slashdot worthy?/Privacy concerns? by Archfeld · · Score: 3, Informative

      A Note on Privacy :
      Your images are uploaded through a secure SSL/TLS-encrypted connection. We process them, and temporarily store the results so you can download them. After that (about an hour later) we delete your files. We do not share your images or use them for any other purpose than removing the background and letting you download the result.

      https://www.remove.bg/about

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    4. Re:Why is this Slashdot worthy?/Privacy concerns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because no one ever lies on the internet.

      /s

    5. Re:Why is this Slashdot worthy?/Privacy concerns? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      but I would think that most people here would pride themselves on being able to do it themselves.

      I can make my own pizza but they're cheap enough I usually order one instead. Just because I can do "task A" doesn't mean it's always worth my while to do it. Sometimes having the convenience of something done for me is a good thing.

      Now, that said, I don't trust that my photos on a site like this will be kept private or that they wouldn't be mining my data some other way.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    6. Re:Why is this Slashdot worthy?/Privacy concerns? by KlomDark · · Score: 2

      Right up there with "I promise not to cum in your mouth"

    7. Re:Why is this Slashdot worthy?/Privacy concerns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because he ejaculated in your rectum?

    8. Re:Why is this Slashdot worthy?/Privacy concerns? by chispito · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm curious because I would think that the majority of people that come to this site can probably remove backgrounds it themselves with photoshop/Paint.net/Gimp/Krita/etc. I guess it's less work but I would think that most people here would pride themselves on being able to do it themselves.

      Secondly, I don't see any privacy/ownership statements on this - couldn't this be a way for the owners of the site to collect personal pictures or even gain access to a user's computer?

      Hopefully I won't get slammed like my last post.

      I don't find it Slashdot-worthy. It's more like a random posting on Reddit fishing for bored upvotes "Hey look at this cool site."

      Okay.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    9. Re:Why is this Slashdot worthy?/Privacy concerns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most truly great pizzas are cooked at temperatures much higher than your kitchen oven can handle, upwards of 800F to 1000F is perfect. Over coal if you can get it, otherwise a nice hot charcoal or wood fire will do in a pinch.

    10. Re:Why is this Slashdot worthy?/Privacy concerns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear that one often, do ya?

    11. Re:Why is this Slashdot worthy?/Privacy concerns? by g01d4 · · Score: 2

      Also from the about page it looks like they're trying to get you to sign up for an email list in the likely event they come out with a commercial product (better output resolution, version updates, access to an api &c).

    12. Re:Why is this Slashdot worthy?/Privacy concerns? by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      If all you're doing is producing meme-worthy mashups from existing photos online, who cares if they mine them?

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    13. Re:Why is this Slashdot worthy?/Privacy concerns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is marginally relevant, although a one-trick-pony web site itself (and a rather limited one, with 500x500 pixel output maximum, at that) is not.. not at all.

    14. Re:Why is this Slashdot worthy?/Privacy concerns? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      I was also thinking, where's the source code, or at least some description of the algorithm. This is a tech site, for hug's sake. I imagine it's yet another application of machine learning where nobody really knows how it actually works.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    15. Re:Why is this Slashdot worthy?/Privacy concerns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you implying it's wrong to give head?

    16. Re: Why is this Slashdot worthy?/Privacy concerns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Note on Privacy :
      Your images are uploaded through a secure SSL/TLS-encrypted connection. We process them, and temporarily store the results so you can download them. After that (about an hour later) we delete your files. We do not share your images or use them for any other purpose than removing the background and letting you download the result.

      Good luck enforcing that in Bulgaria. Of course first you need to know the owners and address of the website... Um, that seems to be missing.

    17. Re:Why is this Slashdot worthy?/Privacy concerns? by Wescotte · · Score: 1

      Modern tools are pretty good at isolating high contrast areas but I'm not aware of any quick select/matte refinement tools that handles fine hair or semi transparent stuff well. It's typically a whole lot of manual work...

      I did a quick test with a random "fine hair" image from Google Images was surprised with how well it handled it. While it had problems with other areas of the photo using a tool like this could be a good starting point to save you quite a bit of time. What it did fail on is very easy an quick to do manually compared to the hair.

    18. Re:Why is this Slashdot worthy?/Privacy concerns? by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      Just because I can do "task A" doesn't mean it's always worth my while to do it.

      Agreed, I am busy rebuilding a classic motorcycle (a Honda CX500TC) but to do a full service on my car I take it to a mechanic, I'm rebuilding the bike myself because I enjoy doing it. I can also mow lawn and prune trees etc. etc. but I pay someone else to do it, because I earn more money in an hour doing what I do best. Ok, maybe not the pruning, most people tend to fuck it up, and it takes a season or two for the poor tree to recover. If I mowed the lawn myself instead of coding I would actually be losing money. Besides I grew up having to mow half a hectare of lawn every other Saturday, I've had enough lawn mowing to last a fucken lifetime.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
  7. Carefully disguised binspam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This sounds like a spammer, er, I mean marketer who gave careful thought to who is audience was so he would be rated up in firehose.

    Spear-spamming?

  8. Is there a website ... by novakyu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... that removes spam from Slashdot?

    1. Re:Is there a website ... by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Funny

      Add slashdot.org to your hosts file, and block 100% of slashdot spam.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:Is there a website ... by sconeu · · Score: 1

      APK, is that you?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    3. Re:Is there a website ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it is I.

    4. Re:Is there a website ... by nuckfuts · · Score: 2

      I took your advice - it hasn't made any difference!

      216.105.38.15 slashdot.org

    5. Re:Is there a website ... by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      Add slashdot.org to your hosts file, and block 100% of slashdot spam.

      Done!

      !*~#+=?(NO CARRIER

    6. Re:Is there a website ... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      ... that removes spam from Slashdot?

      It's called "SelfControl.org".. You should visit sometime. ;)

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:Is there a website ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you use Firefox, you can install the NoM'Smash extension. Works just like NoScript, but for M'Smash posts.

    8. Re:Is there a website ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did this and now my computer is being taken away by the NASA. Yes, NASA!
      Don't listen to this poster!

  9. SPAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is there a blatant advertisement here? There's tons of these sites out there, this one isn't even well known.

  10. Here's what remove.bg does to a Slashdot screencap by Draconi · · Score: 3, Interesting
  11. Terrible program by GrumpyDiver · · Score: 0

    I just threw an image with a solid black background at it, so it should have been relatively simple for the program to extract the image. Terrible result. This site is doing the job all that well.

  12. Re:I prefer "we do phoshop" Pixc.com works well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've had good luck with the low-cost, work mediated by humans site http://pixc.com

    Good for product background removal, etc.

    FWIW!

  13. Can it remove the hot grits... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from all my pictures of Natalie Portman?

  14. free huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been conditioned to believe that if a service is free... I might be the product.... lol

  15. doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://ibb.co/0qjgkPt

  16. Re:Here's what remove.bg does to a Slashdot screen by SurenEnfiajyan · · Score: 1

    Not bad, it did what it supposed to do. Tried with some images, it did the job almost always perfectly. Aslo tried with slashdot screenshoted Einstein's image, no problem. I'm quite impressed.

  17. Thought this was spam, until.. by philipkd · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This Slashdot post read so much like spam to me, that I thought there must be some catch, that maybe this was truly magic or a leap forward. So, I tried a few photos that I had paid someone on Upwork to crop, and it worked instantly. Had I had this tool, I would have saved $20 each. Then I googled, "Remove background from image" and tried the first results quickly, and none of them were auto-magical. You had to paint the foreground and background to crop.

    So, yes this post is 100% written like spam, but upon closer inspection, it appears to be a novel leap in image editing.

    1. Re:Thought this was spam, until.. by ledow · · Score: 1

      I uploaded an image of me in front of a flat background, taken by a professional photographer. I'm a white guy, wearing a black suit, against a orange-brown background.

      It included a huge section of the background in part of my ear. My plain-black-suit jacked gained curly horns of random background elements. My other ear sloped down to my lower jaw with background.

      It's about what I'd expect from a dumb tool. Gimme JASC Paint Shop Pro 10 Anniversary Edition (from, what, 10 years ago?) or any modern equivalent and I'd do a better job in ten seconds and a lasso tool vaguely guided by a freehand mouse movement.

      "AI" strikes again.

    2. Re:Thought this was spam, until.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gimme JASC Paint Shop Pro 10 Anniversary Edition (from, what, 10 years ago?) or any modern equivalent and I'd do a better job in ten seconds and a lasso tool vaguely guided by a freehand mouse movement.

      CorelDRAW is the real thing. Photoshop is for amateurs.

  18. It only works on Human Images by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It does not generally remove any background.

  19. only works with humans. lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    only works with humans. lame

  20. It does seem to work reasonably well. by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    I tossed this together in five minutes, with some fairly minor editing to remove one blob remove.bg left in.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  21. I wrote it, but it sucked by raymorris · · Score: 1

    I wrote software like this 20 years ago. When I wasn't busy writing website functionality in Perl :)

    My software operated so slowly that you could sit and watch it work. It looked like someone was using a pen to draw over all of the background. You'd click anywhere on the background and it took off like a Roomba, drawing white until it detected the edge of an object.

    It would often get halfway done, then get to the one spot where the border between the foreground and background wasn't readily distinguishable, then cross that point and start deleting the foreground.

    With a bit more work (and perhaps a "rewind" button) it probably would have worked well enough to be very useful to a lot of people. I kinda wish I had improved it enough for it to become well-known.

  22. before and after by DulcetTone · · Score: 1

    before

    after:

    --
    tone
  23. Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How come all Vietnamese cuisine looks like it just came off an autopsy table?

    1. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it did.

      Off-topic, I tried that shitty "background remover" that was being spammed with this picture of Tyrone Power and it did a shit job. There was still a lot of the solid colour background left. It can't even remove solid coloured backgrounds.

  24. Website? What about a tool or filter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about just a tool I can use on my computer to do this stuff, maybe batch process a lot of images locally I wouldn't want or have time to upload? Maybe I could tweak the algorithm or use it with a combination of other tools to get the results I want.

    A web site for this seems very inconvenient and expensive (all the uploading/downloading)

  25. Removing the background in a photo is near trivial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this ever gets as accurate as spending the 90 seconds in Photoshop or Gimp to do this then I am all about it. But if I have to spend time editing the photo after running it thru this site, then it is an unnecessary step.

    There really is a quick and simple process to remove a background of a photo. In fact this process can be used to isolate any area of a photo and make the rest transparent. The process in all has like 6-7 steps. And only one of those steps takes any real time depending on exactly how precise the edges need to be.

    If you are interested there are plenty of tutorial videos on the tube which will show you the basic process.

  26. That's not real Pho by raymorris · · Score: 1

    If it tastes like that, it's not the real thing. It's feaux pho. :)

  27. Limited to 500x500 pixel output by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With most photos being well over 500x500 pixels these days the fact that the output image is 500x500 maximum makes this less than useful for most people.

  28. Yo Momma by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Yo momma so ugly it did the opposite.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Yo Momma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yo momma so fat she *is* the back ground.

  29. Why is this advert masquerading as an article? by Mjlner · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This "shared report" is 100% advertising. Why is it published as a story?

    An anonymous luser shares a report:

    If you often find yourself needing a refreshing beverage on a hot day, but don't which one to choose, you might want to try Acme Cola. It's a delicious carbonated beverage that drowns your thirst in delicious taste in just 5 seconds.

    Simply unscrew the cap and let your mouth be filled with delicious, refreshing nectar. It will leave you feeling ecstactic and refreshed. Try Acme Cola today!

    --
    Lemon curry???
  30. poor results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tried a group photo with 8 people. It cut the heads and feet off of most of us.

  31. Why?! Why would you bother? by Patchw0rk+F0g · · Score: 1

    Come on. I knew before I tried it that the results would be abysmal. Any moron can do better with a mouse and Gimp. Why would you bother posting such a story, with such ambivalent, destructive results to the processing of the image? I'm sure there are idiots out there that would use it. Darwinism wins again.

    --
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. ~~ Hunter S. Thompson
  32. Give Us Your Photographic Data For Free! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you /., you used to be for nerds. This is advertising for SLAVES.

  33. GIMP is Free by ememisya · · Score: 1

    It butchered my image. Ended up looking like if you just select the background with magic wand and press delete.

  34. for people that want to do this at home: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    here is some ML that will remove backgrounds and leave people.
    https://github.com/d-grossman/joojanta200