Free Masking Tool That Instantly Removes Backgrounds Now Available as Photoshop Plug-In

Free Masking Tool That Instantly Removes Backgrounds Now Available as Photoshop Plug-In

An online tool that can remove image backgrounds instantly has been officially adapted for Photoshop. Previously, the same process required numerous steps and often ended up being a tedious process. However, despite the advancement, images still face the same size restriction issue as the previous online counterpart.

Downloaded from Adobe Exchange, the remove.bg for Adobe Photoshop plug-in comes with various plans. The free package permits one “HD” image and 50 API calls (through Adobe Photoshop) each month. Free users are also allowed an unlimited number of “regular” images through remove.bg website. The issue arises in that a regular image is only .25 megapixels (625×400 pixels), thus limiting its usability.

Equally, a “large” images maxes out at 10 megapixels (4,000×2,500 pixels), meaning this tool is likely to only be utilized for minor web images and graphics. As SLR Lounge point out, most phone cameras are larger than 10 megapixels. Their team reached out to Remove.bg and received the following:

The limitation of 10 Megapixels is due to technical reasons. Higher resolutions require exponentially more processing resources — both time, hardware, and scalable systems. We are working on support for higher resolutions in the future though, particularly for use in photography, where working with higher than 10-megapixel images is very common.

Remove.bg’s masking tool is pretty accurate, although of course not perfect. Their current price plans range erratically from $9 per month up to nearly $10,000 per month.

Log in or register to post comments

13 Comments

Yan Pekar's picture

Jack, this is a second time you promote a service which does not deliver quality (or well tested) results (the first one was Creative Commons platform). Did you try to use this tool before writing the article? Not only it cuts parts of objects from original image, but also the backgrounds are removed in a very dirty way, leaving pieces of old background visible, after which you would have to spend time cleaning it. It may work with objects having very short hair, but with images having multiple objects or people having long hair it provides zero value. Why would someone pay for a product that delivers low quality results? You may consider testing it a bit before promoting it publicly. If you are writing a review of a product, or promote a product, consider being clear about and including the following: who the product is for, what are its benefits and disadvantages / limitations. This would be an honest approach, and will result in many people saving their time. Reposting a few words about a product without mentioning any benefits / limitations, real use case, etc. does not make you a journalist, and does not provide any value, I am sorry. Fstoppers, do you ever check your content before it is published? This is also a second time this tool was promoted on your platform. I understand you probably have a quote of how much content you should post, but reposting second time the same material about a tool which was heavily criticised does not look good.

Jack Alexander's picture

1) The image in the header photo is my own
2) It's a free tool...
3) I was not paid to "promote" the product. I was very clear about its limitations and target audience... even in the opening paragraph that is visible before clicking on the article.
4) Kindly remember everything you read, review, and learn via Fstoppers is all provided to you free of charge before complaining so intensely.

Yan Pekar's picture

Jack, please consider the following before starting to be defensive.

1) The image in the header photo is my own
It does not meet any quality standards. Would you deliver this image to a client? If the answer is "no", why post this image and suggest using this tool?

2) It's a free tool...
"Free" does not always stand for "quality". If I have to spend a lot of time correcting the image after using the tool, it does not matter if the tool is free - it is not usable from professional point of view.

3) I was not paid to "promote" the product. I was very clear about its limitations and target audience... even in the opening paragraph that is visible before clicking on the article.

In your "article" you did not mention any limitations, apart from limitation in image size. Please be honest to yourself before defending yourself.

4) Kindly remember everything you read, review, and learn via Fstoppers is all provided to you free of charge before complaining so intensely.

I am here to see QUALITY content about QUALITY products which would help me becoming a better photographer. Reposting a promotion about a tool which cannot be used for professional use and has a very low quality only results in my time being wasted. I do not appreciate when people waste other people time by posting misleading / poor content. Please be so kind to consider it next time you write a promo "article". The permission to feed "Free of charge" content to your audience does not give you the right to promote tools which are of poor quality / have no use from professional point of view. Respect your audience by providing quality content and you will be respected in return. Thank you.

Daniel Medley's picture

Yan Pekar, the self proclaimed arbiter of value and quality. You do realize that Fstoppers caters to photographers of all stripes, right?

Good grief.

Yan Pekar's picture

Hello Sir. I do realise that you are being very rude. Which is not acceptable. You do realise that Fstoppers is a platform where everyone is free to express their opinion, right? If you are looking for a fight, I do not have any desire to fight with you nor time for such comments. All the best.

Daniel Medley's picture

No, I'm not being rude. YOU are being rude and, I might add, arrogant. What I'm doing is responding to you. If you don't like the response you have two choices. 1. Change your behavior. 2. Ignore it.

Acceptable or not.

Yan Pekar's picture

There is one thing you forget: you have started. The response you get is a reaction to your words. I wish you have a great and a sunny day, and do something positive today, something that will fill you up with great emotions and will make you smile, instead of wasting your time for a stupid fight. All the best.

Rob Mitchell's picture

I don't get this. There is no quick and easy fix for this. I'm not even going to try because I know there is no quick and easy fix.
This isn't even an article, it's just an ad? Like one we see regularly on Facebook. 'Instant fix' plugins.
I'll continue to pay a professional editor a fair price to do this right and correctly.
What's going on, is this place sliding into Petapixel tabloid territory? I bloody hope not, I'm here for quality not quantity.

Kawika Lopez's picture

There needs to be something in the title saying this is just for "instagram photographers." Otherwise it's a very disappointing read.

If I had one bit of feedback for fstoppers writers, it would be that they can do a much better job at managing readers expectations. As "authorities" in the creative industry, that should be a fundamental skill. You can't make it very far in this industry without learning that.

"Regular" image is .25 mb? in 1993 maybe LoL

I am not sure why, If you had Photoshop, you'd use this plug-in. I could see its utility as an in-browser utility for quick and dirty edits by people with low standards or simple tasks but Photoshop has tools, both sophisticated and relatively simple, to select and remove backgrounds.

To be sure I have read this correctly: it is a plug-in for a sophisticated & expensive image editor that provides sub-standard results on images with pretty severe limitations on image size?

To me this is a timely announcement about Photoshop incorporating an online tool that has made headlines recently. It is relevant as an explanation of the service, as an unusual move from Adobe and as an introduction to the tool if you have never heard of it.
If it's not something you would use, don't use it. It's a short article with the limitations clearly explained.