Am I being hustled, or is this for real -- a photoshop dilemma

At the office, we are preparing to introduce a new line of products. These are large items that will require "speedy photography" -- approximately 350 skus in 30 days. My employer asked me to "consult" on the project.

Since we are going to need to path these items for the web, I designed a 20 ft cyc wall for white seamless shooting. My logic was that, properly lit, this wall would provide our graphics team with sufficient contrast to whip out quick paths and corrections, moving the new items quickly to the web. With the quick selection tool, they could rip through these rather quickly, much the same way I shoot kids on my lastolite hi-lite, and then do background replacements.

Today, however, they told me that they "couldn't use the wands" to create the paths, as the wands are not accurate enough. They tell me each item will be pathed by hand. Based on their estimates of 30 minutes per item, this means that something I budgeted 3 days for will now take a month!!!

This is an issue.

Now I am no photoshop expert, but I think that the selection tools are perfectly adequate to the job. The paths will be used for web commerce only -- 72 dpi, with no print or packaging applications. Also, these items are high contrast and of regular shape. They aren't bicycle wheels -- nothing complicated. Like a refrigerator or stove.

So, the question is, am I missing something? I tested a similar item earlier today, and pathed it in 90 seconds using the magic wand and make work path. But I am not a graphic artist.

Bottom line -- should I insist on the "quicker way" or accept that this is going to take much longer than I thought?

Without seeing the images can't really say what would be required (but probably can't do that by contract), but does seem odd. With a solid background and non-fuzzy things (currently photoshop isn't good enough with fuzzy stuff), "wands" of any type should work just fine. I can pop out a full rezed image in maybe 20min depending on the complexity, but then again I use a mouse and am not a graphic designer by trade... Here's a fun site though:
http://www.graphic-design-employment.com/photosh​op-clipping-paths.html

350 in Three days... That's what 15 an hour, or 4 minutes each.
Is that what you budgeted for complete post processing...Or just the extraction?

If thats for complete processing 30 Minutes sounds like a rather leisurely pace...But 4 minutes, wow that's clipping right along in my opinion. It could be do-able if you budgeted enough$$$ for someone with good photoshop skills. I don't think it's so much a matter of time but rather are you willing to pay enough per hour to get someone who can knock them out in the alloted time constraints.

Possable time saving tip...if they do the selection on the full size image before resizing it should give some leway on accuracy required.

By 72 dpi...I assume you mean web size images.

The wand tool can be as accurate as you want it to be. That's the whole reason you can adjust the settings on it. But if you using a white background, you can use "Color Range" under the "Select" menu and have each one done within a minute. With the eyedropper tool within the "Color Range" menu click on the white background, hit ok and you have the selection you need. Of course if you have white areas within the subject you'll have to tweak it some. 30 minutes though.....WAY too long.

oops forgot one thing on the color range tool, make sure you have invert selected before you click on the white area. Also and I'm sure you know this already, when you shoot the items make sure they don't cast a shadow that would cause a selection problem.

You could of course use http://www.misterclipp​ing.com/index.aspx?pag​eid=1


Hard to say anything specific without seeing an image.

Is there only one graphic designer assigned to do these 350 items?

By my math if you had a team of five dedicated to working eight hours a day, you could complete the 350 items with an average of 20 minutes per item in three days.

dugcross wrote in post #9624801
The wand tool can be as accurate as you want it to be. That's the whole reason you can adjust the settings on it. But if you using a white background, you can use "Color Range" under the "Select" menu and have each one done within a minute. With the eyedropper tool within the "Color Range" menu click on the white background, hit ok and you have the selection you need. Of course if you have white areas within the subject you'll have to tweak it some. 30 minutes though.....WAY too long.

You can do this with the wand or the quick selection tool as well. I didn't try it, but I think that these two tools will not select white areas inside the object. Just click on the background, chose Select>inverse and you're basically done.

I think you're being hustled. Or maybe "road-blocked" is a better term.

Hen3Ry wrote in post #9626611
You can do this with the wand or the quick selection tool as well. I didn't try it, but I think that these two tools will not select white areas inside the object. Just click on the background, chose Select>inverse and you're basically done.

I think you're being hustled. Or maybe "road-blocked" is a better term.

The wand will select the inside white areas if "contiguous" is not clicked. But going by what he's saying I'm still thinking Color Range would be the best bet.

Clipping paths should only take between 5-ten minutes per item (if its a fairly complicated shape) at most. Not including any post-processing. I do them all the time on product shots.

Thanks to all for their comments.

The time budget is for clipping paths only. Not for the additional post, which should be limited to color correction and sharpening.

Also, these products would move in batches of about 30 items at a time -- one day of shooting by the team, then another day at the computer. So a two man team would have 8 hours to clip, color correct, sharp, touch up, and save in multiple formats and sizes based on our customer requirements. If it takes 30 minutes to just clip it, well, that slows things down quite a bit.

René Damkot wrote in post #9625470
You could of course use http://www.misterclipp​ing.com/index.aspx?pag​eid=1


Hard to say anything specific without seeing an image.

Rene, have you used them in the past? I can't show an image at this point, but a refrigerator or range is extremely similar to the product we will be introducing in size and scope.

I work for a commercial printing company, part of my job would be creating those clipping paths. The clipping path is saved in the file as postscript and can split pixels to create a much smoother selection. A wand selection will select pixels only. This can create an uneven edge and a fringe around the object. To do the job correctly I would recommend the clipping path method.

chrisa wrote in post #9627344
I work for a commercial printing company, part of my job would be creating those clipping paths. The clipping path is saved in the file as postscript and can split pixels to create a much smoother selection. A wand selection will select pixels only. This can create an uneven edge and a fringe around the object. To do the job correctly I would recommend the clipping path method.

Would converting the selection to a work path solve this problem?

It would add a point in the path for every pixel it selected.