r/photoshop • u/Sqweegl • 1d ago
Help! How is Photoshop sometimes this ridiculously bad at at finding edges with the quick selection tool?
8
u/ilovefacebook 1d ago
what's the tolerance set at
3
8
u/Slimkellar 1d ago
Adjust d threshold bro
3
6
9
u/el_LOU 1d ago
Lasso tool works best for this specific image but in the future, try the different adjustments on the top bar. Play around with them and familiarize yourself with it all. Not just for the magic wand.
13
u/desteufelsbeitrag 1d ago
Let's be honest: it is ridiculous, that PS decides to properly find the edge in 3/4 of the image, and then starts moving it towards black-on-black in the remaining 1/4.
This is not normal, and even the age old trick that is "magic wand the bg, and just invert the selection" would have given a better result. That one worked 15 years ago. Without AI and other smart tool crap.
6
u/johngpt5 60 helper points | Adobe Community Expert 1d ago
Maybe I'm just accustomed to work-arounds like u/desteufelsbeitrag said, selecting something like the sky and inverting.
I'm also accustomed to the old content-aware Adobe sensei with tools such as the Quick Selection or Magic Wand not getting things absolutely perfect, and having to refine selections. I still use Quick Mask a lot.
I'm also accustomed to using channels and Calculations in the process of creating selections.
I don't think that a machine can create something perfect right out of the gate. I feel that it's okay when it comes close and saves me some time.
2
u/alllmossttherrre 1d ago
The Quick Selection tool is useful, but no longer a new thing. It's sort of a middle-aged tool: A lot newer and smarter than the lasso tool, a lot older technology than the newer and (usually) smarter Object Selection tool.
I use Quick Selection a lot because even though the initial outline is rough, in a picture like yours I would quickly fine tune it by dragging it along the edges to fill in those missed parts. It's usually smart enough to fill it in without going into the background. If it does go into the background, you can easily subtract the extra bits with Option/Alt-drag the tool, like any other selection tool. The fine tune procedure I just described only takes a second or two in real life. I still like the Quick Selection tool.
1
u/johngpt5 60 helper points | Adobe Community Expert 1d ago
Yes, I'm happy if it gets something close to accurate as it is easily refined with Shift and Alt. Or brought to Quick Mask for refining with the brush.
2
2
u/chatterwrack 1d ago
The pen tool is best for accurate pathing, not only because you can be precise, but you can go back and reset the points if there is an error. You can then convert the path to selection.
8
u/Sqweegl 1d ago
i know i know. I'm just stunned by how weird PS decides where the edges should be in this example
3
u/chatterwrack 1d ago
Sorry, I didn't mean to lecture or anything. You're right, the auto select can be hit or miss. The higher the resolution, the better the selection though.
2
1
u/Religion_Of_Speed 1d ago
While others are correct in saying that there are better methods if this is the only thing you're selecting (I assume it's not and just one part of a larger thing), I absolutely agree. I have messed with all the options I can find and any auto-select/mask feature in PS seems to be absolute garbage. It's great for very rough selection/masking but it still requires going all the way around refining things. Might as well just do it manually with a brush or pen tool, depending on what you're doing.
1
u/Erdosainn 17h ago
The Quick Selection Tool is designed to work with soft, non-straight edges in high-quality photographic images without compression.
You're trying to use it on hard, straight lines in a low-quality, compressed illustration. Something you could select with the Lasso Tool in one second (less time than the Quick Selection Tool takes to compute the selection). It doesn't make sense to optimize the tool for this kind of case, as it would likely hurt performance in the real scenarios where it's actually needed.
1
1
u/harvoishappy 12h ago
It happens sometimes. But you can just use add to selection and click a few times on the left out area to refine it.
1
u/RamuneGaming 10h ago
If only the 'select and mask' option existed...
Or you could select the background with the magic wand tool, then inverse the selection. This will 90% of the time give you a better outline compared to trying to magic/quick select the object.
1
1
1
-10
u/nysalor 1d ago edited 1d ago
It's not PS, it's you. And its the low rez image. Learn to modify your settings. Think about which of the multiple tools available will work best for the job (straight lines, hmmmmm). Use Google.
6
u/redditnackgp0101 1d ago
Wow! I am a purist and quick to tell people to put in work, but that's way harsh lol
-7
u/Haunting-Habit-7848 1d ago
God forbid you actually need to know how to create/refine a selection on your own.
-6
u/ThePurpleUFO 22h ago
You should expect this with a low quality image...and why would you expect much from *any*thing that is "automatic"?
1
56
u/redditnackgp0101 1d ago
I assume that's a rhetorical question, but for a shape like that you're better off using the path tool or polygonal lasso anyway