Transparent background photoshop edits allowed?

Example: https://cs.sankakucomplex.com/data/6d/fb/6dfb4063ec4e0c0ffc7c12aee107d753.png?4312886

I never bothered to upload it here because people like to complain too much here, but it's a pretty clean edit that someone might find useful for making wallpaper or w/e..

Here, let me help you out here, since Sankaku doesn't allow direct linking.

https://chan.sankakucomplex.com/post/show/4312886

I would say no. It's not that hard to do it on your own.

sooooo the extraction tag?

Yeah, you got a point there. Are those still being approved since it's basically stuff anyone with Photoshop can do? The only reason I would think they would be approved is if the extraction is done by the original artist.

I believe by definition an extraction/extracted image is a 3rd party edit of the image to remove the background and other characters, so an artist really can't release an extraction. It's also particularly not likely to happen, as most likely the original artist could just simply turn off the background layer in the original image.

Extracted images don't seem uploaded too frequently (or at least labelled properly), but of the more recent ones there has been a few recently approved. I think like any other type of photoshopping it is a judgement call on whether or not the editing detracts from the image or adds to the image in a way considered good enough to outweigh the nature of it being a 3rd party edit.

So it's like nude filters but with less effort since instead of crudely drawing genitals, you just erase stuff and make it transparent.

Doing an extraction without damaging the outline is exceedingly difficult. The question is whether that's relevant.

Oh yeah, the outline. Well, I think it depends on the amount of effort it takes to photoshop something.

It's actually pretty hard and long to clean up the outline like that. If you do it the easy way, it leaves a lot of jaggies.
Took a few hours to get it that clean. But yeah, figured people would be against it.

I'm necro-bumping this since I'm noticing extraction tags falling in the queue. In my recollection these fell in to the "conditionally-acceptable" section of third-party edits (along with things like detexting or cleaning up of scan artifacts or stitched images, which all are listed as being in that category), despite the fact that the bulk of third-party edits are rightly disallowed. It doesn't look like a decision was really made here, or codified in the wiki. Perhaps because they aren't particularly common. Personally, so long as the work and the extraction are both of good quality and the original artist is credited for the work, I don't think they should get flagged. We should probably explicitly decide policy though and update the wiki accordingly one way or the other. The tag has been around for a long time though, and there can be value for instance in separating the art of e.g. cover page from the text matter on it.

I flagged a few of those yesterday like post #3418655, post #2071704 and post #2132416 because they looked pretty sloppy (ragged lines etc). I don't really see the point if we already have the full pic on site, since anyone interested in an extraction can do it themselves with better tools than what was available years ago, but if there's interest in those posts I won't flag any others.

I'm with nonamethanks on this, I don't see a reason to have them around when it's fairly easy to do it yourself.