Figma masking plugin without compression?

Graphic Design
1

Hey guys,

Is anyone else sick of Figma plugins (like the free Remove.bg one) that mask your image but automatically compress the output to a horrible 500px resolution on the canvas? It completely ruins client mockups when you are trying to build high-fidelity designs.

I recently switched to the Figma plugin from clipbg .net. It actually preserves the original HD resolution. Better yet, it does an AI 2x upscale and adds a drop shadow right inside Figma for exactly 1 shared credit from your web account.

Just thought I’d share it for anyone else constantly dealing with low-res client assets. What is everyone else using for masking directly inside Figma?

2

I just use Adobe Photoshop myself, but there’s a plethora of background removal tools out there. Remove.bg used to be free, although I believe they charge for higher-resolution downloads now.

Really, just use whatever works best for you.

Gone are the days when removing a background was a skill in itself, particularly when it came to tricky selections like fine hair, fur, or complex edges. What once required a fair bit of patience, technique and experience can now be done with the click of a button.

Personally, I still prefer doing background removals the old-school way in Photoshop. I enjoy the process, I like having control over the finer details, and it keeps my skills sharp.

Nothing wrong with automation, but I think there’s still value in knowing how to do something manually rather than relying entirely on software to do it for you.

3

Isn’t Figma a conceptual layout tool used pre-implementation?
If so, why would you need high resolution imagery?

4

I totally respect the old-school Photoshop method! I still jump into PS for massive hero banners where I need 100% granular control over a complex edge. But when an e-commerce client dumps 50 raw product photos on me for a catalog grid mockup, doing it manually with the pen tool is a massive bottleneck. That’s exactly why I rely on automation for the bulk stuff—especially since that plugin automatically does the AI upscaling and drop shadows in the same click. It just saves me hours of grunt work so I can focus on the actual UI layout.

5

You’d be surprised how much Figma’s role has evolved! While it used to be just for low-fi wireframes, most teams today use it for pixel-perfect, high-fidelity mockups for client sign-offs. More importantly, it’s about Developer Handoff. Developers often export the final image assets directly from our Figma files to use in production. If I leave a compressed 500px masked image in the frame, the dev exports a blurry image for the live site. Plus, a lot of marketing teams now use Figma to design social media ad creatives, which need to be exported in HD.

6

Yeh, we can all do that. There are plenty of bulk background removal tools out there. What’s your point exactly?

I prefer to do mine manually because I don’t entirely trust AI background removal, particularly when the finished artwork could be blown up to 100ft or more. Small mistakes that might go unnoticed on a screen can become very obvious at that size.

I prefer to take my time and do the job properly. I don’t see that as a bottleneck. It’s a service, and it’s chargeable to the client.

If it takes me an hour to remove a background properly, and the client is happy to pay for that hour, then what’s the problem?

Alternatively, I can point them towards any number of bulk background removal services, and they can send me the resulting files. If they’re happy with the results, that’s their decision.

Either way, I get paid for the work I’m doing.

I’m not against automation or AI tools. They have their place, and they can certainly speed things up. But speed isn’t always the priority. Quality, accuracy and knowing what you’re delivering are just as important.

If a client wants to pay for my time and expertise, I’m happy to provide it. If they’d rather use an automated service, that’s fine too. But they’re also accepting responsibility for the quality of those results.

Not everything that takes time is a bottleneck. Sometimes it’s simply part of doing the job properly.

7

I’m gonna put that on my bulletin board for a while.

1 Like
8

That is a completely fair point, and I actually 100% agree with you when it comes to large-format print. If I were designing a 100ft billboard, I would absolutely fire up Photoshop, grab the pen tool, and make sure every single pixel is perfect. Billing for that level of precision and expertise is totally justified.

But my original post was specifically geared towards the digital/UI workflow in Figma. When I’m designing an e-commerce site and the client hands over 50 raw product photos to populate a catalog grid, they usually don’t have the budget—or the time—to pay me for 50 hours of manual masking. They want the mockup fast, and they want it to look sharp on a Retina screen.

In those high-volume, digital-first scenarios, manual clipping absolutely feels like a bottleneck to me, because I’d much rather spend my billable hours solving the actual UX/UI problems than cutting out backgrounds. That’s why a plugin that can instantly mask, upscale, and drop a shadow right on the canvas is such a massive win for web designers.

Different tools for different jobs, I guess! Respect your dedication to the craft, though.

9

I think you’re still missing my point slightly.

I’m not suggesting someone should spend 50 hours manually removing backgrounds then surprising a client with a huge bill for 50 hours work when it wasn’t quoted or agreed - especially when an automated tool can do the job in minutes. I’ve already said there are plenty of tools available for that.

My point is that it’s ultimately down to the client, their budget and the quality they’re expecting.

If a client gives me 50 images and wants them manually clipped, I’ll quote for that work. If they’re happy to pay, then it’s not a bottleneck, it’s a paid service.

If they want them done quickly, then absolutely, use automation. I’ve no issue with that whatsoever, I can use the automation services, there’s a price for that too.

But just because something can be automated doesn’t automatically make the manual process redundant or a bottleneck.

And even with your e-commerce example, somebody still needs to check those 50 images. AI can make mistakes with edges, transparency, fine details and shadows. Those issues don’t suddenly become irrelevant because the images are being used digitally rather than in print.

I use plenty of automation myself. I’m simply saying there’s a difference between saving time and delivering quality, and the two aren’t always mutually exclusive.

If the automated results are good enough for the client’s requirements, great. If they need additional manual work, that’s chargeable too. Where would the client stand on an automated tool and pricing, and then you have to bill them separately for manual fix-ups?

Ultimately, I don’t see properly paid production work as a bottleneck. I see it as part of the service I’m providing.

Who is responsible for the quality of the automated service?

10

The person using it. Even if the client agrees to automated AI processing, the operator/designer is responsible for the choice of tool and its accuracy.

1 Like
11

It was more of a query to the op.

:laughing:

12

To answer your question directly: I am. As the designer, I am 100% responsible for the final deliverable. The client doesn’t care if I used the Pen tool for hours or an AI tool for seconds; they just care that the edges aren’t jagged, the transparent parts look correct, and the resolution is high enough for production.

That is actually the exact reason I made the original post! Because I do have to QA (Quality Assurance) every single automated image, I can’t afford to use a freebie plugin that creates weird artifacts, struggles with hair, or spits out a compressed 500px mess. If I have to spend 10 minutes manually fixing a bad AI mask, the automation becomes useless. I brought up that specific plugin because its edge detection and the built-in HD upscale drastically reduce my manual fix-up time during that QA phase.

Regarding the billing aspect—you are totally right. If the client has an open budget and wants to pay my full hourly rate for 50 hours of manual clipping, I’ll happily take the money. But in my current space (startups and fast-moving e-commerce), they almost always have strict fixed project budgets. Being able to automate the grunt work reliably means I increase my effective hourly rate, and I get to spend the client’s budget on the actual creative UI/UX decisions.

I think we are actually on the same page here: quality is non-negotiable. It’s just about finding the right tools that don’t compromise that quality when you need to move fast. Cheers! :clinking_beer_mugs:

13

I don’t think we’re quite on the same page here. I think you’re still missing what I’m getting at.

I’m not trying to convince you to ditch automation. You’ve clearly got your own workflow, and that’s completely fine. I’m happy to discuss the finer points.

In my world, background removal is a chargeable service, whether it’s done manually or with automated tools. Automation isn’t necessarily free either. The better services generally cost money, and there’s still time involved in reviewing, correcting and approving the results.

Before AI, there were plenty of automated background removal tools too. The free ones were often poor, the better ones improved over time, and many became paid services. None of this is particularly new.

For me, the distinction is control.

If I remove a background manually, I know exactly what I’ve done, how I’ve done it and what to look out for. If I automate it, I still have to check the results, potentially correct them and take responsibility for the finished work.

And I fully appreciate that automated background removal services can produce insanely good results. I’ve no argument there.

But I trust myself more than the tool. I’d probably spend more time scrutinising the results, checking for errors and setting up quality control procedures than I would simply doing the work myself.

That’s my preference, and it’s why I don’t necessarily see manual background removal as a bottleneck.

You’re looking at it from the perspective of saving time and maximising productivity within a fixed budget. That’s perfectly reasonable.

I’m looking at it from the perspective of control over the work I’m producing.

And here’s where I think our approaches really differ.

For me, background removal is a cost to the client. It’s not X amount for automated removal and Y amount for manual removal. It’s X amount for background removal. That’s the service I’m providing, regardless of how I achieve it.

Both approaches have their own bottlenecks. With manual removal, I’m spending time crafting and refining the result. With automation, I’m spending time reviewing, checking and potentially correcting it.

In my workflow, the time involved can end up being much the same, and the cost to the client is the same either way.

So I prefer control over time and money. I’d rather spend that time doing the work myself than potentially spending it correcting the work of an automated tool.

That’s really all I’m getting at. It’s work, the client pays for the finished result, and I choose the method I’m most comfortable with. And you choose yours.

That’s completely fine.

Just my perspective.

1 Like