You don't need to remove the background

You don't need a transparent background. That's the answer, and the rest of this is why the question keeps getting asked.

Removing the background is a step in the pipeline here, not a thing to prepare. The image on the right — subject on a flat solid colour — is a perfectly good starting point, and frequently a better one than the checkerboard on the left.

Why is the flat version often better?

Because a cut-out made after the fact carries the seam with it.

When a subject is separated from its background, the boundary pixels are a blend of both — a fox's fur edge contains a bit of whatever was behind it. A cut-out from a white background leaves a pale halo; one from a coloured background leaves a coloured fringe. On a dark shirt, both are visible as an outline nobody drew.

A subject generated on a known flat colour avoids that, because the separation can be done against a single predictable value rather than against a scene. That's why generation here happens on a fixed solid ground on purpose.

So the checkerboard file is bad?

Not bad — just not necessary, and sometimes carrying problems you can't see.

A transparent PNG out of a background remover has already had the decision made for it, including along soft edges like fur, hair, smoke and glass where the correct answer is genuinely ambiguous. Once it's baked in, it can't be redone better.

Handing over the version with its background intact keeps that decision open. More information, not less.

What if my image has a real scene behind it?

That's the case where something does have to happen, and it's a design question rather than a file one.

A subject photographed or generated in a full environment can be separated, but the result often looks odd — real objects sit in their lighting, and lifting them out of it produces something that reads as pasted. The stronger route is usually a redraw, where the subject is rebuilt as a graphic with its own outline.

A cinematic frame is the extreme version of this: the scene is the reason it looked good, and it can't come along.

Does the design print with a background at all?

Only if the background is part of the artwork.

The default is that the design's edge is its own outline — the fur, the last letter, the edge of the shape — with cloth continuing where it stops. A printed rectangle around a graphic is the single most reliable way to make a shirt look cheap.

The exceptions are real and specific: a design whose genre includes a field or a frame, or a photograph that's claiming to be a document. Those keep their ground because it's carrying meaning.

What about "PNG with transparency" advice generally?

It's correct advice aimed at someone doing their own prepress.

If you're preparing files for a printer yourself, transparency handling genuinely matters and the advice is sound. That workflow just isn't this one — the reason so much of this material feels confusing is that it's written for a job that has been absorbed.

Which is worth knowing when reading anything about file preparation: check whether the author is describing a step you actually have to perform.

Is there anything I should avoid?

One thing, and it's the same one that always comes up: a screenshot.

Screenshotting an image on a screen produces a recompressed copy at whatever your display was showing, often with interface elements and always with information thrown away. Background removal on that is working from less to begin with.

The original file is the only file-side thing worth caring about.

How do I get one made?

Upload the image at JustOG — background and all — or describe the idea and have one made. Pick a direction, drag the crop frame, see it composited on the real garment, and it's made to order and shipped.

Designs other people have published are in the shop.

The checkerboard is a step you were about to do for us. It's already done.