Ah, I get it now. I didn't realize you were asking about extracting your tree from a background. I thought you just meant you wanted to upload a simple snapshot.
If you can afford Photoshop, extracting plants can usually be done very effectively and relatively quickly with a channel mask. Basically, you take a look at the each of the three color channels individually, pick out the one that appears to have the most contrast between the plant and the background, duplicate it, and then use the burn & dodge and levels tools on the new copy to turn the plant area white and every thing else black. For the majority of plant images, it usually only takes a few minutes.
To give you an idea, here's a photo of a Christmas tree I just found online:

Here's the channel I picked to duplicate, which in this case happened to be the blue channel:

And here it is the alpha, created from a copy of the blue channel:

All I did to create the alpha from the blue channel's copy was the following:
1. I inverted it to reverse the grayscale values, turning black into white, white into black, etc. (Image -> Adjustments -> Invert, or ctrl-I)
2. I increased the contrast a bit by playing with the levels to further the distinction between the lights and darks. (Image -> Adjustments -> Levels)
3. Then I enhanced those light/dark differences with the burn & dodge tools.
4. Finally I used the paintbrush to clean up any stubborn stray areas that the burn & dodge tools couldn't fix.
All in all, this was about 3 minutes' work from start to finish. Were this an important image that I'd actually be using, I probably would have given it a little more time, but 3 minutes was enough to demonstrate the concept.
This, of course, was done with an expensive, professional grade program in the hands of (no conceit intended) a very experienced user. It would take a new user longer than 3 minutes to get the same result, but that's perfectly okay. It shouldn't take a really long time, even if this is someone's first project. If it took a newbie any longer than 20 minutes to do this, I'd be surprised.
So, that's Photoshop, but what about the alternatives? Well, if you don't care to invest the money into Photoshop, other programs can certainly do the job, just not as efficiently.
It's likely you can do almost the same procedure in GIMP, but the actual steps of the procedure may be a little more complicated. I've never used GIMP for this purpose, so I'm afraid I can't comment all that intelligently on the specific process, but generally, everything is more complicated in GIMP, due to its poor interface and somewhat non-standard tool naming conventions.
You can do it in Paintshop Pro, but the process will be a little more round-about, since PSP does not have a channels palette. There would be a bit more hand painting involved.
I've never used PhotoImpact, but judging by what's on their website, I probably wouldn't recommend it (no offense, Peggy). From the tutorials on the PhotoImpact website, it appears to be full of tools called SmartThis and SmartThat, the idea being that the software automagicaly does all the work for you in just a few clicks. I would never recommend any piece of software that pretends it's smarter than its users, whether it be for graphics or anything else. There's just no way any program wizard can ever know what you as a human being are trying to create. You might as well ask an MS Word wizard to write your novel for you, or ask that paint brush sitting on your desk to create a Picasso all by itself. It just doesn't work that way. At the risk of sounding a little NRA'ish here, tools don't create results; humans do.
In summary, Photoshop will give you the best results the fastest, but it's expensive for the hobbyist. GIMP is almost as powerful for this purpose, and it's free, but it's harder to learn and use. PSP is inexpensive and will do the job, but the specific tools for this task won't be as streamlined. Weighing those pros and cons is up to you.
I hope this was helpful.