I'm not sure what you mean by this but you also seem to have tried to tweak the source colours. The cut looks a bit washed out and devoid of sharpness. Whatever effect you attempt, I would recommend you avoid it. Other than the odd bit of added brightening for very dark sources, I suggest you avoid these kind of edits at all in general.
I'm not sure what you mean by this but you also seem to have tried to tweak the source colours. The cut looks a bit washed out and devoid of sharpness. Whatever effect you attempt, I would recommend you avoid it. Other than the odd bit of added brightening for very dark sources, I suggest you avoid these kind of edits at all in general.
There i do not agree with your comment which is totally unfair in this case. I did not touch the color for this cut out face. I only increased the brightness a little then i put the cut out face you have there in remove.bg. I did not crooped any pixel afterwards so it is impossible for me to lose sharpness.
Increase the brightness of your cut out face and you will have the same cut out face as mine.
The only difference is the jacket on the right , remove.bg did not detect the jacket on the right so i had to use the “ restore ” function in remove.bg and i did the best i could.
There i do not agree with your comment which is totally unfair in this case. I did not touch the color for this cut out face. I only increased the brightness a little then i put the cut out face you have there in remove.bg. I did not crooped any pixel afterwards so it is impossible for me to lose sharpness.
Increase the brightness of your cut out face and you will have the same cut out face as mine.
The only difference is the jacket on the right , remove.bg did not detect the jacket on the right so i had to use the “ restore ” function in remove.bg and i did the best i could.
I think what mons means is that when you brightened the image, you also reduced the contrast which made the shadows look washed out and “flat”. mons' cutout definitely has better sharpness as well. The “restoring” of the jacket looks fine imo.
Just as an example, this is what the image looks like if I reduce the contrast even further, do you see how it looks washed out/"flat" in comparison?
I think what mons means is that when you brightened the image, you also reduced the contrast which made the shadows look washed out and “flat”. mons' cutout definitely has better sharpness as well. The “restoring” of the jacket looks fine imo.
Just as an example, this is what the image looks like if I reduce the contrast even further, do you see how it looks washed out/"flat" in comparison?
I haven't touched the contrast. It's okay , drop it.
@Forisklf or @Forisklf, whichever of the 2 accounts this is, I've already explained here why these are being rejected. Please don't keep uploading images like this, time and time again - we have rules, please follow them.
Besides, this is evidently not the Olympiacos owner, I'm not sure who he is and why you've uploaded him on this person's timeline.
@mons@Footygamer I think for some reason when someone replies to an ‘in megapack' status image, the current active image no longer shows on this page and the team page? Have seen this on multiple cases now
@mons@Footygamer I think for some reason when someone replies to an ‘in megapack' status image, the current active image no longer shows on this page and the team page? Have seen this on multiple cases now
What's happened is that a user has uploaded a response on the current megapack cut, which means that its in megapack status has been overridden. Same for the Carvalho cut you pointed out elsewhere. It's the same user who did the same action, as it happens.
Moving forward, there is no reason why one should need to upload a response directly to a megapack image, so perhaps that functionality should be removed for images who have an in megapack status.
P.S. Thanks for pointing out all the other images. I (should!) have got the lot saved now 👍
Background and Stadium Packs
I had to restore the jacket on the right.