Caner Erkin - Submissions - Cut Out Player Faces Megapack
8489926
Background and Stadium Packs
Submitted
11 Oct 2023 22:29:22
Timeline
This image is part of a pack:
Fenerbahçe [Old Pack Submission]
This image is part of a pack:
Turkey EURO 2016 [Old Pack Submission]
This image is part of a pack:
Internazionale 2016/17 [Old Pack Submission]
This image is part of a pack:
Beşiktaş [Old Request]
This image is part of a pack:
Besiktas [Old Request]
This image is part of a pack:
Besiktas [Old Request]
This image is part of a pack:
Turkey Mixpack [Old Request Response]
This image is part of a pack:
Besiktas [Old Request]
This image is part of a pack:
Besiktas [Old Request]
This image is a response to
#170810
This image is a response to
#173191
![98804[1].jpg Thumbnail](https://sortitoutsidospaces.b-cdn.net/images/lDmYVsE0PLCYBQoJ26akWB6F8ZMNvPa1.jpg)
Hair details from this source have been ruined, and the current MP cut is recent and good enough imo
You're right. But I will try my chance.
You're right. But I will try my chance.
Don't get me wrong, but a lot of your requests are similar to this. Please avoid making requests until either (a) the existing image is quite old (2-3 years) and the source being requested is of a similar or better quality OR (b) the existing image is recent but quite poorly cut and the source being requested is of a much better quality
Wherever it is that you're getting these sources have already badly pre-cut the players and superimposed them on a white background, thus ruining the possibility of (a) being the case. Most Turkish top-flight players have had recent cuts which don't really need to be updated imo, although I'm sure there's the odd exception.
You know, teams and players start with new visage every year. (Photocalls or photodays)
You know, teams and players start with new visage every year. (Photocalls or photodays)
Yes, I know that, but just because the sources are more recent, doesn't automatically mean they are improvements. After all, what's the point in having the exact same face (only a year older) with no difference in hair style or facial hair? Just because there's 2-3 pixels of this year's kit instead of last years? Surely cutters should focus more on cuts requiring genuine improvement.
Of course, if cutters want to produce these kind of cuts, then by all means they can do so and I will add them to the MP (as is currently the case), but I really see little point in making these kind of requests which, however well they are cut, quite simply just aren't improvements.
Yes, I know that, but just because the sources are more recent, doesn't automatically mean they are improvements. After all, what's the point in having the exact same face (only a year older) with no difference in hair style or facial hair? Just because there's 2-3 pixels of this year's kit instead of last years? Surely cutters should focus more on cuts requiring genuine improvement.
Of course, if cutters want to produce these kind of cuts, then by all means they can do so and I will add them to the MP (as is currently the case), but I really see little point in making these kind of requests which, however well they are cut, quite simply just aren't improvements.
Mons can you please put back 8.09 version since is far much better in all aspects than new one
Mons can you please put back 8.09 version since is far much better in all aspects than new one
I could have sworn that's what I'd done
This image is part of a pack:
Besiktas [Old Request]
This image is part of a pack:
Besiktas [Old Request Response]
mons