@lacme31 , i tried to cut your source , i get a good result at the level of the ear. The I.A has rebuilt everything well but you have to erase the whole ear and the collar on the right with the eraser.

I will not do it because there is some for an hour and 30 minutes of work which is voluntary , do not forget it.

I would have done it for a physio in Nancy and again , only if it was the only source available.

I'm not sure why you keep mentioning the use of the eraser in a lot of your work. With remove.bg, it's simply not needed. And why would you want to erase the ear?

After remove.bg, it took me maybe 3 minutes of playing around to get the ear to look realistic. I then use the lasso (press l in photoshop) to choose the bit of collar on the right and nudged it downwards. Then I used a bit of clone stamp to get the neck on that side the same colour and remove the shadow of the collar.

I've told you already - if it's taking you so long to do cuts, then you're doing something very wrong. An hour and a half should be enough to see you do 30-50 cuts, at least.

@mons 

But i agree with you for the 2 to 3 minutes per cut out face. Besides i think that any cutter can cut the 400 sources on standby in 1 to 2 minutes per cut. 1minute to cut and 1 minute to download. If it's to make cuts like that ( see below ) , i too take 2 minutes. After if quantity comes before quality , just say it.

I abused a little with the 1 hour 30 minutes , i admit that my method was poorly chosen for this source. I wanted to use the tool when I.A rebuilt the selection , a bad choice here.

To be honest , i think you did a good job with the ear and the collar on the right and that very quickly. But i also find that the top of the hair is rather ugly , i would have taken the time to try to correct it a bit. So maybe i'm stupid to be so meticulous but i prefer to make few cuts and spend the time i deem necessary on each cut.

If not , i erase approximately 1 cut out of 20 with the eraser. Remove.bg sometimes detects very badly.

Recently i downloaded a cut out face , at random just to see , i will not give the name of the cutter. At the top , 5 to 6 pixels of empty space , so cut in a hurry and no correction on any cut. After that should not be surprised that somebody reproposes a source a month later for the same player.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I have no idea what you mean by “the tool when I.A. rebuilt the selection”, neither by "the top of the hair is rather ugly". You'll have to give us a bit more info about the former to make sense of this, but as for the latter, there are plenty of fine hair details in there and no snow I can see (there's a difference between snow and reflected light, btw). If there's anything to improve, I'm more than willing to listen, but you'll have to be much more specific than “the top of the hair is rather ugly”, which means nothing in cutting terms. Frankly, you've been involved in the scene just a few weeks and you're not even that good a cutter yet to be around throwing shade on other people's work, so dial it back a bit, yeah?

I cannot be clear enough. Whatever the source, if you're spending more than 5-10 minutes maximum on a cut, you're not doing it right. I want people to be as pedantic and meticulous about cuts as possible, but we're not graphic designers working for a wage. I'm happy with very good and delighted with excellent; it doesn't have to be absolutely 100% perfect. There's a thin line between having very good cuts and looking for faults in near-perfect cuts, and I think you're erring towards the latter.

Also, 5-6 pixels of space really isn't a lot of space. We aim for a closer cut than that, true, but it's not the heinous crime against cutting you're making it out to be. I hope you don't you expect us to get the pixel-tape out and check each and every single cut. If the gap appears at a glance to be greater than ideal, then rest assured I wouldn't hesitate to let the cutter know if that's the case (and you can check my post history for proof). But otherwise, it's just being pedantic for the sake it, and that serves no purpose whatsoever. We're not policeman here, and neither would I want us to be.

I think you underestimate the amount of moderation that happens by our team; the poor cuts which are not accepted (or re-cut) and the work I do behind the scenes correcting cuts and rejecting images which aren't good enough to be improvements. I'd really like to see a couple of instances of requesters reproposing the same source a month later for the same player when it's not the case that the requester didn't realise it had been cut or the requester doesn't know how the forum works. I suspect you could count them on the fingers of one hand. I think the amount of source wastage is really, really small and nowhere near to what you're making it out to be.

In short, I appreciate your curiosity and your good intentions, but the feedback you've been given (many times) is based on many years of work and experience and is intended to make you do better cuts more quickly. If you choose to ignore it, to experiment and then produce poor cuts as a result, don't be surprised if you're called out on it 😕