@yayazo  @mons 

This source was forcefully enlarged, and the original is 100x122

From here: https://www.playmakerstats.com/player.php?id=749211

We are not magicians who can optimize every photo and generate a cut, if I  have this ability I will definitely charge for it instead of doing it for free.

Admin please reject this source 

It's far from an ideal image, and par for the course for this user, but I thought it may just about be cut in 180x180 without being completely useless, which is why I didn't delete it when it was requested, like I'd usually do for most requests made by him.

@77david54, only use 250x250 when the source is good enough for it, which is clearly not the case here…

You took the source of yayazo to cut it. The source of yayazo is of very poor quality. By enlarging the source that i posted , we get a better source and therefore a better cut out face.

Just enlarging an image doesn't increase its quality. As @Ttggfr rightly points out, it's not a very good source. All enlarging does is to make it more blurry and less representative of what the person looks like it. If it was a poor source, then it should be cut (if it can) in 180x180, which is precisely the reason why that cut size was retained 😉

@mons 

I enlarged the image to be able to cut it , i know that it does not improve the quality. I am of the same opinion as @Ttggfr . The staff should refuse this kind of source. The source of @yayazo  , we have the impression that the photo has gone through the washing machine.

This only commits me but i have the impression that there are fewer and fewer people to cut off the sources on hold. We should perhaps ask ourselves why ?

In two months , i won't be surprised if we have 800 pending sources. Some will be complete but will not be cut.

Personally , i think only the staff should be able to download a source pack. Site users should be limited to 10 sources. This encourages to look for better sources because we know that we are limited in number of sources. This rule would increase the quality of the proposed sources. It also encourages learning to cut. If i had known that we could download image packs , i would have offered 500 images in several packs , and above all i would never have learned to cut.

Yet another debate lmao

Sometimes I feel like we are doing the cuts only for the sake of it. I hold a strong opinion that sources like this should be rejected as I consider even the 180x180 cut is not good enough. Too blurry for me. If even this kind of sources can be accepted then what is the point of even limited the size to 180x180 in the first place? I thought it was to ensure some quality? If the source is not of quality, I would rather leave it blank than to force a pixelated cut.

Kind of missing the days that a Serbian would come and find a better source or just saying that this source is too poor and forcefully shove a guideline on finding the best source down your throat. If he returns I doubt such bad source would be accepted by him.   

The problem , it is especially that some do not make any effort of research. I am convinced that by limiting to 10 sources per user excluding staff , we increase the quality. Because finally finding sources is very easy. Finding the best is difficult.

My friend, you've been here, what, 2 months? The amount of images requested on this forum has always been much larger than the amount our cutters could handle, trust me. However, the community is now producing around twice as many images as it was doing less than two years ago. If it's a concern about poor sources, I think the amount of non-HQ images being requested is a very small proportion of the total amount being requested. If someone doesn't want to cut a source because they think it's a poor one, they've got plenty of other images to take on if they want to, so I can't really see it being that big a problem.

I'm not sure what you mean about request limits, because the limit is indeed 10 per person at any time (excluding those in packs). I think it might be time to reduce it too, to maybe incentivise even more users to try cutting images themselves. It's never been as easy to make cut-outs as it is now, with the many free online tools to do so quickly and easily, and our video tutorials to help budding cutters along the way. But it's up to people themselves to want to do so, and I don't intend to turn them people who prefer to request only.

I'm not sure I agree with you here. It's definitely not the greatest source in the world, but it's just about on the border of being worth cutting imo. The face produced is recognisable, and that's essentially what we're aiming for. Of course we aim for quality, but sometimes you have to compromise and accept good enough instead. At the end of the day, other people might be happy to cut what you aren't, after all.

Baja is indeed still around and I reject requests and refer to the thread he created quite frequently actually, including to the original requester of this image, who has been warned a few times already about making terrible requests. Have a look at his past requests and you'll see what I mean by truly terrible requests.