@jazos Like told before, there is no reason to upscale an image is the original is large enough to make a cut, as it will become unnecessarily blurry. Next time please just crop the face out and resize it to 250x250 or 180x180, no need to be upsizing 👍
@BramNUFC sorry but i think your image is very blurry. is my personal opinion. it's your call what image are better for the megapack. continue the great job i'm very happy to involve in this.
It is better to spend a little more time making sure that the cut-out you produce is of the best quality it can be, rather than just getting it done in a few seconds in noticeably less quality. Once you perfect and refine your technique, you can produce cuts in just a few seconds, but I'm sure you'll agree with me that you're not quite there yet 😉
@mons I'm sorry, I don't agree with your opinion that I'm not at that level and of course I don't have your tutorial and I'm using it remove background. I have been a graphic designer for 20 years and i make cut outs without automation. I know which image is blurry and which image is better in upscale.
@mons I'm sorry, I don't agree with your opinion that I'm not at that level and of course I don't have your tutorial and I'm using it remove background. I have been a graphic designer for 20 years and i make cut outs without automation. I know which image is blurry and which image is better in upscale.
I agree the first image was blurry because the image was low resolution. the second try i think after fixing the hair was correct at 250x250. its your call to choose the better image. if you believe my image was incorrect its ok no problem. i never stop to found people and upload here.
@mons I'm sorry, I don't agree with your opinion that I'm not at that level and of course I don't have your tutorial and I'm using it remove background. I have been a graphic designer for 20 years and i make cut outs without automation. I know which image is blurry and which image is better in upscale.
This is your first cut at 100% zoom
It's got visible, evident snow in the hair and it is also evidently upscaled from the original source to 250x250 because the image is somewhat blurry and lacking sharpness.
It's clear that there is no snow at all in it, or at the very least significantly less than in your cut.
As per the guidelines, which have been in place for many years now:
If the source is large enough and at a high resolution, the cut should be produced in 250x250. Otherwise the cut should be in 180x180. If, when cut, the source is not already 250x250 (or close), it is ideally downsized, since upsizing a cut leads to a loss of sharpness.
so there is nothing at all wrong with it, as far as I'm concerned. Given the size of the source image, and the area that the face takes up within it, it's clear to me that a 180x180 cut is preferable.
I appreciate you may have considerable experience and expertise in graphic design, but one must keep in mind that we have specific guidelines on what we're looking for in our cuts.
It's got visible, evident snow in the hair and it is also evidently upscaled from the original source to 250x250 because the image is somewhat blurry and lacking sharpness.
It's clear that there is no snow at all in it, or at the very least significantly less than in your cut.
As per the guidelines, which have been in place for many years now:
If the source is large enough and at a high resolution, the cut should be produced in 250x250. Otherwise the cut should be in 180x180. If, when cut, the source is not already 250x250 (or close), it is ideally downsized, since upsizing a cut leads to a loss of sharpness.
so there is nothing at all wrong with it, as far as I'm concerned. Given the size of the source image, and the area that the face takes up within it, it's clear to me that a 180x180 cut is preferable.
I appreciate you may have considerable experience and expertise in graphic design, but one must keep in mind that we have specific guidelines on what we're looking for in our cuts.
Background and Stadium Packs
why rejected?