with my first-ever "NOA_Edit" rejection reason. This is a cloudy-day shot of a plane that's probably very common in Manchester and normally I'd chuck this in the bin and go on with life. In other words, I would have expected an NOA_Quality reject reason if it had to get tossed. However, it seems there have been a number of threads concerning this type of rejection lately, and based on that I take this reject as insinuating that somehow I've cloned something out or the like, which I didn't to the best of my knowledge. My workflow involves cropping, sharpening and adjusting brightness/contrast. I also remove dust spots, but I doubt there are any visible on this cloudy-day image. Any thoughts on this? Are there other common reasons for NOA_Edit besides illegal removal of objects?
JumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2464 posts, RR: 44
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1023 times:
John i think it was explained in another thread that as started by StealthZ regarding the same issue .
From memory a screener had explained that the EDIT button is near another button in the rejection process and may have accidentally been pressed.
Nice shot by the way.
JohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1657 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 959 times:
Thanks - like I said, perhaps a fair NOA_Quality reject due to the low lighting conditions. This shot isn't hugely important to me so there's no point in an appeal or trying to spruce it up, but if there was some perception that I'd cloned something out I wanted to set the record straight.