First, I don't see where the quality problem is. Secondly, I don't know why this image wasn't rejected for quality at the first time. If so, I wouldn't have reuploaded it. You may have seen there is nothing different between those two shots, except for that dust spot.
WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1330 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3557 times:
Did you erase the spot and re-save, or start from scratch and upload? If you re-saved from the rejected picture, that may lead to quality issues. Just a thought.
PS You have had some great shots in 2006, keep up the great work!
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 804 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3521 times:
Quoting WakeTurbulence (Reply 1): Did you erase the spot and re-save, or start from scratch and upload? If you re-saved from the rejected picture, that may lead to quality issues. Just a thought.
Probably not the case....Looks like nother unfortunate case where a lot of time has been wasted for no reason.
Quoting Bubbles (Thread starter): Secondly, I don't know why this image wasn't rejected for quality at the first time.
Good point! I've had shots rejected, fixed them and uploaded again, only to have them rejected for an entirely different reason. This is a big waste of time for everyone involved and has been discussed here many times before.
Step 1. Edit image in multiple layers, such as, erase dust spot, sharpen, etc.
Step 2. Just before flatten the layers, save the whole thing into a PSD file consisting of all information and those layers.
Step 3. Flatten the layers, and save the image as JPG file, and upload it.
Why I want to do step 2 that seems like an extra step is just for some rejections. This is the best example. PSD file could save many more information than JPG. So, PSD normally is many times bigger than JPG. For example, this rejection image's PSD file is 4.84 MB, but JPG is only 404 KB. The first rejection was caused by a dust spot. I reopened that PSD file, and went back to the layer where the dust spot is, erased the dirt spot by Healing Tool. After doing that, I flattened the layers again, and saved it as JPG file.
I know if I continued editing on JPG file, the image quality would definitely be compromised. That's why I never do that. Instead, I did continue editing on PSD file. And by the steps I mentioned above, I can't see any quality issue that could be triggered by my editing PSD file, or I should say I can't see any difference between editing from scratch and editing from that PSD file.
Maybe I guess the screener who rejected my second image took a look of my first rejection, and speculated I could have been editing on that JPG file, and rejected the second one again for quality. But that is not right. I think the quality issue should be really identified, instead of being speculated. Or, at least, I should be told by more specific information about this quality rejection. How could the photographer improve his skills by knowing nothing but one word - quality? I, of course, anticipate any other rejection reasons coming along with 'quality', which would be more helpful than now.
So, I still expect to see more comments on this rejection, telling me where and what the quality problem is.