JetAv8r From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 284 posts, RR: 1 Posted (9 years 10 months 5 days ago) and read 3716 times:
I guess my photography skills have gone down the drain! I can't believe the amount of rejections I've had lately. It's almost pitiful. I had another chance to get some photos of the C-5 that crashed today, and they were rejected for badquality. I had an improved version in the queue but it's dissapeared, not in my rejection list or acceptance list and no email about it. Any way here are some examples.
Eadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3683 times:
The first pic, I can understand the quality rejection. It's not the best but great shot.
As for the others, on some the edges of the pic get blurry, this could be because of the wide angle lens you use, but its not a great problem. As for the motiv, well, it pictures a cockpit, in flight, what more motiv is required! But there is something there that the screeners are seeing. Was there a screeners note at all? That would have been handy.
But this is far more important:
Quoting F4wso (Reply 1): As long as you are photographing for your satisfaction, you should be doing fine.
As for the acceptance ratio, well I wouldn't worry too much about it. It doesn't mean you are better or worse than others. You're in the same bracket as me!
Glennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3640 times:
Quoting JetAv8r (Thread starter): I had another chance to get some photos of the C-5 that crashed today, and they were rejected for badquality.
As a screener, I can tell you that if there is a way for you to increase the quality of your shot just a little bit, it possibly will be accepted. The quality for such a shot isn't exepected to be perfect because it's rare.
Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...