Hmmmm, this is getting silly. You sound like a spoiled child, whining when he doesn't get what he wants.
>you say things the way they really are,
>but things that are not supposed to be said
Yes, you're quite a hero, aren't you...
>The notice should state why the photo was rejected,
>specifically, not a generic form letter.
I am fully aware of that the message can be improved on and I am working on that. I am not getting paid teaching you about photography though and I refuse to be your teacher. If you want me to give you detailed info on what you're doing wrong and how to fix it, well sorry, that won't happen. I run a website. A website that is a hobby of mine and a SERVICE NOT A RIGHT. If you want to better your photo skills, take a course in photography or something.
>Here's the fixed link to some of my first shots.
>Others coming soon. click
Hmmmm, the photos are, in my opinion, of very poor quality. They are horribly blurry and dark. I'm sure you've heard that already though in the automatic confirmation message you got. Now you want me to tell you WHY they are poor? How the hell should I know?? It can be caused by your camera, your scanner, your photo technics, your bad ass attitude or a combination thereof. The only one that can improve them is you. If you think that I'm wrong, that's fine, go start your own site. I can't give you any special favours just because you whining that wouldn't be fair to the others.
>They were most likely rejected because Johan had no
>need for more Swissair MD-11s sitting at a gate, or
>need for more commutor props.
>The fact that they were not added is not grounds for
>complaint. What is grounds for complaint is if you got
>a rejection notice telling you that your shots were
>NOT ADDED because of "poor image quality".
There's about 15 different rejection reasons right now and I'm working on making it 20. Those are the most common 20 reasons for rejection. If non of those cut it, I can write a "personal comment" describing what's wrong. If the photos you're talking about were rejected because of the scan quality, that's what the automatic mail will say. If there was another reason, that will be included instead. Clear?
>I think Johan should help the photographer by
>indicating why he felt that the shot did not deserve to
This is actually what I'm trying to do, even though the "teacher" comment above still stands. The more detail the automatic email can contain, the better. As mentioned, the reasons for a poor photo are not easy for me to know but I believe I should work to get the messages to, in more detail than now, explain WHY they are rejected.