From a screener's point of view, the "dirt & levels" give an immediate bad impression. It certainly changes my attitude towards a pic from "Looks OK, I'll accept this unless I see another problem" to "I don't want to accept this unless its really special".
The thing is, these are both aspects of a pic which are totally in the control of the photographer to rectify. Do people realise how important this sort of thing is? Never mind the screeners, this attention to detail is exactly the kind of thing which makes or breaks photo sales - except in special circumstances no decent magazine is going to publish anything less than pictures which are close to perfection from a technical point of view.
Also, I wonder why anyone would want to publicly display anything less than the best they can do - granted this changes over time, and I'm sure many of us cringe looking at our old pics.
There are certain photographers contributing to A.net who would find their acceptance rate sky-rocket is they just spent an extra few minutes in an image editor tidying the picture up.
As to these particular pics, I think they would scrape in on "rarity" - with a bit of work, most would get in on their own merits. Is their any particular reason for submitting at this size? Resizing down to the more standard 1024 x 768 would probably enhance sharpness and reduce grain.
Colin K. Work, Pixstel