Screening thousands of shots, most screeners can spot where a problem is on a shot.
Many of the rejections I would reject fall in the "easy rejection" category.
That is... the problem was so obvious, a seasoned uploaded would be able to spot it without a problem. These are usually rejection the first time a screener sees them.
Some of the rejections fall in the "so-so/fence sitting category". These shots are generally commented on by many screeners until a decision is made.
Likewise some rejection reasons are crystal clear....
Bad angle is obvious. Bad motiv is even obvious if you know what to look for.
Bad quality is a hard rejection reason to explain, but after a while it's easy to spot.
The start of the rejection reason is:
The image quality of these photos is low. This may be the result of several
perceived problems happening simultaneously, such as grain, blur, lighting,
contrast or color defects, which would lead us to believe that a fresh scan
(in the case of a non-digital image) or a complete rework starting with the
original camera file (in the case of a digitally taken image)would be necessary,
rather than a simple adjustment to the uploaded file.
Bad quality is simply a rejection applied when there are enough overall appearance issues with the photo.
When one selects a shot for editing and uploading, one should look at the overall quality of the shot. I kick myself everytime the most dramatic shot/best shot of the day, is also the one that no matter how much I edit it, it still has "something" wrong about it.
If it's bad quality, take another look at the original - or the method used to scan or edit.
Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...