I am not often one to enter into negative debate when it comes to screening and before anyone shouts me down I have said in the past and still belive the screeners do a fantastic job under difficult circumstances.
However I have just had a large batch of images rejected for badsize, not a rejection method I have come across before now.
I upload my images at 1000x because I know many people who visit a.net and view images and use 1024x768 screen resolution and once in the db an image of 1000x fits exactly onto the screen with no left-right scroll bar at the bottom hence the reason I upload at 1000x.
A while ago I got some badborders rejections and I was given advice that after sharpening the boarders can appear so I took the step of resizing images to about 1010x then cropping to 1000x to remove any borders which may exist.
The reason I bring the matter up is that the vast majority of my rejection images for badsize turned out to be 999x, one at 998x and one at 997x.
The rejection method reads:-
" Please scan your photos about 1000
pixels wide and at least 667 pixels high for landscape format photos"
I know if you take the letter of the law they are under 1000x but between 1 and 3 pixels under! Thats not like uploading at 950x or similar.
Now if the screeners have no choice when an image is below 1000x then I am sorry for this post but I just want to say I do think that 1 pixel difference is a little harsh and would it not have been more fair to have accepted but with a warning for next time?
As I say this is not in anyway a dig at the screeners and their time/work I just feel this time a touch hard done by, I will know for next time now!
Could I also get a little help with this rejection
It got badcolour and I am colourblind which sometimes hinders my ability when editing so if someone could let me know what colour is bad and what I need to do to correct the image (if possible) I would be most greatful
[Edited 2005-06-07 23:27:16]