Thank you so much for your encouraging words!
What I normally do is like this ...
Step 1. Edit image in multiple layers, such as, erase dust spot, sharpen, etc.
Step 2. Just before flatten the layers, save the whole thing into a PSD file consisting of all information and those layers.
Step 3. Flatten the layers, and save the image as JPG file, and upload it.
Why I want to do step 2 that seems like an extra step is just for some rejections. This is the best example. PSD file could save many more information than JPG. So, PSD normally is many times bigger than JPG. For example, this rejection image's PSD file is 4.84 MB
, but JPG is only 404 KB
. The first rejection was caused by a dust spot. I reopened that PSD file, and went back to the layer where the dust spot is, erased the dirt spot by Healing Tool. After doing that, I flattened the layers again, and saved it as JPG file.
I know if I continued editing on JPG file, the image quality would definitely be compromised. That's why I never do that. Instead, I did continue editing on PSD file. And by the steps I mentioned above, I can't see any quality issue that could be triggered by my editing PSD file, or I should say I can't see any difference between editing from scratch and editing from that PSD file.
Maybe I guess the screener who rejected my second image took a look of my first rejection, and speculated I could have been editing on that JPG file, and rejected the second one again for quality. But that is not right. I think the quality issue should be really identified, instead of being speculated. Or, at least, I should be told by more specific information about this quality rejection. How could the photographer improve his skills by knowing nothing but one word - quality? I, of course, anticipate any other rejection reasons coming along with 'quality', which would be more helpful than now.
So, I still expect to see more comments on this rejection, telling me where and what the quality problem is.
P.S. Anyway, still many thanks, Matt!