|Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 5):|
In a recent thread there were complaints about quality rejections and their lack of specifics. The generic quality rejection, and I have seen plenty myself, says that there are faults, possibly minor and this image by Nucky is a good example.
At an instant glance it is a nice image and almost certainly a redeemable one.
There are several faults, all minor, but which contribute to a valid quality rejection.
As pointed out by Enrique it is slightly oversharp. Enough for a rejection on it's own ?
Probably not !
As Linco22 points out, the lighting is tricky. I see it as a touch dark and a quick play with the curve brightens it up beautifully. Would that being slightly too dark, be enough for a rejection on its own?
Perhaps, but perhaps not.
I am certain that if Lasham had got in before me he would have pointed out a slight green cast, probably not enough for a rejection on its own. I added a mere 7 units of Magenta and the cast went.
However, our lovely shot we started with now has three minor faults all of which TOGETHER add up to a quality rejection.
Now go away and put all three right and I am pretty sure that we will all be seeing it soon !
Perhaps a littlle insight into how I, a Screener in Training, would look at it may help explain this rejection.
Nucky, I hope this helps
|Quoting Acontador (Reply 7):|
But wouldn't it be possible to just add a personal saying "slightly oversharp, a touch dark, slight green cast" instead of just "quality", particularly in this case since it's a really nice pic?