I have mulled over whether to post this for a few days now but I am pretty annoyed by this one.
Whilst I appreciate that screeners have different eyes and opinions I feel that the following displays and unacceptable level of inconsistency.
The following image was rejected for contrast:-
I re-edited and uploaded again.
It was rejected soft. I appealed and the rejection was upheld soft - Why was this not in the original rejection - OK I can accept this, different monitors, calibration etc - are the screeners all using their LCD's now?
So I re-edit the image and it is rejected blurry! I appeal and state that the image was first rejected for contrast, then soft, soft on appeal and now blurry.
On appeal the decision is upheld "Blurry" and I get a message that I should be more consistent with my editing.
Surely if the image was that crap and out of focus the initial rejection should have been contrast, soft, blurry.
Whilst everyone has different eyes and opinions surely the head screeners who are top of the screening food chain should have rejected it for blurry and not soft at first appeal.
Soft can be remidied, OOF cannot.
I accept now after 3 attempts and 2 appeals that the image is crap and not for here but am very annoyed that an appeal to head screeners resulted in a Soft rejection, I then waste another upload only to be told OOF and blurry.
I don't care for acceptance ratio's but just lately I have had more rejections than ever and nothing has changed with my post processing.