I've been getting an unusual amount of "quality" rejections which I just don't understand. Not only are my original files good quality, but I haven't even cropped a lot before editing and uploading. I have been holding off about appealing and posting on the forum and whatnot but it's getting really frustrating since I have not changed my workflow or shooting technique. Better yet, some of the photos rejected for "bad quality" were taken in almost ideal conditions. I use a Canon 5D Mark II and 100-400 lens. So can someone explain what exactly you mean by quality?
I have the following two recent examples:
The F-15 shot, although backlit, had no issues with quality when viewed at original resolution. Indeed, it was also rejected for oversharpened and dark but that is separate from my issue in this thread. I simply don't see how you judge this "quality" criteria.
Quality was ticked again as a reason also citing "heat haze". True, there is haze on the inner flaps, gear and rear part of fuselage but the rest of the wing and front fuselage is exceptional quality in the original file. Whatever haze you see is 100% due to jetwash. I'm too lazy right now, but I can certainly find many examples on the site where half the aircraft is covered by jetwash, especially shots of fighter jets in burner.
Additionally this was marked as "level". Understandable and common rejection. But if the screener thinks it isn't level I'd like to know what vertical or horizontal references he used? Because there are none. The runway is bound to look "crooked" when viewed from such an angle from an elevated position. If I "level" the runway the mountain would look like the leaning tower of Piza.
If a screener would like me to send originals of some of my "quality" rejections I can gladly do it.