My rejection problems are only with IS - mostly for "over filtered" and "artifacts". It's very typical for me to have an image accepted everywhere - even Crestock - only to have IS reject it.
Who was it who said "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen"?
Let's face it, assessing an image is a hugely subjective affair.
Photos accepted at SS are being rejected at IS for that? I look and I see nothing. Its really annoying because I'll have some photos accepted that are less exciting but the narrow-minded reviewer cannot look past these phantom 'pixels' to see the better picture.Yes, and because you don't see it, then it must not be there.
I'm just going to continue to upload them with minor tweaks until they get accepted, because its a bit ridiculous.
This is a typical reject from IS for me: "over filtered".
Sure it's a bit saturated, and there's added whitespace, but is it really under IS standards?([url]http://www.strathdee.net/temp/red-maple-leaves.jpg[/url])
So why is it that your yellow one was accepted, and my red one wasn't. A bias towards red, perhaps?
As you've requested I've taken another look at image number 4616508 which was rejected due to artifacting. There is a bit of artifacting the satin but most of it is in the flowers particularly in the outline of the shapes.
... I don't know however how much is actually artifacting and how much is the orchid's texture ...I frequently get "artifact" rejects from IS - I think in my case it's because I shoot with such a hi-res camera that reviewers aren't accustomed to seeing stuff so close up. I shrug it off and try again ... that's about all you can do, I suppose.
Scout takes so long that I no longer bother using that service. If I feel strongly about a rejected image I simply resubmit it - sure, it uses up a valuable upload slot, but it (hopefully) gets on the site far quicker that way.