1 Correct answer
Hi Cynthia,
You need to tell us the rejection reason. My guess is “Technical issues”.
Your pictures are over processed (to saturated) and have multiple artefacts:
This extract of your first image seen at 200% shows that your processing (in camera processing?) destroyed image detail, probably because it was considered noise.
On your second image (also examined at 200%), I see chromatic aberration (arrow), blown out highlights (cloud) and generally noise.
The crests of the waves are blow
...
6
Replies
I would guess they were rejected for technical reasons. Both have underexposed shadows and overly saturated colours.
The first one also has issues along the treeline with fringing (probably from trying to deepen the blue colour of the sky and the autoselect also grabbed the tips of the trees.) The sky itself seems noisy.
Hi Cynthia,
You need to tell us the rejection reason. My guess is “Technical issues”.
Your pictures are over processed (to saturated) and have multiple artefacts:
This extract of your first image seen at 200% shows that your processing (in camera processing?) destroyed image detail, probably because it was considered noise.
On your second image (also examined at 200%), I see chromatic aberration (arrow), blown out highlights (cloud) and generally noise.
The crests of the waves are blown out and show no structure, the rest of the water is washed out, the water splashes on the rock are unusually geometrically confined.
The software has inserted geometric patterns in places.
All in all: the artefacts are typical for small sensor phone camera pictures, with in-camera processing to give a pleasing picture on the high contrast screens. As soon as you look at your pictures at 100% and 200%, you see countless imperfections. Each of them would trigger the refusal.
AdChoices