Rejected due to quality issue

[michelperes]

Hi all,

My content is rejected for quality issues. 
I haven't changed anything in my way of working. 
So where is the problem ? 
What changed ?

[daniellei4510]

04 and 05, to me, are lacking in a dramatic flare that I personally like to see in landscape photography. In 05, using the Camera Raw Filter, I lowered the exposure, opened the shadows back up, intensified the greens. I randomly selected a sky using Photoshop's Sky Replacement filter (i.e., not necessarily the best one), but I wouldn't recommend using any of Photoshop's built-in sky pics. Start taking some sky photos of your own and create up an inventory to choose from.

Not suggesting my edits would result in getting accepted, but a more dramatic photo has a better chance in my opinion.

(Note: I had to reduce the file size to get this uploaded.)

[Jill_C]

In the first image, the focus is a bit soft and it's underexposed in the shadows which are deep black.

White balance is a bit too blue in the second image, and shadows underexposed.

Focus is soft in the third image.

[RALPH_L]

I agree withnthe others. Images need to be crisp, shadows and highlights need to be properly exposed, and the photos need flair. They need to stand out against the hundreds of thousands of photos already in the database. I think @daniellei4510 did a good interpretation of how editing can make this happen.

[Abambo]

Focus is OK on all pictures. I would work the exposure. A bit like proposed by @daniellei4510 . The sky replacement is not a must, however, a good sky helps adding to the drama. 

[ricky336]

In my view, the white balance needs to be corrected in all of them; they are a tad too blue/green.

Slight correction in exposure, and add a bit more contrast.

I think @daniellei4510 made a good point in making the photo a bit more dramatic. One could say—a blue sky is boring— so it's not a bad idea to make the sky a bit more interesting.