Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I was wondering if it was because the area on the left under the trees is too dark. If so, would it be worth my while to do some post processing?
Also, is there an optimum size for pictures? In general? By type?
Thanks in advance for your response!
Paul Hummel
I assume it was rejected for quality reasons, which you should indicate when you upload here for feedback. There are several notable issues: 1) underexposed shadows on the left; 2) perhaps over saturated; 3) artifacts in the sky; 4) a sensor spot / dust spot in the sky; 5) White Balance seems a bit too blue.
Definately the artifacts in the sky and the two sensor spots. Also the movement in the people in the front.
You should submit your photos as jpeg as large as possible.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I assume it was rejected for quality reasons, which you should indicate when you upload here for feedback. There are several notable issues: 1) underexposed shadows on the left; 2) perhaps over saturated; 3) artifacts in the sky; 4) a sensor spot / dust spot in the sky; 5) White Balance seems a bit too blue.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Definately the artifacts in the sky and the two sensor spots. Also the movement in the people in the front.
You should submit your photos as jpeg as large as possible.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
The sensor spots in the sky can be corrected. If you have a raw file, you could probably also correct the overprocessing and the "flat" look. But even with a perfect image, you would need to submit model releases for some of the persons in the image. So no, it is not worth to rework this.