had this rejected - reason Artifacts problem.
There is no problem the main center area is fine, no artifacts whatsoever.
The outside has intentional grain around the outer edges.
It was done this way to illustrate nitrogen bubbles being released from the body.
I suspect these are reviewed by some software not an actual person because its very obviouse the grain was intentional.
Hello camw56987481, This is a darn good work of art - creative, beautiful and fun. However, I looked at this at over 100% magnification and saw areas I would have to clean up before any printing of it could take place. Are you looking at your art at large magnification - look at it at 200%. How might this work be integrated into anyone's advertisement campaign? Artifacts appear for texture and grain for that look but not easily changed or adjusted for commercial print matter without many hours of reworking.
If you have not looked at the guidelines for contributors you must. Plain work is better for sale than complex work. I take this powerful sort of work to a gallery printed on canvas and maybe framed. Best wishes, JH
tagproducts_SG_STOCK-CONTRIBUTOR_i18nKeyHelppagetitle Click/tap on each of the links to the left menu; read up on all the relevant topics, and reference links.
And watch this video by Matt. From Shoot to Sale: Part 1 | Adobe Blog
Great image, but I agree with the moderator and Joan.
I’m not in a moderators head, but I would refuse the image because of this:
This artifacts do not look intentional and if, they are simply not at their place.
Image moderation is done by humans. And they are very good in detecting small flaws in pictures.
Should the edges be smooth and not jagged? Here the edges are jagged.
There do seem to be signs of artifacts that don't seem to be intentional...
It appears a bit blotchy... maybe the reviewer was thinking of this...