Hi all...
I'm not sure if I am the only one with the following opinion, would be interested to get your reactions: jp.net is in my opinion applying a very reasonable screening policy I believe, I can get pictures hosted here that I find interesting enough to share, without them being 100% perfect in quality. I'll be open about this, I have 128 pics on this site, and 73 on a.net. I believe that is also the philosophy of this site, rather than attempting to offer a database with only the very best quality shots. Some of my best shots (in my personal view) are only hosted here, as the quality was not good enough for the other site.
That's why I don't understand how harsh the screening often is for lighting issues, knowing what kind of other "defects" often get accepted without any comments.
I had the following shot rejected and subsequently appeal-rejected. I understand people may find it not very nice (I wasn't expecting a Screener's Choice!) but I honestly don't see anything so wrong that jp doesn't want it, especially considering some other things I've got accepted here in the past. The comment I received back from the screeners, saying it would be nicer with low sun, is something I disagree with as well, as the colours can only be as vivid as they currently are with a high sun.
reject ID 859182 (apparently the link doesn't work)? It's a plane overhead at 2PM in the afternoon, hence the top of the plane is lit by the sun, the bottom is shaded but you see the detail of both and the colours are natural. Hardly what I would consider "backlit".
It's no big deal, but I'm just curious to understand...
I'm not sure if I am the only one with the following opinion, would be interested to get your reactions: jp.net is in my opinion applying a very reasonable screening policy I believe, I can get pictures hosted here that I find interesting enough to share, without them being 100% perfect in quality. I'll be open about this, I have 128 pics on this site, and 73 on a.net. I believe that is also the philosophy of this site, rather than attempting to offer a database with only the very best quality shots. Some of my best shots (in my personal view) are only hosted here, as the quality was not good enough for the other site.
That's why I don't understand how harsh the screening often is for lighting issues, knowing what kind of other "defects" often get accepted without any comments.
I had the following shot rejected and subsequently appeal-rejected. I understand people may find it not very nice (I wasn't expecting a Screener's Choice!) but I honestly don't see anything so wrong that jp doesn't want it, especially considering some other things I've got accepted here in the past. The comment I received back from the screeners, saying it would be nicer with low sun, is something I disagree with as well, as the colours can only be as vivid as they currently are with a high sun.
reject ID 859182 (apparently the link doesn't work)? It's a plane overhead at 2PM in the afternoon, hence the top of the plane is lit by the sun, the bottom is shaded but you see the detail of both and the colours are natural. Hardly what I would consider "backlit".
It's no big deal, but I'm just curious to understand...
Comment