LuxLopt Rejection/Editing Advice

[LuxLopt]

Hello there.
I just received another result for an appeal I made on another one of my rejected photo. Take a look at the photo first:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7600243

So, here is what the admin rejected it for: "Picture looks too compressed and also slightly blurry. Regards "
1. Too compressed? Are you sure? All I did was resize it to fit the 1280px requirements. I did nothing else to it. Not to mention that it looks fine to me.
2. Slightly Blurry? Seriously? That is a joke! This photo is sharper than probably half of the accepted photos. Check out one of the most popular photos from today (I love the photo by the way!):

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9463977

I think this photo has some "slight blur" as well. Maybe even more than mine.

Seriously, its like you screeners are more eager to reject than accept. I follow all the guidelines the best I can, and I receive rejection reasons like this. What do you want, a hyper-boring photo of a white plane with a solid blue background? It seems like when I try anything but that, I just get rejected.
Hopefully you understand.
Thanks.

[jakew04]

mate if you got it rejected and then you appealed it and still got it rejected then there is a problem with the image just deal with it and move on it's not the end of the world.

[LuxLopt]

I am sick of this behavior.
That is why I am posting about it, not because it is the end of the world. I don't understand why they reject 85% of my photographs, many times for vague reasons.

[jakew04]

if your having trouble with your images go onto the prescreening forum and ask for advice. https://forums.jetphotos.com/forumdi...ocessing-Forum. Helps me out alot

[meeshboi]

Hello there.
I just received another result for an appeal I made on another one of my rejected photo. Take a look at the photo first:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7600243

So, here is what the admin rejected it for: "Picture looks too compressed and also slightly blurry. Regards "
1. Too compressed? Are you sure? All I did was resize it to fit the 1280px requirements. I did nothing else to it. Not to mention that it looks fine to me.
2. Slightly Blurry? Seriously? That is a joke! This photo is sharper than probably half of the accepted photos. Check out one of the most popular photos from today (I love the photo by the way!):

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9463977

I think this photo has some "slight blur" as well. Maybe even more than mine.

Seriously, its like you screeners are more eager to reject than accept. I follow all the guidelines the best I can, and I receive rejection reasons like this. What do you want, a hyper-boring photo of a white plane with a solid blue background? It seems like when I try anything but that, I just get rejected.
Hopefully you understand.
Thanks.

You can quite clearly see some compression, especially around the edges and around text. You may have exported it at the correct size, but your quality setting may have been set too low. If not, you may have used too much sharpening, which makes the photo look over processed.

[flying Doc]

Dear LuxLopt, as the previous uploaders have mentioned, there are indeed problems with your pic. It is compressed , it is blurry (all of the windows behind the wing), it is overprocessed (visaible editing halos above the plane) and furthermore, I can see three dust-spots in the sky , one right above the T of the watermark and one right above the front door in contact withthe J of the watermark and one left and above the nose.

So instead of citinhg other pics in order to prove you right (BTW the 727 is perfect, no blur at all), try to learn from your rejection and work on your editing.

Regards

Sotos (Screener)