to dlowwa:
There are cases when picture appearing well, as one picture of UAL B777 rejected the original post for " too much or too little contrast", corrected the contrast and re-uploaded, than rejected with a diff. reason (not sure right now about what) > appealed and merely got "appeal rejected".
Also, few months ago I was limited to a max. of 1280 pixles and immediatelly after recieved multi-rejections with JPEG-Compression. An issue I could not solve until nowadays. My argument was that as a result of the 1280 limit, I found myself in such a situation that one picture (an example to this) of B747 reg. 4K-SW008, with a slight compression rejected with no explanation, just saying "JPEG Compression".
( as told you before I do not use Photoshop, I take pictures with RAW at 20+MB and process on Canon DPP 4.0 which is great - but as said, only recently encountered with multiple-isuues of JPEG Compression).
Hope to be active again, when I will "decipher" the way out of this issue.
Sincerely,
Ike Harel
There are cases when picture appearing well, as one picture of UAL B777 rejected the original post for " too much or too little contrast", corrected the contrast and re-uploaded, than rejected with a diff. reason (not sure right now about what) > appealed and merely got "appeal rejected".
Also, few months ago I was limited to a max. of 1280 pixles and immediatelly after recieved multi-rejections with JPEG-Compression. An issue I could not solve until nowadays. My argument was that as a result of the 1280 limit, I found myself in such a situation that one picture (an example to this) of B747 reg. 4K-SW008, with a slight compression rejected with no explanation, just saying "JPEG Compression".
( as told you before I do not use Photoshop, I take pictures with RAW at 20+MB and process on Canon DPP 4.0 which is great - but as said, only recently encountered with multiple-isuues of JPEG Compression).
Hope to be active again, when I will "decipher" the way out of this issue.
Sincerely,
Ike Harel
Comment