On The Summer Dew


Hi guys!

Few days ago I submitted the following image to Showcase Gallery, but received this message:
" Your image currently does not meet the general quality level of the Showcase Gallery. There could be a number of different reasons, but generally, images are rejected due to artistic or technical problems. "

What do you think about the image? Any c&c?

Thanks a lot for your help!



Looks great! I totally cannot understand by this is rejected.

The auto reply are rather poor in my view, reject due either to artistic or technical reasons, as opposed to? & what do you mean by technical reasons?

In any case, I hope someone could help. At the same time, you may considered posting to other sites.


i think it lacks environment and looks too real. i would recommend to make it look a bit unrealistic.


Well it’s an autoreply so it has to cover all possible eventualities. What kind of autoreply would you like to see? And sadly yes, it has to be an autoreply, we get hundreds of submissions every week and don’t get paid to process them. And for certain other more basic errors we do have other replies we use.

This image is very beautiful, I didn’t vote on it myself so I have no knowledge of why it was voted down. If the purpose of the image was to show a macroscopic shot of beautiful nature with high realism, I think you have succeeded, and I have no crits to give, except the spider web is too thin, and maybe experiment with some more contrasty more dramatic lighting. See reference here:


I understand autoreply rational, but the point is, the autoreply isn’t helpful in a meaningful way. Maybe a simple checkbox system (where you can check more than one item). Surely it shouldn’t take too long.

  1. Incomplete (one or few areas feel incomplete)
  2. Poor render quality, please improve render quality & try resummit
  3. Composition can be improve, suggest make WIP thread to seek critics
  4. Description does not convey the image well enough. Please revise description.
  5. Posture (character specific), need improvement, either too simplify, unnatural, or just have no posture.
  6. Suspicious of photo manipulation. Please summit with links to prove your work.

Keep it simple & have max 10 check-box. At least people have some ideas where to improve.


I can not say why it was rejected. I did not reject it either.


Thanks guys for you replies!

Thank you for your kind comment, I am really glad you liked the image.
Regarding spiderweb, I’m not joking when I say it was the hardest part to visualize best in the globality of the image.
First it was thinner compared to the final version, because of photo references and - more than this - because it is a side detail: it has to be “soft looking” but it’s a necessary element for me.
Finally I decided to make web thicker because it was really next to invisible (and - aesthetically speaking - I did not want to fill it with a lot of small drops).

Regarding lights, you did an useful chritic. I could work a bit more on postproduction for making it more dramatic.

(these are the references I used for “small” spiderwebs:




Thank you for your clarification.

I hope lildragon will share his point too!

Thank you all again for your time


one question. how many judges are here to vote for the showcase gallery?


Hi guys,
I worked a bit more on colours and lighting - like Stahlberg suggested me - but the image was rejected again.
Is it possible to know who is the admin that voted it,and the reason why he rejected the image again?


edit: you can see the updated image in my portfolio


From a technical level, there is no reason to reject at all. I think maybe the judges thought this is photo manipulation.

Its always a good idea to pose (or have a link) to wires or clay renders as well etc. to proved that the work is done by you and not a photo manipulation. Maybe as well as a short description on the tools used.


I can show you all the wires you want, maybe you are right.
Do you think I should reupload the image with wires?

It’s not possible to be rejected two times only because you did not attached wires in your description, it’s a personal decision. And if judges are doubtful - also because it’s the second rejection - they should ask you to show them some wires before rejecting again.


I didn’t vote on that image, but if I were to give you a critique for it that would help make it stronger, I’d say I agree with Steven–it could use stronger modeling of form from the lighting, so that it’s not as flat looking. The composition could also be better–the overall visual design isn’t very interesting in terms of contrast of focal area vs. supporting area. I don’t know if you’ve studied composition seriously before, but if you haven’t, it’ll definitely help if you studied composition, as analyze really great compositions and deconstruct what makes them brilliant in their visual design of overall arrangement of shapes, values, colors, edges, focal points, eye-leading, contrasting elements, etc.


Thank you for your reply Lunatique.
I agree with your point, but does this image seriously deserve a rejection?

I mean, composition could not be at its best - it’s really subjective - but it’s not casual, I worked on.
In my opinion, colors, elements position and DoF are working well together, they are well merged and balanced. And the system butterfly/lilly are obviously the focal point of the image.

I cannot believe this is the reason for the rejection, because the composition is not Orrible, neither bad. I can absolutely assert the same for the technical part of it.

Don’t you think the same? Do you think composition is so bad for being the cause of the double rejection?

I’m Absolutely Not safeguarding or protecting my image.
I’m only trying to understand.

Thank you again, and please feel free to suggest me the title of the best composition book/s on which you have studied/worked on.


I probably would have accepted the image if I got to vote on it. Like I have mentioned in the past, the judges do not agree with each other all the time, so even if I would have accepted it, it doesn’t mean whoever rejected it would agree.

I have openly expressed my disagreement with the current gallery voting system–it is problematic and needs to be revamped, and CGS is working on it right now as we speak. I’ve had many discussions with them about the need to improve it, and they’re finally taking action to revamp the system. The change that’s coming will do away with the voting/acceptance/rejection system altogether, and use a editor’s choice/spotlight system instead. No more rejections. Your images in your portfolio will simply get chosen to be featured if they are excellent.


Ok, I think the images should be voted by more admins (for ex. three), and not by only one.
But I can understand it could be hard for you because you have a big amount of work to do.

I have openly expressed my disagreement with the current gallery voting system–it is problematic and needs to be revamped, and CGS is working on it right now as we speak. I’ve had many discussions with them about the need to improve it, and they’re finally taking action to revamp the system. The change that’s coming will do away with the voting/acceptance/rejection system altogether, and use a editor’s choice/spotlight system instead. No more rejections. Your images in your portfolio will simply get chosen to be featured if they are excellent.

Does this mean Showcase Gallery will disappear?
I find it quite useful and really interesting, there are a lot of good images in here.

Thank you again for your reply


It takes two votes to accept/reject a submission, not one.

I think the showcase gallery will still exist, but it’ll be more like an “editor’s choice/spotlight” kind of approach instead of a submission system. So basically, you don’t need to submit anything anymore. The people behind the scenes will simply pick the images they think are excellent and featuring them. (This my understanding right now, and what I’ve suggested to them, but we won’t know exactly what the system will be in detail until it’s finished and tested.)


Ah it’s ok, I thought you were speaking about Choice Gallery.

It takes two votes to accept/reject a submission, not one.

Last question to you on this issue. What happens now when one of them accepts the image and the other not?
I would really like to hear their opinion (I still don’t know who voted on my image, because you, Stahlberg and Putterfish did not voted/would have accepted it probably), I think it could be useful for me (and, maybe, for them too) to have their opinion in this thread.

Cheers, mate.


Hi Lunatique, its clear that when there is a judging system, especially on something subjective like art, there will be a little inconsistency, controversy by eyes of people here.

One of the bias that many people here think (not unnecessary true) is bias towards characters.

Often we see characters in the still gallery with next to no expression, minimal/no posture, let alone composition. Also often there are inconsistency in the work, often very details face, but very simplified clothings that are of much lower level. But this seems ok to judges.

What I heard before, was that the judges will not reject an image if it is of a high technical level, which seems fair enough, except when it comes to non character, especially still life like what ramonesFan have, cars, some electronics, or even someone room, the requirement seems much much tougher.

It need to be interesting, compositional good, tonal good, etc, on top of technically good.

I recognize that most people here like characters, judging from replies to a character centric showcase, compare to still life. probably more if its a sexy woman.

I am cool with that, but at least, make the requirements clear when submission time.

The advice I usually give to someone who I think have a good showpiece (that is non character) is to post it somewhere else too, e.g, post it on a 3D car showcase gallery on a car centric forum, or architecture image on a architecture centric forum…& this is coming from someone that work mainly on characters. They are also maybe more likely to get more views, opinions, & replies anyway compare to here, as in my opinion most people prefer characters more here, at least in the 3D section anyway.


It then returns to a rejection status and if it gets another rejection vote it will be rejected. Or, if it gets an accept vote it will return to an accept status, awaiting another yay/nay vote.

I may be one of the down voters on this one, though I’m not 100% sure since we go through lots of images at any given time, and unfortunately most do get rejected and we don’t see everything that goes through. I saw it in the queue and as someone who did tons of insect macro photography in the past, and appreciates a good bug pic, I was curious about it. The reason I wasn’t too impressed (and not impressed with most 3d butterfly profile images) is the main focal area driving the image’s aesthetic appeal is essentially, in most cases, clipped photographs of butterfly wings on simple placards of the wing shape. This is the case with your Spotted Fritillary, as well. 90% of the butterfly is a photograph, which is the glory of the work. The remainder is covered in poorly handled 3d hair (especially in comparison to the hair work on your Spotted Fritillary). The image does have a sense of photographic realism, but in the wrong direction, IMO. It looks like a poor photo with too much contrast conflict between the background and foreground elements. That lens bloom/glare at the upper left adds to the problem. The overall image gives me the feel of an old Kodachrome slide, without the dust and scratches. Many people (not you in particular) claim the Artsy defense, and in most cases all that destructive cheap lens aberration, faux film grain and overuse of shallow DOF, etc., really does is masks poor craftsmanship (in a lot of cases)—in the name of “art”. Yes, I’m hyper critical of 3d work and usually won’t vote on some of it. When I do down vote something that I feel others may not feel the same way about, they usually overturn my vote anyway. That’s the way it should work. So in this case, if in fact I did eventually give this piece a nay vote (whether first or last call), others or at the very least someone else seemed to have agreed with me, especially since this happened twice. I did not know this was submitted twice as I don’t see everything that goes through.

Having said all that, I’m with Robert on getting rid of the current system all together and going with an editor’s image highlight system.

Resubmit the image again. The 3rd time may be the charm.


Hi Quadart, your point is really interesting.

I agree with you regarding the image treatment, maybe the colors could remember the lomo’s but it was not intentional. In fact I did not put grain or expired-film effects/aberrations.
I definitely agree with you about the glare, it will disappear.

But I absolutely cannot agree with you regarding the butterfly issue, this because the texture I used for the wings had been photographed and edited by me, my Sigma 180 macro and Photoshop (colors flattening, highlights removing, etc.), then placed into Material Editor and processed again on the other channels (bump, displ, refl). I did not used “shortcuts” in modeling neither in texturing, in fact I could render the butterfly in any angle I want.
Regarding the hairs, I did not understand if you liked it or not. I can tell you I combed and fixed the hair system according to different butterfly references.

Resubmit the image again. The 3rd time may be the charm.

Don’t understand (seriously) if you wrote this for fun or something else.
The second time I re-uploaded the image I did not do it on a whim. I did it following Stahlberg suggestions and self-moved critics.
If I will re-upload it the third time, would be after a good period of adjustments and fixes, according to your and others comments/critics.
I’m not a kid or a fool, my attempt is to understand the reason why an image was rejected and - if it’s possible - trying to refine it at my best.

Thank you for your time