Hey all,
This was rejected from inclusion in the 2d gallery for unspecified quality reasons. I may be too close to the pic after looking at it for so long, and need some fresh eyes to point me to aspects of the pic that don’t meet an acceptable standard. Thanks in advance!
Jeff
I have no idea why this is rejected. I haven’t been contributing to the judging process in the last month or so since I’ve been extremely busy with looking for a new home to move into. If I had seen this in the cue, I would have voted for it. I’ll ask the other judges why this was rejected–but no guarantee that they’ll give an answer though.
Hey all, thanks for the positives. Robert, good luck with the home search, I know how consuming that process is. If you are going to incur the ire of your judging peers, feel free to let things stand as they are. If you give it a go, thanks in advance.
Cheers,
Jeff
I see no reason why your painting was not included in the Gallery, looks amazing and high quality. I was going to post a similar thread here due to my submission being rejected today as well, your post made me feel better, lol. (here’s mine, I hope I’m not high-jacking your thread: my rejected painting )
If the submission quality is getting higher (from the looks of it, much higher if even yours got rejected), that’s fine, but providing a general reason would be nice, nothing specific, a one liner would put the rejected artist (especially in this case, a high quality piece with hours if not days of work put into it) at ease, like say “don’t like your style” or “you could do better” 
Actually, that would just enrage a lot of people. I don’t know if you’ve read all the indignant posts by artists that’s gotten rejected in the past, but they often demanded to have detailed explanations as to exactly what wasn’t good enough about their work. We deal with hundreds of submissions constantly, there’s just no way we can spare the time to write even one-liner rejection notes.
Lunatique, that’s true, even if it’s a joke, it’s a bad one cos some one might take it seriously. I totally forgot about the past enraged artists that was rejected, it was so long ago, and this current post is so civilized 
For my part I respect the process and this site. A professional needs a thick skin, so I was certainly not offended, just puzzled. Hence this thread.
Looking at the piece this morning, I see some things I might do that would improve it, like a little more information about the valley flora and terrain and a crisper rendering of the night sky. Though of course there was a theme I followed in reducing information there in order to increase focus on the figure, there is perhaps too sharp a drop-off into nebulosity and I will play with that happily. A few other things jump out, and though small (the back covers of the books are starting to look like a missed opportunity) combined could make the piece more satisfying and pleasing through numerous views. Also, the jpeg looks a little squished, and maybe I was not careful enough dropping the size down (it is poster size in the original).
I appreciate the comments. Cheers, and happy Monday to all!
Funny, the oil version of this has addressed those items I mentioned. The subconscious at work!
Wait. Did you submit a digital version or an oil version of the painting? Because if you submitted the oil version, then of course you got rejected–this site has always been digital works only. 
Oops. In reading my description, one (say, an English language reader) could get the idea that what I posted was an oil, though I labeled my software as Painter.
I quote my description:
“Started in Painter and finished in oil over several days.”
What that means is, I took the Painter version, reduced it to sepia, printed it on rag paper and used it as a monochrome underpainting a la Ingres. You will have to see THAT version live, because my several attempts to photograph it sucked.
I f this is the issue, I may just clean up the explanation a bit and resubmit, though I am leaning heavily on addressing the areas I noted above in my self-critique before I do so.
Sheesh, what a maroon!
The end result has to be digital. The process you described, is basically an oil painting that had its layout done digitally, but it’s still technically an oil painting.
If your process had been reversed, then it would have been okay (such as doing the initial layout or painting in oils, then scanned/photographed and worked on more substantially in digital).
This is why I paint and not write! What i submitted was the Painter version, sweet clear digital.
What I intended was to say I took that version and made it an oil, which I now consider to be the last version, though until I can get a professional photographer in to shoot it, it will remain visible only to those who go to shows it is in and folks who visit the house. A classic case of TMI without a good editor.
Once more, the version I submitted is digital. There is an oil version I did using the digital as a sepia underpainting. That version will remain super secret safe until I can get a pro to take a competent photo of it.
I should have paid attention in comp 101.
Ahh, gotcha.
In that case, we’re back to square one. No response from the other judges so far. I’ll let you know if any of them responds.
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.
