PHOTO: Car. Isolation. Possible to contact inspector?

I don't know if this is possible, but is there any way I can ask the inspector of my file # 22421375 a question or get more details on why it keeps being rejected?


It was rejected for "The execution of isolation contains stray areas that are either too feathered or rough." which is pretty vague to begin with. So I touched up the only area that I could find which might cause a rejection of that type and also put a note in the re-submission, asking if that was the area in question. 


However, it was rejected again for the same reason and the inspector only included the note **2nd review**


Thank you, I am aware this is the second time but I don't know exactly why it was rejected the first time.


I could sumbit to Scout to get it approved.  But when I have gone this route in the past, every time the file finally gets approved a month or so later, it gets FAR less views and MUCH slower downloads than if it were approved by an inspector. (Scout overrides must not rank high in BM results?)


Is there any way to get a more descriptive reply from the inspector?


It can be frustrating taking shots in the dark...


 

(Edited on 2012-12-04 08:01:08 by kelvinjay)

Short answer is no. And your resubmission won't necessarily go to the same inspector anyway. If you'd like an insight, please post a link to the full size jpeg here and we can take a look. Instructions are in the sticky thread at the top of this forum.

The best thing to do is post a high res version here in the critque forum to help answer the questions of the rejection.


You cannot get in contact with the inspectors. 

Ok, thanks.  Here is a link to the high resolution image: http://schlol.com/DSC_4127_web.jpg


Looking forward to someone pointing out anything that I am missing

(Edited on 2012-12-04 10:29:53 by schlol)

The tryes and the underneath of the car look fake - the tyes for example have very dark edges so look unrealistic when dropped onto white, even with you drop-shadow added. You would expect the lighting and the reflections on the car to tie in with the white background but they don't. The tyres in particular also need a bit more feathering, IMHO.

The background showing through the windows is not white, there is also a bit of non-white background at the front of the car.
To see this, use the photoshop flood-fill tool with tolerance=0, contiguous off, and fill the background with red.

Agree, shadown on bottom and tires is not working. Also you have trees showing in the sideview mirror as well as the rear view. Also on the bottom where the springs are and the top of the bumper. The car is scratched up and could be cleaned up too.

I'll give the mirrors, front background, rear spring and tires some attention and see if that helps. thanks


As for the glass, automotive glass is ever so slightly tinted. I was sure to replicate that when placing the car on a white background.  The car is meant to look old and used daily. The chips, rust, scratches, dull paint etc. are a current trend in the American hot rod scene - love it or hate it

You also left part on the background (grass) in under the car between the rear wheels.