Maybe the reviewer didn't realize the significance of the star shape. Maybe they thought it wasn't a naturally occurring phenomenon. For what it's worth, I don't care for the lighting in either photo. They both have harsh, on-camera flash look that I dislike.
I know what you mean. Both fotos are the result of kind of a chance meeting and I had no external flash with me. At first I myself was not happy with the reflections and made several trys with diffrent distances as a kind of experiment. These were the best shots in my opinion. But if this would be the point the second picture should have been rejected having the stronger effect.
So still I have the feeling that a big part of the judgements is a matter of fortune who judges your picture, not only of accurately defined criteria...
Thanks for your answer!
With something as subjective as photography, it's always going to be the fortune of who judges it! You can always try resubmitting, I guess.
That´s an interesting point. I wasn´t sure if this is tolerated or regarded as breach of the rules or kind of cheating or something. Thanks for your help!
I submitted a photo of fishing boats on the coastline of Buzios Brazil and it was rejected for "Aesthetic or Commercial Appeal"
Dare I ask that you search for clouds to discover what is required to meet the fickled standard.
Another interesting point of confusion is that cars and trucks are almost always rejected but a boat or an airplane devoid of any logo is perfectly OK.
Respectfully, "Aesthetic or Commercial Appeal" rejection reason is completely bogus. Example -- I had San Diego beach landscape rejected for this reason on Adobe; that same image sold for $89 (of which I got 50% -- 44.50 net) on different agency. So much for "Lack of Commercial appeal"
It is left to the liking of reviewer & thus totally individual. IMHO it should not exist & QA done for technical / property only.
If you think image is good, simply resubmit. Bottom line