I don't understand why it was deleted...

I want more details (another stupid decision of moderator ? or what this time ? ).

I'm not the one who deleted it, but I can tell you right away that the use of an unmodified stock photo for a background will get any wallpaper deleted.

The photo was modified (not too much but WAS).

The re-submission of this wallpaper wasn't much different. It is clearly a stock-photo background that has been run through a filter several times to make it look vectored.

Filter-whoring like this will always be deleted.

No, it didn't have to look vectored.

merged: 11-25-2007 ~ 06:37pm
Oh and I don't want to know details about re-submission but about the first one.

I wasn't the one who deleted it (if it was me, you'd get a detailed description your PM).

As far as I'm concerned, I agree with whoever deleted this wallpaper.

1) extraction.
Okay, you didn't have to extract it perfectly and you did a good job at doing so with a fluffy eraser, but generally you should avoid this. Because it's not blending her into the background even with the soft edges.

2) blending
The background and the scan aren't blended despite the fluffiness I was talking about before. The scan and the background are two different hues: one is yellow hued and the background is more blue hued.
From a conceptual perspective, I can't tell if you are trying to make her seem to be an image protruding out of a landscape, or if you are putting her image over the landscape. It's not clear.

3) concept
What has the background got to do with the original scan? I don't have a description of your intentions so I can't tell. But it's not blended and while I can see why you picked the background because of the title, I don't see how she comes out of that. A snow beauty, in my opinion would be icy, blue, or amazingly pure and white. But she's yellow and warm.
It maybe would have worked if she was sticking out of the snow and without the trees in the background: the proportions are throwing the idea off course.

4) Filtering
Yes, you modified the stock, but it really depends on the extent to which you have filtered it. I can see noise and perhaps one or two of the artistic filters have been used, but other than that, not much has been done to keep the consistency of the anime art of the scan, or not much as been done to the scan to keep with the consistency of the realness of the stock. They both just have these noisy dots over them to create an overall texture, but other than that they don't match in style.

I hope that is enough reason for you.

Quote:
poor extraction, including obvious and apparent scan extraction edges,*
doodles, or other items exhibiting obvious poor planning,
blurriness,
extreme pixilation,
enlarging of original scan image,
no effort in integrating the background and foreground,*
"brush-whore" or "filter-whore," depending on overall quality, *
"ghosting," the use of a character image on low opacity in the background,
collages of small scan images without visible effort at composition or incorporation, or
lack of effort in any area.

* We're not saying that you did these in a very poor manner like what the policy suggests; nobody is saying that you didn't put effort into this wallpaper either. From an artist's perspective (and less of a moderator's perspective), there were just so many other things you could have done to refine this wallpaper. But there have been things that seem to be half done or just half way there to something that could be totally awesome.

My two cents.

That what i wanted to hear/read, full description and some reasons (You didn't deleted it but You wrote a lot about the reason why it was deleted and thank You for that info ). I don't agree with You in some points (I should write my inspirations and describe why it is like it is but never mind ), let's end this.