O.k., so I know there are many of us that feel very frustrated by the new standards. I understand the need for quality guidelines, but as an artist who has sold over 20,000 cards on this site (many of which would probably have not passed with the new guidelines) I find it extremely discouraging to create 10 cards with the same image (different text on the front) and have them all rejected due to a discrepensy in the photo. Therefore, I submit this proposal. Give artists a way to submit photos first before they make them into cards. Artists could choose weather or not to do this. If the photo passes scrutiny by a reviewer, then a note would be added to let other reviewers know the image has passed inspection. Personally, this would be of great help to me. In the long run, I think this would create less work for everyone. What do ya'll think?

Hi Angela, as nice as that would be, the correct procedure would be to submit one card ONLY with an image, and make sure it passes the new 'Marketability Standards' before submitting multiple cards with that exact image. Much easier on the artist, and on the reviewers.
 
Thanks so much!
Reviewer 528

I'm sorry if I came accross as being egotistical, that was not my intent at all.  
It just takes so very long for a card to get through the review process. Also, I have had different reviewers with different opinions on the same card, so even though a blank card may pass with one, there is no guarantee it will pass another. That's why I was proposing if a photo was approved, there would be a note so it could pass with other reviewers.

Quote from Card_Review_Team on Nov 3^rd, 2011, 7:50am:

 
Yes!  This has worked well for many artists who submit one before making the masses and put in the Notes to Reviewer field something about ... testing the waters with this image before making more using the same image.  
 
This note to reviewers will be useful for the review team and will stay with the card's history.  
 
When you submit follow on cards with the same image it's a good idea to again leverage the Note to Reviewer field and put something like, based on the already approved image of pid#.  This way any  reviewer can look back to the original pid# referenced and see it was submitted and approved giving you the green light for more.
 
Sound good?  

Having an image approved by one reviewer does not mean a thing. I have had several images approved, then the same image declined by a different reviewer shortly afterwards, on cards with different text..Perhaps the reviewers could put some sort of indication that an image has been approved, that the other reviewers could see.
Thanks M ary.

Thanks Mindy, I will do that in future ie..(based on approved image) in note to reviewer.

HaHa!  I just had a card declined too and on my birthday!    
The reviewer says it doesn't meet GCU's marketability standards as the foreground is out of focus and the sky is pixleated.  It's supposed to be that way and has been exaggerated to that point to look like immpressionistic art.  It's a seacoast scene with the beach and cliffs in the backgound and flowers and a post in the immediate foreground.  It was a photo shot by a friend of mine and I played with it in post editing to get the artistic feel I wanted to make it look more like a painting.  
I've gotten some rave compliments on the image.  Now I know what you guys are talking about.  The reviewers aren't always aware of their subject and when it comes to understanding marketability, they have no idea what they are doing, it's just a crap shoot!
Anyway, that is my humble opinion(OK, not so humble as I've been doing this stuff for a long time).  I've got a couple of wedding invitations that I submitted and vignetted the outside edges and blurred it on purpose to give that dreamy feel to the card.  Wonder if that'll pass or if everything if a photograph has to be crystal sharp focus, even if that's not the feel we want to convey.  
I think GCU is pretty much off base on some of their decisions.  If they are so concerned with space and what content their artists are presenting, then change the format to Hallmark and make or buy their own cards.  After all what do these new standards give them an advantage in, except for limiting artists creativity.
Perhaps this is a bad image, but I didn''t really think so and as far as the focus, this is a scenic image, blur the foreground to add depth to the overall scene.  A basic rule of photography that all good artists use.  
I forget what all this hoopla was about in the first place.  Was it that GCU has too many cards and needs the extra bandwidth or are they trying to assert their authority by controling artists more.  If the later is the case, they will destroy the very platform that this site was built on.  That of everyday artists being able to market their work in a friendly atmosphere.  Anyway, didn't think it was a problem until reading all the sob stories here in the forum and then having this image wihich I personally thought was good declined.
 
I did a race car photo of an antique dragster with this same effect and have sold many copies of it.  But, what do I know???
 
Here are the images that I submitted to my Private Gallery.  The seacoast one has been declined, but the wedding shot is up with several invitations in the works if the two I submitted are approved.  Some opinions please and don't be afraid of honesty.  I can't throw my mouse through the computer!  
  
http://www.greetingcarduniverse.com/collections/any-occasion-blank-note-cards/co astal-seaside-beach/greeting-card-880503?aid=140313
 
http://www.greetingcarduniverse.com/invitations/wedding/general/greeting-card-88 0504?aid=140313
 
Best always, Randy

Randy, I am afraid I agree with the review about the sky on the seaside image. It does not look artistic, just badly pixelated. It is a lovely image, but looks like a badly taken photo rather than an artistic effort.
Did the original picture have problems?