This isn't an excuse to bitch at Club Competition Judges (they have a pretty tough job) it's just me trying to reconcile the difference between successful club competition images and a successful internet one. After two years of entering or attending club competitions I am constantly bemused by the rejection of images that have been cast aside due to the judge deeming them to have blown out highlights. No matter how small or minor or even if they are integral to the image. I've even seen a sunrise photograph criticised as the sun looked 'blown'. However the same images (not mine) placed on 500px or Flickr receive high accolade or even win various internet competitions! From what I've seen, in my limited experience, is that to do well on-line the image has to be quite striking. Blown highlights or other technical faults are forgiven to a certain extent. Put those images in a club competition ,no matter how small, and they get crucified. However put a mediocre image that is taken with the rule of thirds, pin sharp all over, leading the eye in from the left and with nothing to bright in it and you're almost there. ".....that will do well on-line but the judge will slaughter that in a comp...." is a common phrase I hear quite often. Is this the fault of the internet excepting low standard work or the judges being to fixed in their opinions? The difference between successful photography on-line and at club level seems to be poles apart. Or is it just me?