MicrostockGroup

Unless you post a link to a full size picture somewhere on the net, no one can tell you if your pictures are up to it.

Heres a few, randomly chosen shots. These are not necessarily the most interesting in stock photog terms. But do comment or their technical quality. Is it possible I can get photos accepted or are am I still way off what is needed.
Check this gallery (theyr a bit small... to be quick):
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/edourado/Samples

nope. those examples are not stock quality. also you can forget about Shutterstock and istock without having dSLR camera (noise, purple fringing....)...

you can always visit some stock agency and look at best selling photos to see what goes.

those that you put as examples are not good. underexposed, if nothing else. and your subjects/composition are not to much "stocky"

remember, they dont want artistic images, they want pure soul-less stock commercial photos. think as a buyer. why would you buy those images for?

If you want to go to stock you have to be prepared about taking  different pictures that you normally do and have a commercial eye.
I think it is an excellent experience but like said before it takes time !
Good luck

Thanks everyone for your input.
I realize those pictures really aren't very commercial ones.
I suppose people, food, product photography, industry/enterprise/corporate image are really very commercial and in demand.
Anyway, photos that convey messages or feelings are also very usefull I think, and a real challenge to make.
I dont want to dedicate mysself to stock really. But as I am still exploring different aspects of photography I dont mind giving a go at apparently less artsy photos.

I think the deer, the rooftops and the strawberry photo are photos that can have commercial value. Albeit with different cropping, colors. I think I may have some more along those lines.
Does the lower range camera kill any chances for these photos? I know that Dreamsite sells some small images, would it really show at those sizes (<800 px).

Are the images really too dark? In general or for stock in particular?

It does look better...
Thanks for the advice.

I think that if you enjoy taking pictures and are interested in microstock, then you should give it a try.  Uploading to Fotolia and Dreamstime costs nothing and there is no review process, so all you have to lose is a little time up front and then see how it goes.  So what if some of your pictures get reject, or many of them, you will get free professional criticism.  I felt the exact same way as you when first thinking about microstock and thought why not give it a try.  the stuff I uploaded at first was pretty sad, but I feel I have steadily improved because of the reviewers and now I get regular sales.  A website that helped me immensely was http://www.sprintingturtles.info.  It has some good tips on where to start out and what things to do from the beginning to help.

One of the biggest things and nearly the mistake I made, is don't upload 15 or 20 pictures, wait 2 weeks and decide...wow no sales, this isn't going to work.  Get enough pictures out there and enough time to really see if it will work.  Good luck to you.

IMO go for it, you have nothing to lose (except some time) and everything to gain.  Shooting for stock almost surely will make you a better photographer, both with technical know how and eventually the financial means for better equipment.

If I can offer a piece of advice, take the "too arty" warnings with a grain of salt.  I heeded those at first and ignored using most of more artistic shots.  Eventually I gave some of my better ones a try and thus far they have had the highest acceptance rate of all my shots and they sell decently too.  Though they are not my cash cow shots (that 10% that makes 90% of your income), they are being purchased and my most recent one that I uploaded to SS is getting hot with several DL's in the last few days.  There isn't a huge market for them but I know that it is what I am best at and when buyers find them, they do stand out from the crowd and are unique.  Color is important though, very few shots work as a B&W for stock, I have a few, but they were almost B&W to begin with, the use of B&W was more of a way to avoid fringing and off pixels than actually done for artistic reasons.

I like your pictures.  As others have already noticed you do have a good eye. 

I agree with leaf that the deer picture has commercial potential.  There are plenty of images on the micros that have less commercial value than some of yours.  They may not be selling lots though. 

IMHO your biggest obstacle is your camera.  Really, there is no way to get the kind of technically perfect images required from a P&S camera.  I started microstock 3 years ago when the competition and quality standards were way less than they are now, and most of the images I shot with my (at the time state of the art) Sony F707 were rejected for noise.  The ones that made it through took so much time in post processing to make them acceptable that it wasn't worth the effort.

If you want to shoot stock these days you really must have the proper equipment, and that includes not only a DSLR, but also a good quality lens.   Add to that some lighting equipment (ideally strobes, but at least a good hot shoe flash system with extension cord and diffusers), and invest the time to learn how to use it all, then you will be able to produce the quality images necessary to compete in the crowded world of stock photography...