MicrostockGroup

I think these might have been OK six years ago but they don't have sufficient impact for today. They would need tidying up, anyway, to get rid of distracting wires etc. but I doubt if it is worth the effort. Sorry.

No you need different subjects, sunny shots with fluffy clouds, no electric wires and a property release for the building. Apart from that, it's fine. 

I guess it doesn't matter, the photostream is no missing. But you had written before that one of the blue building photos was rejected for Copyright, so I don't know why you would be asking about only the exposure question? Let me put it another way, say you asked about exposure and there were people in the picture, cars with license plates and it was a dull composition. Would you want people to answer, sure the exposure is great... and not mention that there are three other reasons that the images would be rejected?

Would you then be asking, why didn't someone mention that?

Better yet, at an agency I had a picture rejected for lighting (that great vague reason) and when I fixed the lighting, it was rejected for Not Suitable for stock. Why didn't they say that the first time? 

Interesting and yes, that amazing random approval lottery.

Opinion of the image in question is, white balance possibly off, it looks yellowish, maybe better described as tan. Do you have your monitor color corrected?

Hey I've had rejections for color balance when I shot at Sunset and intentionally had a golden cast. It didn't fly.