MicrostockGroup

They look pretty good for stock worthy photos, the golden egg one is underexposed IMO.

jclyons,

I think cevapcici is basically right.  The first has a copyright issue with the duck.  The second, like davey also said, is underexposed - I don't mind the tight crop though.  In the last one, the building in background may be an issue - a cleaner background would be prefered (and given this is not an original image, they may reject it because of that, even if you may find similar ones in the sites).  Maybe a tighter crop would help it.  Also a clean solid color on the poster would be more appreciated, as it is expected that the buyer will add something on it (not that he can not easily clean it himself, but the ready-to-use image is more appreciated).

I'm no expert, but this is my opinion.

From iStock technical wiki:

There is one entry specifically about a trademarked rubber duck, which is not exactly the same as here, but sites have been very cautious about this lately.

No but the design and form of the duck are done by a toy company, and it might be recognizable as such. Many sites are getting very strict on this lately, even too strict, especially since the duck has the main focus in the photo. They would most probably let it go when the main focus was a kid holding the duck as a side element. You can read about copyrights and cars for instance on iStock: they have a very informative article about it.

If the histogram in your original shots is totally filled, the underexposure is easy to solve in Photoshop by "levels" without adding too much noise. The eggs are a good idea, with the one deviant egg. The tight crop might look 'artsy' but limits the use for a buyer that perhaps likes to do his own crops, depending on his design needs. Isolating it might boost the usability too. Caveat: when isolating over white your main object should be more high key, since on a white background, it always looks darker.

Thanks for the input guys.  Maybe I'll take another stab at my submissions.  But I don't know about the duck being a copyright issue as the stock sites are littered with rubberducks.  But that also poses another issue.

Thanks again.  Looking forward to seeking your asthetic opinions in the near future!

J