1.  good probably best if cropped though
2.  lacks contrast and focus might be off
3.  underexposed
4.  underexposed not sure i like the magnifying glass lying there a hand holding it might do better
5.  crop, white balance or neon green reflections no good
nature
6.  focus, noise, maybe white balance too
7.  underexposed, not really interesting
refuel
8.  snapshot looking
9.  snapshot looking, underexposed, water drops, framing off
portrait
10. underexposed, busy, on camera flash, unclear what it is supposed to be about
11. good, i think needs more light, blown out background part is distracting too

Your big question though, maybe the first one but probably none of the rest will get through.

1)- copyright/trademark, lighting, focus OOF due to too shallow a DOF.
2)- LCV due to framing, cropping and or composition, also OOF with to shallow a DOF.
3)- copyright/trademark, exposure.

Not even going to look at the rest.

clean your subjects before shooting them

@traveller1116 - thanks for the constructive feedback, now I understand some of the mistakes I'm making - going to pay attention to this. Going to make a new one with the magnifying glass being held and improve a few others using your feedback, and see where I can get.

@Lagreek: Hard criticism - but thanks for it, and your time.

@ruxpriencdiam - Concerning the OOF - I was intentionally making the background blurry at F2.8, so I guess I overdid that... Would it be better to increase DOF only slightly, or should it be sharp all the way?

I am not talking about the OOF BG.

I am talking about the OOF from a shallow DOF in the front.

Shallow DOF needs to go from front to rear.  The focus needs to be tack,razor sharp in front fading out to the rear.

THE GOD OF STOCK HAS SPOKEN!!! you will be rich very soon kalmiya!!! 

@luissantos84: Gosh, I'm embarassed to say, but you are right... Started by cleaning my coins (one article recommended ketchup - and that actually works!).

@sjlocke: Had that comment a few times, and I admit I find it difficult to see when exposure is correct. I modified the original raw in lightroom - is this better?
http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216b.jpg [nofollow]
(original raw-file:http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216.CR2 [nofollow]).

@ruxpriencdiam: I understand - going 'over the top' on the background caused the foreground to lose the focus too much - going to retake such a shot, but with larger DOF.

@lagereek: Came here to learn, so any help is appreciated - and thanks for the offer, I'd be happy to get tips on what to look for.

@luissantos84: Gosh, I'm embarassed to say, but you are right... Started by cleaning my coins (one article recommended ketchup - and that actually works!).

@sjlocke: Had that comment a few times, and I admit I find it difficult to see when exposure is correct. I modified the original raw in lightroom - is this better?
http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216b.jpg
(original raw-file:http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216.CR2).

@ruxpriencdiam: I understand - going 'over the top' on the background caused the foreground to lose the focus too much - going to retake such a shot, but with larger DOF.

@lagereek: Came here to learn, so any help is appreciated - and thanks for the offer, I'd be happy to get tips on what to look for.

Good for you and dont take any notice of any jealous bums here, they had their chance........ and blew it!

Quote from: Lagereek on July 23, 2012, 14:03

Quote from: kalmiya on July 23, 2012, 12:57

@traveller1116 - thanks for the constructive feedback, now I understand some of the mistakes I'm making - going to pay attention to this. Going to make a new one with the magnifying glass being held and improve a few others using your feedback, and see where I can get.

@Lagreek: Hard criticism - but thanks for it, and your time.

@ruxpriencdiam - Concerning the OOF - I was intentionally making the background blurry at F2.8, so I guess I overdid that... Would it be better to increase DOF only slightly, or should it be sharp all the way?

Good! hard criticism, yes and you didnt mind, did you?  thats a bloody lot better then many other neewbies here. I will tell you exactly what to look for and what to do. Mail me on my site mail here at MSG.
I am really glad you took my criticism the right way. Good for you!

all the best.

Come on, we all need to learn at  your feet.
No private tuition!

Oh come on now, not YOU, Scottish gals are impossible to teach, they always stand on the top of Ben Nevis, thinking they are Mrs Braveheart.

I would like to know what they told you on the rejection notices. Otherwise it's hard to know. Of all the agencies I contribute to, I think Istockphoto has the best inspectors. I learned a lot from their rejections.

I love you too man.

You could also retain the nice rich color of the blue sky and maintain the deep green of the cornfield.

I am surrounded by tens of thousands of acres of cornfields and also have one in my backyard.

Of course the OP can adjust better since they have the original.

I would like to know what they told you on the rejection notices. Otherwise it's hard to know. Of all the agencies I contribute to, I think Istockphoto has the best inspectors. I learned a lot from their rejections.

First time "composition".
At this point I can honestly say the first 2 images _really_ sucked and the 3rd one, while I personally like it, was not good for a stock-site https://picasaweb.google.com/117205949410349346735/2011Gaiapark#5658540296844530514 [nofollow]

Second time "Too similar" ( 2 product-photo's).
- photo #1 and #8 from initial post

Third time tried to be more varied and got "composition":
http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120524_2089.jpg [nofollow]
and #3 and #10 from initial post