MicrostockGroup

Photos 1 and 3 are lacking in terms of visual impact. What are you trying to say with these photos? There isn't any clear message. Not sure why number 2 was rejected. I seems like a perfectly good stock photo. It could be out of focus or blurry at 100%. Maybe they didn't like the drab colors of the sky and tree. Maybe if you took it again in more dramatic lighting. If you are having problems with these images, just search on the same keywords you used on these images and see what the top selling photos look like with those same keywords.

IS typically uses the "focal point" rejection when the image is too blurry.

I agree with zorki and steve-oh: your images are lacking in both message and impact. I also find them too dark. Concentrate on making images that are strongly composed and have an obvious message. Powerful images are often accepted even when they contain many flaws. Weak images are often rejected even when they are technically perfect.

I know something about "Clear Focal Point".

This has got to be the most misunderstood rejection comment a reviewer can send to a new comer.
What should  mean filling the frame with your subject, has be substituted with "No clear focal point".

Composition is everything in an image, whether it be a fine art image, or stock image.
One thing I learned early on in my brief experience, is when I think I'm close enough to the subject....move a step even closer!
This has worked for me in the past, and no more "Clear Focal Point" rejections either.

(by the way it does not mean your image is necessarily out of focus)
It means you got too much background, and not enough of the subject
Best of luck you crazy stock photographer

The MIZ

From my own (limited) expericence, I strongly agree with that. I guess it´s a generic "we dont like it" (because of overall weaknesses) response.

And to be honest, in my case most of these rejections were justified. Opinions may vary between the individual inspectors - but in general I still get valuable feedback from rejections (submitting to microstock sites since early 2007).

"rejections for no good reasons (-> quote cclapper)" are rare exceptions.

The composition of Z3 is altered, since I didn't want to resize the image, in the original photo the object is not positioned so central.
I must confess, some of your cropping opinions are a bit confusing (too much or too little background ), but otherwise thank you all so much for the critique - no other way to improve

I think the answer may be to do a web search for the Rule of Thirds, which is based on the Golden Ratio. It should help understand composition.

As with any rule, they are not Laws, but rules to guide you.

There are some things that will usually get low marks in photos as art. A lateral bisector, crooked horizon (even if it's indoors, which means a tilted image), and putting the subject dead center in the image. These are easy to avoid. Also if you are intentionally trying to make something with these aspects, you might want to ignore the rules. 

Generally I try to have cars running into the photo, instead of pointing out at the edge. Just what I think looks more natural than a car driving off the page. I don't do the angular cliche' shots of the car tilted in the frame. Some people live by it. Just a personal choice. One editor said, if we want it tilted, we can do it ourselves. 

I have said before that photographers should take a course in art appreciation, which includes art history. Art History 101 in other words. You can get a good lesson in composition and color and see what's classic and what "works".

I'm not saying that people should copy, imitate and be robots, by all means, be an individual and be creative, have fun, express your personal viewpoint. But there are some basic guidelines that will help make your photos more appealing to others.

Hopefully selling photos should never become selling out! 

The rule of Thirds is a nice starting point.

IMHO - The driftwood dead center in the sand could have been done with the subject down towards the right corner more, so it naturally points the eyes, into the photo. The tree on the hill could have been moved to the left side of the photo, so the flow is up the hill. The large empty space to the left of the pretty flower, and some of the empty space to the right, could be eliminated for an attractive arched close crop. (and I might be wrong)