iStock tend to reject files that are larger than your cameras native resolution unless there is a good reason why.

I've had a few rejections asking me to resubmit with as much of the white space cropped out as possible, meaning my shot has to be taken down to a medium or so forth (with my old camera, without much play room).

Couldn't say about Fotolia since I've not been there long, but I think it's not very good practice to add white space to image if it's not for a compositional reason.  You're essentially conning the designer, you may as well just upload it at the largest file size you have, since a designer can always add extra white space.

If you can't get your images accepted at various agencies just go with the others till you can afford a half decent camera.  Places like Shutterstock accept piddly little files (I shrink all of mine down for there now) and the return is very good.  You'd only need a few good shots somewhere like Shutterstock and you'd have money for a new camera in two or three months, easily.

Edit: I have pictures in my portfolio from a Dimage Z1 and I don't think I had any rejected for technical problems - they're a half decent range of P&S cameras.  You shouldn't have too many problems getting pictures from this camera accepted.

One thing you can do to your images to get them a little bigger without upsizing the image is to add more to them.  This is especially easy for isolation shots, make your canvas a bit bigger to get over the threshold and add some more white.

Thanks for suggestion Waldo4, although I really not sure that extending is way to go, simply because I would feel uncomfortable knowing that I add to picture what wasn't there, for shot you've showed me as example it was ok since it was cropped and it helped to composition. But using same technique to raise size of overall picture isn't something I wish to do even if it bring more more cash.
As for white space I actually cut it on few my shots simply because it would look stupid to have small subject on big pure white background, it think such photo would likely to be ignored as it look weird on thumbnail also.
 

The last way that I know of to make a shot bigger is to take multiple shots and let a panoramic stitching program assemble them.  Some programs can stitch in 2 dimensions automatically (autostitch comes to mind, the free version can only use .jpegs, but it really embarrasses Canon's and Adobe's stitching programs in performance).

Thanks, I've already tried this technique using Hugin for stitching, but resulting photo doesn't look as I was supposed so I didn't submit it, but I don't give up on this technique and will keep on trying to get good result.
(I have few good panorama photos which probably worth to be uploaded.)

iStock will refuse files that have had extra white added to images.  They refuse files that are larger than your camera is able to shoot, unless it's clearly been stitched together or multiple views in one file etc - but you should put a note to the reviewer in that case.

Seren, I've heard few times that it's good to leave comment to editors on IS but I can't see a comment field, can you please tell how it's possible to leave comments for reviewers, should they be written in description field?

If you can't get your images accepted at various agencies just go with the others till you can afford a half decent camera.  Places like Shutterstock accept piddly little files (I shrink all of mine down for there now) and the return is very good.  You'd only need a few good shots somewhere like Shutterstock and you'd have money for a new camera in two or three months, easily.

2-3 months is too good to be true for me I'm ready to wait year or more to get good camera. Just need to learn how to make good pictures which sells and possibly not portraits, as portrait photography isn't really something I'd like to do.

Edit: I have pictures in my portfolio from a Dimage Z1 and I don't think I had any rejected for technical problems - they're a half decent range of P&S cameras.  You shouldn't have too many problems getting pictures from this camera accepted.

Nice to meet another KM user actually Z1 have less problem with noise but more with chromatic aberrations but it's very similar to Z3 in other ways. I'm going to check your portfolio now as didn't have chance to do it before.

EDIT Reason: fixed problem with quotes.

I don't have any experience with Hugin, but if the stitching is the problem give autostitch a try, heck it is free (the only difference between the free and pay versions is the ability to handle .tiff files), it does a great job of distorting and balancing the files (

nope it's not problem with Hugin, but me Composition I've got in the end was crappy and after cropping to good one there was no real benefit from stitching. I should learn to make good final composition.
Regarding Autostitch there is no native version working under Linux and I'm not sure if it would work under Wine, need to check it out later.

I know with the one shot I worked on, a little bit more on the sides (especially the mountains to the left) would have been great.  It is a great way to take landscape photos, even at a normal aspect ratio, take a small pano series (3-4 shots, lots of overlap) in portrait, stitch them together and crop to a natural landscape aspect ratio (3:2).  The trick to good panos is to rotate about the correct point, not the sensor plane or the camera body, but the point where the aperture blades appear to be by looking at the lens (not actually are).  Doing this minimizes the parallax shift and if you nail the location, completely eliminates it.

Thanks for advices, it's really appreciated!:)

Hi Tom, thanks for suggestion! I didn't tried them yet, only registered with stocks from big6 except SS.
Do you have steady income from there or it's rather occasional?

Thanks for info, Tom!
Can you tell if you submit same photos into midstock as on micros or you have separate collection? As it wouldn't be fair to sell same images with so different pricing.