Pixart,

Here is one that is online and being critiqued:
http://www.mostphotos.com/view.php?imgid=124314&offset=10&thumbnailsize=large&displayinformation=extended&reflections=on&imagetype=all&orderby=idx&periodlimit=-1&category=all&usage=all&shape=all&querytype=gallery&memberid=3065

Here is one that I had isolated:
http://www.mostphotos.com/view.php?imgid=124238&offset=16&thumbnailsize=large&displayinformation=extended&reflections=on&imagetype=all&orderby=idx&periodlimit=-1&category=all&usage=all&shape=all&querytype=gallery&memberid=3065

These were among my first attempts of shooting people and isolations for stock ...

Mark

I can't view - sorry, I tried to wait for them to load, but it wasn't going to happen.  This is why I haven't joined MostPhotos.

First shot imho has 2 problems that really comes down to 1: you had to use a zoom to put in evidence the wireless ear piece and to blur out the ininspiring background using an adeguate aperture.

The second shot has a lot better composition but direct flash kills the model's eyes and if MP large preview is faithful to original it is way out blurred out by noise reduction, so much that it seems out of focus.

Thanks ale1969 for the comments. They were not part of the application I was just trying to show them to Pixart as he asked if I had ever tried doing shots with models. That is the only place they are posted and I am trying to learn from them. However, they were shot several months ago and my skills have increased dramatically since then ...

Mark

you can make cheap DIY Studio Lighting.
here is the Link:
http://www.diyphotography.net/the-strip-light-that-wont-strip-you

I will try to convince  you again , try with  3-4 interesting textures , you cant go wrong  there , noise is almost invisible , and on SS they don't reject photos for "we have too much of those " reasons.

 Again , avoid skies , especially avoid processing images with sky , don't take unnecessary risk.

Good luck
 

I just got in a few hours ago.

I used 4 white isolations, 1 true and 3 with light shadows, one of the ones with light shadows was rejected.

I had 1 cityscape, approved
http://www.flickr.com/photos/waldo4/2261674159/in/set-72157602933123778/
Much different processing, honestly the processing on this Flickr image looks like crap, overfiltered and oversaturated.  This was part of my IS application as well, a rejection on the first try prompted the reprocessing.

1 texture, approved

1 shot of some really interesting gas meters (honestly) on a brick wall approved
http://www.flickr.com/photos/waldo4/2238384500/in/set-72157603843108654/
Also part of my IS application

1 shot of ice being dropped into a glass of water, strobed in the dark on a dark surface approved
http://www.flickr.com/photos/waldo4/2262379956/in/set-72157602938076813/

1 architectural shot denied (for shadows, though one of the main interesting points of the shots was the shadows)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/waldo4/2270316132/in/set-72157602934009472/

1 shot of a landing airplane, denied for noise (has to be on the plane, the sky is actually a flat color (IE painted), once I blurred for noise I got banding, the sky was uniform enough though so I just painted the whole thing).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/waldo4/2275824639/
Part of my IS application

The IS application shots I listed were all approved.

Not all my shots are on my Flickr account (sorry, I don't post isolations or textures, Flickr is for my actual artistic photo pursuits, not my stock pursuits, though there is a little overlap, almost all Flickr shots are a slightly different processing than my stock shots).

If anybody has the time to look at my "abstract architecture" set.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/waldo4/sets/72157603438672995/
I'd love to know if you think that some of them are stock worthy, or it is a stock worthy style, it is my favorite type of photography and IMO what I am best at.