hank you for taking the time to apply as a contributor with iStockphoto.com.

The iStock administrators have asked that you upload new samples based on the feedback provided below. You're welcome to return in 3 days, upload some new samples and we'll re-process your application.

Comments from the iStockphoto Administrator:

At this time we regret to inform you that we did not feel the overall composition of your photography or subject matter is at the minimum level of standard for iStockphoto. Please take some time to review training materials, resources and articles provided through iStockphoto. The photographs provided in your application should be diverse in subject matter, technical ability and should be your best work. Think conceptual, creative and most important think Stock photography. Try to avoid the average eye level push the button perspective of a common subject. Try and impress us, we want to see how you stand out from the crowd.

We welcome you to return after the number of days specified and upload 3 fresh samples of your work and we will re-process your application.  Please note that you will not be able to upload new samples until this waiting period has passed.

There are technical problems:

The sky/ mountain is overfiltered, just a little, but it appears smeared.
Combination of trees and sky/ mountain view is not the best composition

The fly, is LCV and noisy,
Same with the coral fish, noisy, and bad lighting.

Generally the pictures are interesting enough, but dont stand out as stock material.

HMMPPPP.....
I see the flaw on photo 1,

On the ohter picture is it combinations of bad photos and bad PP skill or the photos are okay if processed differently
I m still loss on how is the light on the pgymy sea horse (fav macro object for UW btw) is bad, is it because to flat/dull?

Low light conditions caused the image to be unresolved and out of DOF, the main area of interest, the sea horse, is partually hidden behind undetailled coral. Ther is a lot of noise in the out of dof areas. Major parts of the image is out of dof. The coral is loosing its colours and fades into brown spots.

what is LCV?

Correct me if i m wrong, Stock photo required as minimum enhancement on the color(no saturation of vibarance bump) and as little as noise as possible, and accurate WB....

That is what they say. Reality is that we are all competing and try to have our pictures stand out as a thumbnail. That means tweaking it to the limit, where the agencies do not reject it. Different agencies have different policies and they are not all consistant.

Shoot 3 different shots like these:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13024061-beech-wood.php?st=4e6cfb9
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-8167146-sharpening-a-knife.php?st=4e6cfb9
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-5801679-skateboarder.php?st=4e6cfb9

.... is the approval rate more lenient when you have become a contributor ? .....

I don't know if things have changed since I was accepted, but I do feel you may be overthinking this.

I don't recall exactly the images I used but I do know they were 35mm scans that hadn't been spotted to remove dust and scratches, and that was fine for my application - had to do a lot more work on them to get them accepted, but they were good subjects and that was what was needed.

As far as I know, all they want to see in the application is an eye for composition, a variety of subjects and enough technical knowledge to show you know what you're doing with a camera;  they don't care about property or model releases at this stage (that comes once you're in), nor do they mind if the images are a bit noisy or not likely to sell.

So try to select three different, interesting subjects, if possible at least one with people - though I didn't - that are well lit and well composed.  The examples from JPSDK are good.  They don't expect you to be perfect at the start, you'll have plenty of time to learn...

1st one: underexposed, histogram not in the middle, dull colours, lens distortion (should be corrected) + horizon. And all numbers and brands must go away. Also there is noise, and you should resize the picture.

2nd one: Daring composition, wait with that till you have gotten in, It might however sell. Same problems with exposure  and noise as the above. Can be fixed. Gaussian blur 1 pix and resize, add contrast.
Youy do need to set white point and trim the histogram in levels.

Well, as I mentioned, my application was 6 years ago and they may have different standards now!

I like the macro shot in the first three, though as mentioned it's not likely to be much of a seller, but I would think it's good to show them you understand macro and can use it.

I don't find the mountain shot too suitable - it was a nice view I'm sure, but doesn't work so well as an image I feel.  By all means use a landscape - I did - but try to find a landscape with more of a definite subject in it, be it a distinctive mountain, a tree or some hikers of something, and with good light.

An underwater shot might be a good idea, showing more variety, but again, that one isn't really very interesting (photographically that is) I think - and you'd probably do better to stay out of the water and stick with the more capable camera for now.

Not sure about the piledriver - certainly as it is in those examples, the lighting is too dull - I don't find it very interesting, though I prefer the daring angle one myself.

Do some searches on iStock for the subjects you're thinking of using, try to get an idea of the compositions and lighting that work well, and see if you have or can take something along those lines.

If you live in the tropics, you should have lots of good subjects and lighting - how about beaches and the like?  And as mentioned, you don't necessarily need releases for buildings, or indeed people, especially for the application - remember iStock accept editorial too.  I think you probably need to concentrate mostly on good composition and lighting.