Yes, very nice work.  I think that IS has a hangup on that kind of thing, but I bet it would do very well on all the other sites.

Hey, nice to see a new one that's trying to get started.  I wish you the best, as it's really hard for new ones right now.  We all have a hard time figuring out what to shoot when we first start out.  

There are a million isolated apples - sure there is a market for them, but it's plenty full already.  Do something with the apples.  Think outside the box.  Have a hot girl eating one, or stick it on the end of a fork.  Don't lay it next to a stethoscope either, that's been done to death.  

Top three things a reviewer gets sick of looking at:
1. Flowers, Trees
2. Snapshots of Buildings composed in boring ways (Churches especially) basically all boring travel shots in general
3. Single piece of fruit Isolated over white

None of these subjects in themselves are terrible, but they have to be done right.  It's the first subjects that people upload, because everyone has them.  Everyone thinks "ooh, how pretty these flowers are" click click click.  Shoot them in a way that hasn't been done before, or in a way that's more rare, or just plain move on to another subject.  A portfolio of 1000 pieces of fruit and flowers will probably equal in sales a portfolio of 50 decent people shots or graphics.

Welcome to Microstock photography!

I agree with everything WhiteChild has said.

Next time Sjlocke comes up and tells you to read a library before you start on stock, kindly remind him about Amanda and Yuri. 
Both of them started with a cheap, point and shoot camera, did not have a clue about photography and had to google basic principles like 'blur' or 'out of focus' in order to understand rejections' reasons.
Today Yuri is a millionaire and Amanda is doing pretty well herself.
Actually, they're both doing (a lot ) better than Sjlocke, regardless of the numbers of photography books read.
Granted, Yuri and Amanda are exceptions, but who's to say that you're not the next one?
More over, you have an advantage.
When it comes to Photoshop you already master it, and that's one golden ace up your sleeve.
If I were you I would go ahead and do exactly what WhiteChild has said.
Start submitting!
Remember not to flood them, upload a few images only and at least initially, try to stay away from sunsets, pretty flowers and your cute dog.
They've got plenty of those already and you need to be exceptional.
Don't you worry, there will be plenty of time to learn, (and read books), as you go.
Regarding your apples, they're not bad, but the subject is very, very common, and as they stand right now, I don't think they'll get accepted.
Also your isolation seems a touch too harsh to me. If you used the pen tool, try to feather the selection a bit.
Use a soft brush, very low opacity and bring back some of the natural shadows at the bottom of your subjects. A touch only.
You probably know this already but not a lot of people do - the best, and sometimes the only way to make an 'organic', natural selection in Photoshop is by using channels.
Forget about the pen tool, or any other extracting method/filter. Nothing comes even close to channels. Go for channels and your isolations will be accepted everywhere.
Shoot in RAW. Always.
Set your camera to the lowest ISO posible. Always.
Best of luck and welcome to the world of stock photography!
This is going to be a lot of fun. (Almost) always.
Anna

Next time Sjlocke comes up and tells you to read a library before you start on stock, kindly remind him about Amanda and Yuri. 
Both of them started with a cheap, point and shoot camera, did not have a clue about photography and had to google basic principles like 'blur' or 'out of focus' in order to understand rejections' reasons.
Today Yuri is a millionaire and Amanda is doing pretty well herself.
Actually, they're both doing (a lot ) better than Sjlocke, regardless of the numbers of photography books read.
(snip)
Anna

Thanks Anna, for singling me out from the rest of the majority who said the OP should learn the basics of how to work a camera before worrying about submitting, as well as the rest of your snarky comments.  Nice.

Anaire,

I have to agree with Sjlocke and others said.  Microstock has become a very selective outlet, and it is less likely that these days people succeed while they learn from the start.  There may be exceptions, and the fact that Fandre has a very good knowledge of PS does help, but I think newcomers must have more realistic expectations.  I think the best route is to learn photography first, even if this means a month of intensive reading and experimenting, and I believe he received very good guidelines here so far.

Regards,
Adelaide

  Thanks everyone for the wonderful support. All of you will definatly be my inpsiration when it comes to microstock!  Also I have decided that instead of taking all of the time to isolate items in photoshop I am going to make my very own light box. I have seen some tutorials out there which seem very informative and they dont seem like they will cost to much to make. So that is where I will go from here. Also like alot of you have suggested I will be reading up on photography basics everyday and shooting everyday.

Thank you everyone!!!

I have a deviantart page if anyone is interested. ( www.ths-acid.deviantart.com) But I have only had my camera for about 2 weks. So hopefully in time those two will balance out and I will be taking some half way decent photos.

By the way, there's nothing that says you have to shoot isolated objects to contribute.  Your nice photoshop illustrations could get you in and sell as well.

Oh sure.   You have to make sure any noise and such is under control, for iStock, at least, but things like the road, and some of the landscapes sure seem interesting.

Once you get your lightbox setup, I have a pretty easy to follow dodge tool tutorial for cleaning up isolations over white.

I'm using the dodge highlights tool for a very long time now for overwhite isolations, but to work faster, I first select a rough outline around the object by the polygonal lasso tool, then edit>fill>white. That's faster than to dodge all the background white area and you don't miss spots and speckles. The dodge tool is not perfect for light parts in the object and in this case blow up the image and dodge around the borders (not going into the object) with a small brush of 10% maximum.

Always verify the quality of your isolation of course by Magic Wand, tolerance 0, Anti-alias and Contiguous unchecked, clicking in the white. If imperfect at places, just invert the selection and dodge there. The Magic Wand will also indictate pure white spots in the object, like highlights in eyes. To facilitate the work for customer, you can paint #FEFEFE by 10% in there, after expanding the selection with 2px and a feather of 2px. Then re-check.

Hello again everybody. I just got my homemade light box up and running and let me tell you, this beats isolation any day. Everything just happens, sure I might have to do a little levels but no major changes. So here are my 4th and 5th attempt ever at microstock.  Also I think I got white balance figured out. But I wil let you guys and gals be the judges...

Also I have another quick question. When it comes to product photography, what can and can't you photograph? Basically is it no brand names in your photograph?

NOTE: If these are to big please me know and I will change asap.

Such progress in less than a week, you're going to do well ! As you already know keep all product names off stock shots and be careful with highly distinctive high end designed products, think generic.

You're ready to submit 

RAW. As raw as it gets. One of the advantages is you can recover blown out highlights since raw is over 16 bit mostly and JPG is only 8 bit.

I don't think so, if the highlights are blown out it means there's zero information in the file, and therefore nothing to recover.