Denis,

This is the link I was talking about:
Banknotes & Counterfeit Deterrence

But I don't see Ukraine there.  Maybe if you look in the Russian version? 

I've checked it out and we're not existent there But thanks for resource, as it have good info I was looking for about USD and EUR, so if I got them in my hands some day I'll know what way they could be photographed.

Although we have some flower pots, we don't grow big plants here (we live in an apartment). The chrystantemuns were bought (hmmm, when was that, Mother's Day?).

they still look great, and as for growing in pots we have all free space consumed by pots

The dry lake bed was taken in Namibia.

so it was seasonal dry out?

Got them all beat, vonkara....  scanstock took me 2 months....LOL  =tom

don't be surprised, they just examining your picture pixel by pixel, the higher resolution the longer it takes Probably word scan in their name should suggest the way they review 

Talking seriously 2 months is really long, I would think twice before submitting to them as it sounds like either inactive site or poorly organized review process

The sunset is ok but too early and too dull, especially since it is the main focus of the image. I'm sure you have more spectacular views of the same sunset later on. Just glue that flamboyant sunset upon this shot, and clone the jeep to the left side of the image so it has some space to drive ;-)

yeah I realized from beginning that composition sucks and even was surprised that DT doesn't mentioned it. Also I don't think it's worth to make anything to this picture, I was just asked about help to get idea what colors are considered as correct ones.

One of my best selling waterfalls has a sky from 300 miles away. There is truth, and there is Photoshop 

I still doesn't feel comfortable to do manipulations like this

Thanks once again to everyone for your help!

yeah. i would agree that it lacks in contrast... so I agree with dreamstime.  I took a two second stab at it and upped the contrast in a few places, and made all the darks black.  Not sure what the original was like and if it could 'handle' the contrast and saturation boost, but i am guessing so, if you were nice to it

Thanks for your time and help in seeing what colors are required for photos.
In your photo colors look very saturated to me, I would even tell oversaturated, so guess that I can't trust my monitor at all in editing my photos, now I need to find some other way to postprocess my photos before submission Actually colors of real scene was more dull from what I remember
Photo seems to win from this contrast adjustment as colors become more alive.

One way of boosting the contrast is to use 'Curves' in Photoshop.

Anchor the straight line of the graph in the centre, and put two other anchors in halfway between the centre and top (right) and halfway between the centre and bottom (left).

Then pull those halfway anchors up and down respectively to get an 'S' curve.

You'll have to watch the result to see you don't overdo it, but that usually adds 'zizz' to an image.

thanks for tip Bateleur! I'm not using curves a lot as just like mentioned FlemishDreams they boost too much noise, and I still doesn't understand their conception well. Guess I need to find some tutorial on curves and translate it for using in GIMP. I've followed your guide and get something similar to what's Leaf posted but with less vibrant colors.

Thanks for feedback, folks! I know composition isn't perfect so as with details, I've better version of picture from same set but I've submit it to PhotoShelter and was accepted.

Would someone be so kind to take a moment and adjust colors for this picture to what they need to be? I'm asking for this so I could use it for reference for other pictures with similar sunset colors.

not the best time to join as I don't like to submit and forget about photo, I wish to track whenever it was accepted or not(guess it's bad technique for stock photographer).

And what is normal average time for review?

Thank you for response!

Maybe another Kiva loan situation .. ? ..

actually I've already got loan to pay to local bank I'm not familiar with Kiva loans but guess they wouldn't issue it as I don't have regular job with fixed payments, I'm freelancer right now and income depends from amount of orders.

Thanks! Too bad that Fotolia wouldn't accept my images as they have to be a 2400x1600 in time when my camera output 2272 x 1704. So guess I'll try to give more priority to IS.

My camera output 4mp images, so I wonder if anyone can tell that images done with low resolution camera are likely to be ignored by buyers and most likely go for higher resolution alternatives? The reason I'm asking is that although IStock and DT already accepted my photographs I've got bunch of rejections because of noise and artifacting especially on IS as they seems to be very picky to even those photographs which are good for DT.

So I wonder if pictures downsized to 1600x1200 which is minimal resolution right now on both sites,  have any chances to compete with the rest or most likely to be ignored?

As downsizing seems to be the only good option for me right now, as it let me get rid some of JPEG artifacts originally left by camera compression.

thanks CCK! If it's not a secret can you tell what rejection notes you've got with images you've mentioned above?

thanks for information, folks! I was hoping that I would have more control over images like on iStock where it could be deleted for example and you still get some revenue in certain circumstances.
Guess that I wouldn't bother to upload in free section for now.

Thanks for info Dan! and what about calibration in realtime depending on lighting conditions does it really work?

I use it, and I like the colors my monitors produce after calibration.  It's not the best of the bunch, but it is reasonably priced.

Yeah it's cheapest but still costly one, maybe someone would put used one on Ebay and I'll be able to win it. Wonder if you sold your old one already?

And what tool you're using now?

There is however one very helpfull tool, histogram. By looking at it, you can determine underexposure, overexposure in most cases.

I'm trying to analyze camera histogram by looking on different images on monitor and histogram they got on camera but if say truth it doesn't correlate much with it or I'm doing something wrong. Sometimes I can tell about overexposure when it's happened but some times not

Years ago I had a faulty monitor and wasn't really aware of how bad it was  It was too dark, brightness control was at its maximum.  Thought not an issue for normal use (that's why I never bothered), I used to scan slides back then adjusting settings according to my monitor.  I was shocked when I saw those images in another computer, because they looked so washed out!

my pictures looking completely different on other monitors also but most of times they look more saturated on my own.
Thanks for your links, Adelaide, I've checked my settings and seems that everything is set up correctly, guess that my monitor doesn't give good fidelity because of old age. So for now I'll try to trust more to autocorrection of white balance.

Of course, a proper calibration tool would be great.

I'm consider to buy PANTONE� huey if got any sales and believe that I could really make something on stocks. But not sure if it's worth to invest in calibrator before I get new monitor as it wouldn't do the magic with old one I guess

Thanks for your responses folks! guess that it's really something wrong with my eyes, me or my monitor

I completely agree with Danicek, they're underexposed.

Can you tell the way you determine when photo is right exposed or wrong? is it's subjective view based on experience or there is a way to trick with levels for example or other way? (Asking because I wish to check my rest photos before submission to save time me and reviewers).

I like a lot the eggs shot (despite the wrong WB, background should be a gradient of grey not of brown) but I learnt the hard way that in microstock "artistic" shots don't pay well.
If I had to make a similar shot I'd firstly use tungsten WB from start (this is probably the cause of the overall "brownish" tint) so you have to mess less with the image later.

Actually this photo was done with only one light (the Sun from the window), it was done in the evening so that's why it got such brownish warm color. I actually had more photos from this session and there was secondary flash behind backgound replacing the sun which make it look white and not interesting in my opinion, so after discussion with wife we decided to submit this one and did wrong as appears 
Also are highlights on the eggs are rather considered as problem or add something to the photo?

Then if you indeed use a tungsten light you better use something to "soften" it and avoid the harsh shadows of the eggs. Try oven paper in front of the lamp, it doesn't burn and works pretty well as a rudimental "soft box".
Then I'd also put some white foam or some other reflector in front and above the eggs so to have a more diffuse light all around.

thanks for your advices! I'm going to try them out next time.

Most of my food shots have backlighting too and you can see that it's pretty used everywhere because it adds a tridimensional look to the images, especially to rounded objects. But it can't be the only source of light (unless it is an artistic shot, but they're good for flickr and not MS).

Nice shot, ale1969! and thank you for example as it's almost always better see than listen to better understand what person try to tell
BTW can you tell if milk pure white or have some light yellow and grey colors in it?

As what I see you use only one source of light, who make some of the subject underexposed.

For the eggs you lightning is some kind of behind or too much on the side so the front is underexposed.

indeed, you're totally right. But when I've used flash set on minimal power with diffuser in front of eggs to make them expose a bit better it create too unrealistic look so I've deleted it.

The last one just need that the dark background to be removed over white or black. And maybe look for the harsh reflections on some of the pictures.

so you mean that hand would work better if would be simply isolated on white background? as I think that could done this but not sure if stocks need it after this. I've specially not remove background as thought that it gives more ways for designer who may buy this photo to work with it.