It's not often you get a rejection that you can be happy about.  The following message was on a rejection from iStock:

'Please downsize this image to a medium size image to help the focus of
 this very pretty image ; thanks for your understanding

Now this is something I can understand and appreciate.

Kudo's to this reviewer!   

Now just watch someone say this is one of their new automatic rejetion buttons!   

I thought I understood resolution, but suddenly someone is saying I'm wrong.  Fair enough, but let's see what others think.

Is there such a thing as a "high resolution" camera, or does the term only apply to print images?  Would a 4 megapixel camera be considered to have the same resolution as a 16 megapixel camera (extreme limits)?  My contention is that the 16 megapixel camera is higher resolution because, for the same image size, there are more pixels per inch, or DPI if you prefer for prints, than a camera that has a lower megapixel rating, and therefore its resolution is greater.

What has been said is that if an image is print ready, it is considered high resolution.  I am disagreeing with this statement, but if I'm wrong, I'm willing to learn.  This statement came up in reply to a question of what is considered a high resolution image?  I'd still like an answer to that question.  And if there is a difference in camera resolution, what would be considered the threshold between normal and high resolution ... 8 mp, 10 mp, 12 mp or

This can lead to another tricky question.  If a camera is of sufficient resolution, is it possible for it to show too much detail, enough that very fine detail, particularly in the background but elsewhere as well, could be mistaken for artifacts or possibly noise, depending on the detail's shape, color and size?

I've seen quite a few posts lately about reviewer's command of both the english language and world geography, or rather the lack thereof.  Don't know if it's due to the dumbing down of the education system or a general lack of interest on the part of students and teachers.  It's a shame.  If I have an oddball name or location in my keywprds or title, I've gotten in the habit of including a note to the reviewer (on those sites that provide for a note).  Usually takes care of the problem.  But, still, I shouldn't have to.

A concern I've had is, with the increase in use of high rez cameras, small details in an OOF background (or foreground for that matter) can easily be mistaken for artifacts (not noise).  I had a series like that recently that were rejected for artifacts.  I resubmitted with a note about the higher resolution of those images and that the "artifacts" were instead OOF trees and boulders on a mountainside, about 10 miles away.  The reviewer must have agreed with me as the images were all accepted.

But you can't put a note on every image you submit, at least you shouldn't have to, so what to do?

I've no problem with my uploads.  All data entered in PS CS2 file info fields.  IS reads all of this.  All I need do is tweak the "what does this mean" keyword box, add categories and it's done.

How are you entering your IPTC data?

Everything's relative.  We've just been spoiled by their extremely rapid turnaround for the past six months or so.  Remember when it was a week or more?  Just late last year.  It's still faster than it used to be and faster than most other sites.  Yeah, it's slower than it has been.  But still much better than it could be.

I, too, have been disappointed with sales at StockXpert.  However, I don't fault the site, but rather what/who they are marketing to.  Each site has its own business plan and they direct their sales towards different segments of the market.  I track all my images by sales at each site.  After a while, it becomes clear that, whether an image is accepted or not, certain ones do well at one site and poorly at others.  And an image that is selling very well at, say iStock, will not necessarily do well at StockXpert, or SS or whomever.  It all depends on who is looking at the site for their images, and that depends on the site's marketing strategy and execution.  Some images have a more universal appeal and will do well everywhere.  Others (like mine  ) are more directed and don't have this broad appeal.

What I do is stick with a site for a year, while tracking results on an image-by-image basis.  After that year, I then review the pattern of sales.  If, overall, the site is doing poorly, I may delete everything and leave.  If one particular type of image seems to be doing well, I'll adjust my uploads to more of that particular type of shot.  If sales appear to pretty well cover the entire spectrum of my uploads, I just leave everything alone and continue as before.

You indicated your images do well at Jupiter, but you're disappointed with the same at StockXpert.  This should come as no surprise.  Jupiter is a Macrostock agency while StockXpert, even though owned by Jupiter, is a microstock agency.  While there is some overlap in the images each accepts, they each serve a completely different market, with different needs and requirements.  I rarely submit the same image to both a micro and macro stock agency.  The two just are not the same (to say nothing of RM versus RF requirements).  Again there are some photographers who, because of the nature of their shots, are able to submit the same image to both types of agencies.  But these are the exception rather than the rule.  If a photographer specializes in one or two particular types of images, say nudes for example, and he knows site X doesn't accept this type of image, why should he keep butting his head submitting the same type of shot and only getting rejections.  Move the images to a site that does accept them.  Then look a site X to see what they do sell and, if possible, upload those types of images.  Go with the flow.

Thanks to all for comments and advice.  Looks like the personal account is the way to go, for me at least.  For all my sales, other than microstock, I work directly with my customers and they pay by check.  So for now at least, no point in going with anything other than the personal account.  My primary microstock sales are with SS, DT and IS, so these should be no problem.  I'm also at BS, CS, LO and StockXpert; but, sales there are so low that it doesn't matter one way or the other.  I'll probably end up dropping these sites later this year, if things don't begin to turn around, and concentrate on the ones that work for the type of images I produce.  Probably try out SV just to see what happens.  You never can tell.   

Thanks again

Also keep in mind that there is a maximum file size for JPEG.  Alamy doesn't want the JPEG to be larger than 20 mb.  Most of mine usually fall around 12 to 14 mb, but I have had the occasional file exceed the 20 mb limit.  Just a matter downsizing slightly (still above the 48 mb minimum) and resave.  Don't know what I'll do if a file is still too large at 48mb.  Don't care to use a quality level lower than 12.

Wacom Intuos 6 x 8 tablet with pen tools US$278.30 + $7.00 shipping (in US) at MWave.  Cheapest I found on the web.

I probably do it slightly different than most.  Open in PS CS2 RAW (of course) and adjust WB and exposure as needed.  Then save as a .TIFF file and close RAW.  Re-open in CS2 and make any other changes I deem may be needed.  The reason I do it in this fashion is that I don't like the small image size on the RAW processer.  I just prefer the larger image in PS.  Old eyes and personal preference only.  And, in theory at least, so long as you do all your work as a .TIFF image there's no image degradation.  If there is another advantage to doing the PS work in the RAW processor, I'd be interested to hear it.  Always open to learning new things.

No problem here.  Uploaded yesterday.  All fine.  Accepted today.  Just checked now from "Favorites" link and from this site.  Both went straight in.

I was unaware of this and uploaded two images to BS last night.  After reading this thread, I went to BS and looked at the images in the approval queue.  Both of them had the description and keywords I had entered in the IPTC fields.  Problem resolved?