I agree with hatman - you've gone too far in your corrections. As I see it, the only thing wrong with your originals is that they're too saturated. Bump the saturation down by about -40 and you're all set.

Another problem with these images is the CA/fringing. Most of it goes away by reducing the saturation, but it's still there.

One technique I use with portraits is to blend a soft gray monochrome version of the shot on a "Soft Light" or "Overlay" layer at 15-20% opacity. This will even out and brighten the skin tones while reducing the pinkish hue.
Give it a try!

...
Sharpness across the field of view is of greater concern.

I might instead look for a used 28-70mm on ebay.  After all, the price is about $1,000 less.

The Canon 24-70mm is my workhorse lens, and I can imagine that Nikon's version is of comparable quality. The only lens I'd consider replacing it with would be either a 24-105mm or 28-300mm, sacrificing sharpness for flexibility.

I think buying used is the way to go - in both bodies and lenses.

Thanks. BTW - how do you manage to produce 10 pics for submission every day (unless this is a full time job for you  )?

Yes, I do this full time.

I manage when and what I upload, and always have a reserve of images at the ready (currently 50+ for StockXpert). I started a thread about uploading strategies a few weeks ago, but just about everyone thought I was wasting my time studying this. The general consesus was that I'd be further ahead making images rather than figuring out how to maximize the profit from them. The prevailing attitude is to make a bunch of images, upload as soon as you can, then see what sticks. Pell-mell and amateurish. The professional approach, to me at least, is obvious.

I suspect that the head StockXpert reviewer takes a quick peak at submission batches - if a few of the images catch his/her eye then your approval may be expedited. I've had batches approved in under an hour as well as ones that sat around for a few days.

I usually submit images in batches of 10 to 20. StockXpert is usually quick to review - my average wait time is about 2 days.

Here's some recent data:

Crestock emails are sporadic - sometimes I get 'em, sometimes I don't.

Wow, this is unexpected - thanks everybody!

No probs here either.

There are tons of people who make what you call clip art. They make pictures of stuff like scissors, dice, water drops, staplers, computer mice, and car keys. Some shots are isolated, some aren't. Some include hands, some don't. If that's how you want to define stock photography, and making that sort of imagery 'floats your boat', then go for it. Be the best clip art maker out there!

One of your 100 posts, Waldo4, sticks out in my mind. In it you presented a few samples of your work. I took a quick look and classified only one of the images - an exterior shot of a theater(?) - as stock. The other shots (I can recall some flowers and a vaulted ceiling), although nice to look at, are definitely not stock material.
Fine art: yes.
Commercial stock photography: no.

(defun strConfused
   (getstring princ "Hunhhh? ")
)

For the most part, images posted in Adobe RGB don't look as 'full' or 'colourful' as those posted in sRGB - by using Adobe RGB you may be losing a few sales.

Those of you who are keen on using Adobe RGB because of it's wider colour space would do well to read the Ken Rockwell link posted above.

I think I've had one or two of those rejections - StockXpert is a bit fussy that way.

On a semi-related note, I occasionally get rejects fom IS over model releases that are typed rather than hand-written. Given how infrequently these occur, I'm guessing that this is a per peeve of only one inspector there.

I registered there a few weeks ago and sent in 10 images with my application. They accepted 9, made one an 'editors choice' (a little gold star appears with the image), and promoted me to a 'level 2' (out of 4) photographer. I haven't sold anything yet, and haven't filled out the tax forms either.

Their keywording interface is bulky until you get used to it. It's similar to IS in that they have a controlled vocabulary, but not as streamlined. After I keyworded my initial 10 images I uploaded a batch of 50 to get a sense of what they were looking for. They put some sort of hold on 2, accepted 32, and rejected 16, which makes my approval rate 41/58=71% - lower than I expected. One of 'em was selected as an editor's choice.

My plan is to upload images in batches of 10 until I have enough approved images in the bank that I can whip through their keywording process in short order.

Nope, I use 'bicubic smoother' to downsize. My images are already sharp enough that I don't need to sharpen them further using 'bicubic sharper', and this option also smooths out problem areas a bit more.

As I said before: I think things look better when I use this option, and I never get images rejected for being too soft.