I would never have any practical use for a 120mp sensor (in 24*36mm size). A bigger sensor with that resolution would be excellent!

Even with my 5DmkII I see imperfections of the lenses, only with quality primes stopped down to 5.6...11 would there be any benefit of a higher pixel count than the current 21mpix.
Sure you will get better textures and remove some artifacts caused by bayer interpolation, but I think something around 60mpix would get rid of even that...

There is a certain difference in advertising between USA and Europe. Here in Europe we tend to have more "normal" looking people in ads instead of the "too beautiful" that are seen in the USA. We here in Europe tend to think that the more realistic people are also more believable.

(NOTE: with "normal" I don't mean ugly people, just that they are not outlandishly exotic looking but still attractive in their own way)

I've cancelled my application, because I don't waste my time

In fact you wasted time by applying in the first place...

Delete them in a year??  sure,  but why accept them in the first place?  makes no sense at all. I mean surely a reviewer at for example IS would have the experience to know a commercial image when seeing one?

No. I have too many images in my portfolio that are rejected at some sites for "Lack of commercial value blah blah" and which are selling very good on those sites that accepted them.

I think the images should be given for example two years time. No sales in two years = deleting the file. That should also be an ongoing process: if any files have a 2 year period without sales the file would be deleted. I have some junk in my portfolios that may have been sold once or twice but maybe that was in 2006...

Yet, this all could be done within the search engine: Images with no sales for a long period of time should be moved somewhere in the end of the search results.

August is starting off a bit better than the horrible june and july.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3467383/Istock/Fan%20Palm%20Sky.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3467383/Istock/gecko%20front.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3467383/Istock/Street%20Sign.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3467383/Istock/grass.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3467383/Istock/playground%20-%20rings.jpg

Palm
-propably "not stock oriented" according to most sites. I like the snapshot quality of this, also Photocase might like this.
-Looks too processed in closeup (noise reduction? filtering?)

Gecko
-Soft and noisy
-Reflections have bad color. Partly die to over exposure
-Distracting water beads on the head
-Too much white space / animal too small in the frame

Sign
-This is okay (the holes in the bottom part distract me a bit), but not good enough for application (there are tons of sign pictures already, they would propably rather see something more creative)

Grass
-I don't like the brown part in the bottom of the image. You should rather crop it when shooting.
-the unsharp grass melts in the background. You have already shot this at f/20, but you could always move your focus back just a bit.
-The grass in the top is borderline over exposed and changes color.
-As in the case of the sign, there are tons of grass pictures already, they would propably rather see something more creative

Playground - Rings:
-The think in the picture doesn't look familiar to me, I really can't understand what is in the image. If the wiever can't regonize the thing in the picture it won't sell a lot.
-Overexposed white sky in the background
-Flat and dull light
-Cluttered background with trees, cars etc etc.
-I'm not sure if the focus is in correct place here

Could we please see the image (flickr link) ?

I really can't figure out why anyone would want an image with white background and no shadows? If the image is going to be put on some background other than white, the image needs to be cut out anyways (and with some clever PS trickery the shadow could be used on that new background as well...)

Why do people still do the apple and tapemeasure? I'm sure the last twelve thousand versions can't have sold well.

I just got this rejection: "Reason: Image subject is too specific or niche-oriented. The primary goal of a stock image is to be generic and match as many usage types as possible. Your image is not generic enough and will not generate significant sales. Please try to recreate/rephotograph the scene differently and/or use this info for more generic images in the future."
(The image featured a Paris landmark, lesser known than the Eiffel Tower or arch of triumph, but still Paris landmark)

I think I'll just submit some more Eiffel Towers...
Or maybe I'll go and shoot some apples and tapemeasures, those should be generic enough for their taste.

Don't we have it good with a few Flash Cards and a battery charger.

Not really. I would very much like to carry around that much stuff (especially with a car!) to create some stunning unique photos. (Instead of the gazillion mediocre snapshots that people create all the time)

Most of them are really, really bad. But I actually think that a smaller portion of images (some of the well-executed artsy stuff) are actually quite good..

Why . would anyone want to go exclusive with DT? You could make many times more money by submitting to all the big 4 sites and maybe to some middle tier sites as well.

If I had to go exclusive with one site, that would be iStock.

It is a day or two later than usual but nothing to be concerned about yet. If you read your payment notification it probably says the same as mine;

"Just thought you would like to know that your Shutterstock earnings have been computed - and will be sent out by the 15th of the month."

Yes, but I haven't got a payment notification at all this month...
(and they have already taken the money from my balance which is unusual)