The fact that some mediocre images sell well (including mines and yours and Yuri's) does not make them "good images". You may be right about my "definitive" judgment about the first post and I am ready to apologize if needed but even if you think with Yuri's or microstock standards these samples are not well chosen. I saw many images by Yuri and these are far from being his best (I am almost sure he would agree)
This is called "flat lighting" in many books and the lack of shadows (or say the total elimination of shadows) is generally considered responsible for the lack of depth, texture and form in an image. Even first grade Film Tv or Photography students know this.
You are correct to say "generally", but as you are also a microstocker with many isolations in your portfolio I guess you know that microstock buyers do not look for the same kind of photo as art galleries.
I like myself macro a lot and I've done some nice macro shots I think, but my milk box on white which is just a mediocre piece of art do sell 100x more than my nice macro. Would you tell me to stop shooting milk boxes and go with macro instead?
If I am not mistaken the poster said "these are great lighting examples"... but they simply are NOT. This has nothing to do with my portfolio or yours.
About my portfolio (I wouldn't like to discuss it in an open forum but anyway!) I think I have a very mediocre portfolio BUT then again it sells well (from my point of view for sure).
Thanks for clarification and more constructive attitude btw...
best.