< Buddha at iso3200. Even cropped at only 50%, the noise (coloured speckles) is very obvious. This picture has no commercial value. In this low light situation, you need permission to use a tripod in this temple, and to use a very slow shutter speed. Probably, a film camera can do a better job of it.

< This occurs from poor post processing. This is also called jpeg artifacts to some. Never re-save jpegs, keep the original RAW or psd (PhotoShop document) files, edit them, then save in jpeg. Also, when you save, save at maximum (100%) quality to create the maximum file size possible for maximum quality printing.

(Also see: Shutter Speeds)

< Nagoya Castle. F6.3, 1/125, iso100, polariser used, handheld. Here, the issue could be for any one (or more) of these problems. (1) difficulty focusing at distance with filters on (polariser used); (2) Being handheld, should have used a higher shutter speed or tripod; (3)  Using a standard (not high quality) lens, (see wikipedia for bokeh).

< Train in snow. F13, 1/125, iso200, 75-300 lens at 135mm (never submitted). This appears a little dark, and a little dry of colour. There does need to be a little vibrancy. Also, you can go the other way and be over exposed.

Other reasons why it cannot be used is the noise on the legs of the guy in blue (see close up cropped at 100%, iso400 was used). If the bright pavement in the foreground were cropped out, making it look better, the image would then be too small for acceptance.

< Little Flute. F8, 1/160, iso400; 75-300mm lens at 300mm (never submitted). All Royalty Free (RF) images require a Model Release (MR) (see the bottom of this page for more info). ANY image that contains a face simply must have an MR. So, most images on microstock libraries are posed, planned, and prepared. Rights Managed (RM) images, mostly don't need MRs, but would sell better, or fetch higher prices where an MR was included.

< Rice Planting. F6.3, 1/320, iso100, 75-300mm lens at 300mm. If you click on the first image, you'll see it looks fine, but the second image shows a portion of the same image, cropped at 100%, and the arrows shows the areas of concern. At first, I thought this was purple paint, because it was so strong, though it was rejected as 'purple fringing', which did surprise me. No filters were used, and I regretted forgetting my polariser and ND filters, which might have reduced or prevented this. Just the same, wikipedia has a good article on purple fringing here.

< Daffodils. It's hard to give a precise definition for this, but essentially, it's anything that looks dodgy, weird, or just not right. This is also a catch all term for it possibly not having any 'stock' value, as in, it'd only be a waste of space on a microstock library, advertising agencies, website designers and such would have no use for it. This daffodil picture wasn't even submitted.

< Plum Flowers. F11, 1/160, iso100, 18-70mm at 70mm. In this game, you really, really need to be original. Most stock agencies have more flower and pet pictures than they have toilet paper. Accepting anymore is like winning two life time's supply of toilet paper! Unless you're exceptionally good at flower or pet photography, don't even bother.

iStock is my favourite. They are strong on the technical aspects of photography, and only reject images for good reasons (perhaps a higher rejection rate would do them good). However, you maintaining a low rejection rate with them will benefit you in the long run

I'm no longer updating or adding images to RF microstock agencies, mostly because time and equipment is expensive, and the remuneration is insufficient. So, like all self-respecting photographers, I'm (now) in Rights Managed (RM), where I don't work for peanuts, anymore. Though, RM demands higher quality and skill; I'm doing it.