Images Rejected

0003: some faults:

Under exposed: 

Painterly look:

Clearly the refusal reason was technical issues.

The picture is out of focus.

(...)820:

The picture should be level, to have it like this diagonally does not help the viewer and does not enhance the picture.

The automatic post-processing did take some fur detail as noise and optimized it out.

The white balance is utterly wrong. This happens when having either the wrong lighting or if the colours are dominated by one colour.

(...)536:

Shadows and mid-tones to dark, whites to dominant, painterly look due to in-camera post-processing for probably noise reduction.

(...)706: Shadows to dark, there is no structure in the trees' bark. The overall image is underexposed.

(...)627: Shadows to dark :

Noise and other HDR induced artefacts.

(...)205: Wrong white balance (too cool), underexposed, no blacks, missing contrast and more defects:

The right side is the quick and dirty corrected image, but it's by far not yet acceptable. Details have been optimized out. All in all, a typical small sensor camera image. However, the white balance on such an image could be correct.

My opinion: All of these images have been refused because of technical issues, and that's probably the reason you should have given to us. You should examine critically your potential submissions for technical issues on a big screen where you can set the magnification to 100% and 200% in your image viewer. Don't assume, what is looking good in small is usable for stock.

If you are new to stock, you should consider these resources: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/tutorials.html
Please read the contributor user manual for more information on Adobe stock contributions: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html
See here for rejection reasons: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
and especially quality and technical issues: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html