Not Good Enough for Stock Photography?

I submitted 10 sample images to a large stock photography website to see if I could "pass the test" and be accepted as a Stock photo contributor.

The good news is I had enough quality photos to "pass the test" and be accepted into the service as a contributor.  But the bad news is they rejected 3 photos that I happen to think are really good.

You can now be the judge. Do you agree with the assessment? I would love your feedback.

I can understand rejecting this photo as something that most "stock photo" customers would not really use.  The official reason was "Composition--Limited commercial value due to framing, cropping, and/or composition."

I happen to think this is a pretty good photo. Maybe you won't agree with me. Reason for rejection "Lighting Problems--Purple fringe, blown highlights or lenses flare."

This is one of my  most popular images on Flickr. In fact, an almost identical image from the same shoot, on the same day was published in a San Francisco Bay Area regional parks guidebook. Reason for rejection was "Lighting Problems--Purple fringe, blown highlights or lenses flare."

The stock photography site was Shutterstock.  My general feeling about the overall experience? I am not going to make contributions to the site.  I just don't have the time to submit 100's and 100's of images in hopes of making a few bucks on the side. Each photo you upload requires at least 7 tags, a clear name and then other category options selected. Then you have to wait for image approval.  This would turn into a full time job.

As a side note, today is a day for rejection. I tried to join the Flickr group "Flickr's Best Landscape Photographers". No luck. It is an exclusive group of about 300 people. Some of the images are pretty amazing. I will keep shooting until I can get my skills high enough to join. One of the contributors lives in my area and shoots in some of the same parks. His work is truly amazing.