GregDPhotos

Most (if not all) states have a personality rights statute prohibiting commercial use of an image of an identifiable person without their consent.

In that case I would try resubmitting the images in a week or so.

If you haven't already, I would check Shutterstock's list of known image restrictions (which they update/add to ongoing): https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/Known-Image-Restrictions If the monument isn't listed there, I would double-check the general policy: https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/Why-was-my-content-rejected-for-Missing-or-Invalid-Property-Release?l=en_US&fs=RelatedArticle. Keep in mind that "public" attractions may be privately owned or have property release requirements, in which cases property releases would still be required. In the US, some public monuments don't require a release while many others do. Photos of the US capitol building don't require a release (generally), while some state capital buildings do. Hope this helps.

Most other states have a similar law. Regardless of how a photographer in the US feels about the laws, we do well to accept that if we use a photo of an identifiable person commercially, or license it to be used commercially, we're probably doing something illegal.

I've had images rejected because someone didn't understand that a cloudy sky at night isn't particularly bright.

I don't work with vectors so can't speak to this personally, but you may find this helpful: https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/update-to-our-auto-trace-policy-for-vector-illustrations

Was just about to post a screenshot with the html code but see the link is back. Nice work @Alex Shutterstock

Agree with above; definitely can't submit as editorial with "alterations" (vs. corrections). As far as submitting it commercially, you'll likely need property releases from (1) the owner of the building and (2) the people who made the unique décor (except for any that is in the public domain). If you really want to submit the photo, I recommend submitting the unaltered photo as editorial.

I mainly use sets for my own analysis. I am certain that ~95% of my downloads can't be attributed to separating my images into sets. The question is whether the other ~5% is worth the effort. And to that question, my answer is I don't know.

I've noticed a range among reviewers. Sometimes pictures excellent overall but have one thing wrong are rejected - good QC. Other times images are accepted that, in hindsight, I realized I should never have submitted at all - bad QC. But regardless, I can do QC for myself.

Great portfolio in my opinion. I'm not aware of an actual magic number, but my own stats indicate that to make more than pocket-change, I would need to be well into 4+ digits. Than again, what it comes down to is lots (hundreds...) of images that sell.

W/ Nikon, RAW gives you the most flexibility and maximum quality as far as file type goes. When doing anything I want to be able to use professionally in any way, I use RAW. However, your noise/artifacts rejections likely have a lot more to do with something else: your exposure methods (how you use shutter speed, aperture, and ISO). Huge subject, but here's the gist: Higher ISO means more noise, though different cameras and lenses perform differently. Get as close to ISO 100-200 as you can (but expect to see several people dispute this statement here). Too slow a shutter speed (slower than your focal length - I try to have a shutter speed 1.5-2 x my focal length) will get photos rejected for being out of focus unless you use a tripod (I highly recommend the latter for stationary subjects). A shallow depth of field will get photos rejected for being out of focus unless only a small portion of the photo is supposed to be in-focus. What I'm trying to say is... shoot in RAW and get your use of the exposure triangle down to a science.