Any insights on these photo rejections?

Completely fed up with iStock, I recently closed my account with them and started uploading images to P5. After waiting about 6 weeks for review, finally got verdict on first few today. Only 1 was approved and rest were rejected for two reasons: chromatic aberration (CA) or too blurry.

I shoot with 5DmkIII, and I've definitely seen problems with CA when shooting fairly wide open on my 50mm f1.4, but usually when stopped down it goes away. The rejected images came from my 70-200 f4 and 17-40 f4, and all the images in question were stopped down to f10 or f11. I hadn't noticed CA with these before, but when I zoom in to 300% I can see a tiny bit in some areas. Is this really enough for rejection?

Most of my rejections were for CA. Here are two examples:

http://imgur.com/a/gBZwd -- I just can't see any CA in this one

http://imgur.com/a/pgLtV -- Along black pants I can see a TINY amount of CA

And this was one rejected for being too blurry:

http://imgur.com/a/bSdrx

I had always found the quality of images much higher on iStock, and had avoided P5 because it seemed, in my opinion, to be more like Envato's photodune, with a few decent quality, but most rather low quality. I finally decided switched to P5 because I got sick of iStock continuously reducing earnings and seeming disrespect for contributors. Anyway, with my perception of P5's photo quality standards, I've been surprised to find so many rejections.

Am I simply missing actual flaws in my images or are there tricks to get more favorable results from the curators?

I don't think they really accept photos here anymore, I tested the waters with five tack sharp beautiful pictures from an ice storm, well lit, everything framed well and coated in two inches of thick ice....all five rejected for out of focus, blurry and chromatic aberration. They got accepted instantly at other sites.

I think they prefer video here simple as that.

Congratulations on your break from iStock. They are a cancer on this industry. Nothing but contempt for their contributors while greedily taking up to 85% of sales of content they neither created nor own. Pure bastards.

Pond5 unfortunately hasn't taken the photo side of the business very seriously, in my opinion, which is a shame since they could really be representative of a new respectful and fair stock photo alternative to the iStock's of the world, as Pond5 is with video and audio. Also, the reviewing of photos here is unlike the other mediums, clearly different standards and practices. I have had hundreds of rejections for reasons that make absolutely zero sense, so your concern and confusion is valid and shared by many of us.

Sales are infrequent, but high priced shots do sell, seemingly better than lower prices, (particularly images of chickens). So a couple sales monthly can equal out to more than many of the micro-sub 15-30 cent a pop guys out there.

Not sure about tricks, I'm personally just waiting until they upgrade their approach to photos in general, then I'll re-submit all the proven quality sellers that had been "mistakenly" rejected previously.

I just had 1 photo accepted out of 467. It felt quick and arbitrary. Shutterstock, and Adobe stock accepted most of them. I can live with rejections and usually can agree with the reasons given, but this just feels silly. If Pond5 doesn't need or want photos than they can save us both a lot of time and effort by saying so. Most of my videos were accepted. I could accept really high standards but the few stills accepted so far aren't that different than the 467 rejected just now. I uploaded about 800 photos over the last month so maybe they just don't want to go through them all?

P5 rejects more photos than they accept. I have had photos accepted, then rejected later!! The excuses are BS. They just don't get the value of stock photos being a money maker for everyone here. Too bad they wasted your time.

Hi, I'm New here too and I don't think P5 doesn't want photos. In fact I've just uploaded almost 1000 photos and 0 rejections. Maybe rejections should bebpossible due to filters and postproduction techniques. My case, 1000 photos, 0 views...
Desperating!