Rejects

[Notes_Norton]

Offering pictures for sale at Adobe, Shutterstock and Alamay, most of the pictures I took with the then-state-of-the-art one-megapixel camera and those that I scanned from slides were rejected for low resolution or film grain respectively. It's no big deal, as I am not doing this to make a fortune

 

But some of the rejects I really like.

 

I live one house away from the Indian River Lagoon in Florida, and this is from the street in front of my next-door neighbor's house.

 

It was taken on the full moon at perigee. The lagoon is 2 miles wide, to the east of that is a 1/4 mile barrier island and after that the Atlantic Ocean.

 

http://www.nortonmusic.com/stockphoto/Rejects/210621-01-001.jpg

 

When I enlarged it with Gigapixel, it had too many artifacts. Rejecting it was a fair call by Adobe and Shutterstock.

 

Notes

[Notes_Norton]

Another reject I liked. It was scanned from a color slide, and the QC people decided they didn't like the film grain.

 

http://www.nortonmusic.com/stockphoto/Rejects/210621-01-003.jpg

 

It's a Snowy Egret in mating plumage. These birds were almost driven extinct in the 1920s to supply feathers for lady's hats. Now they are endangered again because Big Sugar controls the water and politicians in South Florida and they are not interested in the environment, only their profits.

 

Notes

[KenElevenShadows]

Some of them just look great. I mean, a good photo is a good photo, even if it doesn't have enough information/detail.

 

Technically, my first digital camera was a Kodak Easyshare. And it was probably about one pixel as well. Not sure. We purchased it because I was looking at houses to purchase on the way home, and I wanted to show what they looked like. The horrible thing about that camera is that the batteries would die after about 12-15 photos.

[Notes_Norton]

My first was a Canon PowerShot A40. Advertised as a whopping 1 megapixel.

 

I retired my Canon EOS SLR (still have it, but never use it anymore) because film is more expensive and digital is kinder to the environment.

 

I have thousands of slides I took with that camera, and they all have that film grain, so although I think they are still good pictures, they won't be going to AdobeStock.

 

Eventually I got a Panasonic Lumix, because when traveling overseas, a point-and-shoot with a zoom is much more convenient than the SLR. I just bought a new Lumix.

 

Here's one that Adobe and Shutterstock thought was out of focus. I took the original (this one is reduced) and looking at it at 100% I see the bird's wing and head in focus and some of the feathers on the body ever so slightly out that I don't think it should matter. After all, the bird was grooming itself in the wind. But I like the shot anyway and am happy to share it. I took it with the older Lumix, aperture priority, in late afternoon.

 

http://www.nortonmusic.com/stockphoto/Rejects/210621-01-002.jpg

 

Insights and incites by Notes

[KuruPrionz]

Consider playing around with your "rejects" (some beautiful work!!!!!) in Photoshop and having a gallery showing locally.

Put a set of nicely framed images on the walls but offer less expensive prints mounted on backing boards for reasonable prices too.

Some of my friends have done pretty well with that strategy.

 

Another angle might be to put together a set of your best sea birds images and approach greeting card companies with the idea of doing a series.

 

It won't take much to make more money than you'll ever see from Adobe licensing your images.

 

Good work, Sir Notes!

[Notes_Norton]

Thanks for the compliments and the suggestions.

 

Here's another reject. They said out of focus, but with my eyes I couldn't see it. I wanted the bare tree to be in focus and that's what I got.

 

http://www.nortonmusic.com/stockphoto/Rejects/210621-01-006.jpg

 

I'm sure they are looking with eyes that are much more trained than mine are, so I suspect they are correct, but I like the shot anyway.

 

I like the way it makes my eyes move around the picture.

 

Notes

[Notes_Norton]

Here is another reject I loved. I focused on the wood of the harp, the lighting was low, so the shallow depth of field made the strings a tad out of focus. It was taken in Budapest, Hungary while attending Dvorak's only Opera. A mix-up in our less expensive tickets purchased online that sold our seats twice ended up with the theater manager giving us very expensive front-row seats.

 

I leaned over the retainer and took this picture in the pit during intermission.

 

http://www.nortonmusic.com/stockphoto/Rejects/210621-01-007.jpg

 

Notes

[KenElevenShadows]

Harps have these nice curves that I think lend themselves to interesting photos.

[Notes_Norton]

Thanks. I agree.

[Notes_Norton]

Here is one they said is out of focus. I can't see it, but like I said, their eyes are trained more than mine.

 

It's a 2,000 or so pound Australian Salt Water Crocodile on a road that is being flooded by the incoming tide.

 

http://www.nortonmusic.com/stockphoto/Rejects/210621-01-004.jpg

 

I was told they wait there every day, waiting for the tide to come in, flood the inland part of the road, and when the tide shifts back out, the crocs wait for the fish to come by and gobble them up.

 

We didn't see any gobbling, but we saw about a dozen crocs, most of them were in the water on the deep side of the road. This one got impatient, crossed the road, and eventually jumped in the other side.

 

We saw a lot of bird life there too, but they were moving too fast for me to get a good picture with my travel point-and-shoot camera.

[Notes_Norton]

They didn't like this one because it was shot with a lower resolution (older) camera

 

http://www.nortonmusic.com/stockphoto/Rejects/210621-01-008.jpg

[KenElevenShadows]

The low-resolution aspect would severely limit what it can be used for, so I can't say I blame them.

[Notes_Norton]

That's true, and when blown up at 100% it isn't as sharp as it should be. I'm not complaining that they rejected it, just explaining why they did.

 

They rejected this one for focus too, but I can't see the problem. I have an eye appointment in August, probably need new glasses, it's been a couple of years, I'll re-evaluate. If I can see the issue, it'll help me in the future.

 

http://www.nortonmusic.com/stockphoto/Rejects/210621-01-012.jpg

[KuruPrionz]

That's true, and when blown up at 100% it isn't as sharp as it should be. I'm not complaining that they rejected it, just explaining why they did.

 

They rejected this one for focus too, but I can't see the problem. I have an eye appointment in August, probably need new glasses, it's been a couple of years, I'll re-evaluate. If I can see the issue, it'll help me in the future.

 

http://www.nortonmusic.com/stockphoto/Rejects/210621-01-012.jpg

 

You can magnify the image on your computer screen and you have to think the way they think. For this photo, the eye of the loon should be razor sharp.

Another factor could be that it is a fairly static and probably common image and they may have plenty of "loon floating in the water" photos on hand already.

 

If that is some other kind of duck, my apologies. We have loons up here, I like the eerie sounds they make "crazy as a loon".

[Notes_Norton]

No apology needed, but it's a Hooded Merganser. They pass through here every year for a couple of weeks in December.

 

We seldom see loons here, and they are always a delight to see.

 

Any time we get anything other than a 'normal bird' it's special.

 

When I get my new eyeglass prescription, the out of focus might be evident.

 

My old glasses were 2 years old at the beginning of the pandemic, and I cancelled my appointment due to the plague. Being far-sighted, it makes seeing up close a challenge.

 

Talking about focus on the eye, this one has that problem. The feathers are in focus, but the eye is a bit out. It's a Roseate Spoonbill, and I often see them in the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, and seldom in the Everglades National Park. This one was taken in the park, and it was windy. The light wasn't that bright, so I couldn't get a great depth of field. I didn't notice the eye until they rejected it. That taught me to look at the eye more closely before submitting.

 

Since I usually see the spoonbills with their head in the water, and seldom seeing them perch like this, I like the shot anyway for it's 'specimen' value.

 

http://www.nortonmusic.com/stockphoto/Rejects/210621-01-020.jpg

 

Notes

[KuruPrionz]

My camera is a bit long in the tooth for digital - a Canon T2i.

 

Someday, if budget allows, I'd like a newer mirrorless camera and full frame. Technology has improved and we can now adjust the ISO upwards to allow a usable shutter speed and stop down the aperture for more depth of field. Then you could take a shot like the one above, with the eye in focus and the feathers still sharp.

 

Dreaming, I know. I don't foresee a windfall of that sort coming along any time soon and I don't do enough photography to need the camera so it will probably remain a dream.

But it is a reality for many and some of them will have their images chosen by Adobe. Someday, Adobe will send them a check for $1.37.

[KenElevenShadows]

I would suggest considering a used purchase. You can get a monster of a camera for under $1000, especially on the used market or during the holidays. I have purchased both my Pentax K-1, which is arguably one of the greatest DSLRs made, and a Nikon D750, which ain't exactly chopped liver either, for under $1000.

 

If that's too much, then you could look at some other cameras, such as Olympus cameras or, if you really want to get an incredible DSLR on the cheap, the venerable Nikon D700, which is long in the tooth but amazing and can be purchased for easily under $400. I cannot begin to tell you how many photos in National Geographic and war-torn zones and news agencies were taken with a D700. Just because it's old doesn't suddenly mean it began sucking. It has low MP count but is otherwise an amazing camera.

[KuruPrionz]

I would suggest considering a used purchase. You can get a monster of a camera for under $1000, especially on the used market or during the holidays. I have purchased both my Pentax K-1, which is arguably one of the greatest DSLRs made, and a Nikon D750, which ain't exactly chopped liver either, for under $1000.

 

If that's too much, then you could look at some other cameras, such as Olympus cameras or, if you really want to get an incredible DSLR on the cheap, the venerable Nikon D700, which is long in the tooth but amazing and can be purchased for easily under $400. I cannot begin to tell you how many photos in National Geographic and war-torn zones and news agencies were taken with a D700. Just because it's old doesn't suddenly mean it began sucking. It has low MP count but is otherwise an amazing camera.

 

Currently my inclination is to keep improving my recording studio, music has been inspiring me and photography not so much. I don't have a large budget for anything but little by little, the studio gets better.

 

I like the Fuji system, it's small and light. The 56 1.2 is fabulous.

But the cost is really in the lenses. It is also where the rubber meets the road, sort of like how important microphones are when recording.

[Notes_Norton]

To me photography is a hobby. Performing live music is my profession.

 

I'm happy learning to improve my skills as a photographer, and if anything sells, it's a bonus. More emotional than essentioal.

 

Notes

[KenElevenShadows]

I have a considerably larger investment in music or recording gear. It's not even close.

 

But I don't need any more music gear.

 

And for now, I don't need any photographic gear. But I do need to upgrade software for photography occasionally in part because I have to review them. And up to now, I have been improving my photography gear little by little.

 

Music and photography can both be expensive hobbies if you get completely immersed in them.

 

I'm forced to purchase much of my stuff used or use it for a really long time. Fortunately, since I have mostly analog synths, that works out. I'm also using a Mac Pro 1,1 to run Pro Tools. Why? Because it works, and replacing it would cost a lot of money without overtly improving the sound.

[KuruPrionz]

Ken, I very purposely try to find suitable used gear. It's not easy to try things out all the time and it's impossible to know if you like a lens or a mic pre in the shop. You have to use it for a while.

 

If I buy a used item that holds value and is at a reasonable price, there is a strong possibility that I can sell it and get my purchase price back out again. That does not happen if I purchase new gear, there will almost always be some depreciation. And very few retail outlets have a return policy on microphones (I wouldn't ether!!!!!) but I can buy a used mic, try it for a while and keep it or sell it. This is way gooder.

 

I've done it many times with lenses, I'm probably ahead of the game on those in the long run.

[Notes_Norton]

<...snip...>

 

Music and photography can both be expensive hobbies if you get completely immersed in them. <...>.

 

I'm fortunate that I make my living doing music and nothing but music. That takes it out of the hobby category and into the profession.

 

I buy good gear, but as my need is to make money at music, I only buy what I need, and I use it as long as it is appropriate. The object is definitely not a collection, and I am definitely not a collector. My instruments and associated gear are my tools.

 

My guitars and saxophones are custom-made for me, so when I see other guitars or saxes, I don't have GAS, I know what I had built for me, suits me just fine.And because they are built for me, there is probably next to no resale value. But that's OK, because I expect to use them for years and years.

 

I like taking pictures of wildlife, as it gives me a good excuse to be out in nature and not do much of anything while I wait for a nice moment. It's like fishing, sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you don't. All the conditions could be right, but the animals may or may not cooperate. The rest of my shots are mostly while I'm on vacation. Until COVID I went somewhere every year on 6 out of the 7 continents and a lot of islands that aren't on continents. I bring a Lumix super zoom point-and-shoot on vacation because I travel light.

 

At home, I used to use first a Pentax K-1000 (I miss that one) and a Canon EOS/film. But now I just use the same Lumix. I have many hundreds of Ectachrome and Kodachrome slides that are slowly deteriorating. It's hard and sometimes impossible to get years of crud off them.

 

This is one I cleaned up.(Rejected due to film grain)

 

http://www.nortonmusic.com/stockphoto/Rejects/Z_2021-07-17_P1010840p.jpg

[Notes_Norton]

False alarm. One day after Adobe sent an e-mail telling me all 6 shots were rejected, (including the one in the last post), they sent another letter telling me all 6 were accepted.

 

So the pic above is no longer a reject.

 

Notes