Thursday, May 7, 2026
The Rejects
I thought it might be fun to do a post showing the types of slides I'm culling. Remember how I wrote several days ago that I go through each batch and discard about half of them right away? Well, here are some that didn't make the cut.
I have a bunch of slides from one person who had a terrible time aiming the camera (above). Their pictures tend to skew upward, so there's lots of sky or ceiling and the subject is squeezed into the lower third of the frame. (I've belatedly developed a fondness for this one, from 1967, which I call "Baby Contemplates Gigantic Sky." I might keep it.)
"Cleveden" (1968) -- Way too dark. There's not really any way to save an image like this. I can sometimes increase exposure and lighten shadows and make something workable but this one is beyond repair.
This one, of a ski lift in Austria in 1983, has the opposite problem -- it's too light. (And also too boring.)
I have several pictures of this 1982 scouting event, and they all look like this. It's almost as if someone was pointing the camera from their hip. Nice shot of someone's elbow. Is that person in the middle with the sleeping bag wearing a coonskin cap?
I have pictures from someone's African safari in 1975. I think they were taken out the window of a moving vehicle. Those brown smudges appear to be leopards.
Another person's camera just could not focus. I don't know whether this was the photographer's fault or the camera was broken, but in any case, many of their photos -- of similar events involving cars and motorcycles -- look like the one above.
This lovely 1977 photo is helpfully labeled "Park Hotel, Oban," just in case you wondered. Taken out the window of a moving vehicle, I'm thinking? (And also incredibly filthy -- I should have dusted it before I scanned it!)
I wondered what might have motivated someone to take this picture. It turns out the Park Hotel was one of two involved in a major fire that killed ten tourists in 1973. The fire was centered in an adjacent hotel, the Esplanade, but the Park's guests were evacuated. Perhaps someone passing by the scene a few years later took the picture because of that event? I believe both hotels were subsequently torn down, at least in part.
Anyway, as you can see, I have a lot of junk to go with the good photos. It's funny that people kept these slides in the first place, isn't it? Of course, they were ultimately discarded one way or another -- which is why I have them -- so maybe I'm picking through someone else's photographic trash.
I'm leaning toward throwing all of these, except the baby, in the bin. I see no earthly reason to save them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)







Film was very unforgiving.
ReplyDeleteIt's true. One shot, and that's that.
DeleteSeems a long time ago that a film was taken into the shop to be processed and then picking up the photos a week later only to find half were rubbish. You certainly have found the rubbish there!
ReplyDeleteHa! It's crazy that these pictures have survived as long as they have!
DeleteJust because you are a skilled photographer approved by the Royal Photographic Society to boot, there's really no need to mercilessly mock the hopeless and the afflicted's best efforts. After all, the creators of those images may have been totally blind.
ReplyDeleteThat's perhaps the best explanation.
DeleteThe first one, ugly baby, cull that.
ReplyDeleteThe second, will scare the children with its dark gothic look.
The third, useful for engineering students.
I could go on. That was a fun post.
Now, Andrew.... there's not supposed to be such a thing as an ugly baby.
DeleteUgly baby?! I kept the baby. Actually, when I cleaned, re-scanned, edited and straightened it up, it turned into a pretty good picture.
Deletehttps://www.flickr.com/photos/sreed99342/55254704125/in/album-72177720333476949
Just think someone paid good money to have them developed. I know I picked up many an envelope of photos that I thought 'bloody hell did I really take that?'. :-)
ReplyDeleteYeah, there was nothing worse than getting your film back and realizing that none of your pictures worked out, for whatever reason.
DeleteAs you say, it seems strange that people kept these slides (or had the original photos turned into slides in the first place!). Imagine having to sit through an evening of looking at someone‘s holiday slides like these, with lengthy commentary given along show…
ReplyDeleteI thought the same thing! Did they SHOW these to people?!
DeleteLibrarian's comment made me laugh. She has described my grandparents to a tee.
ReplyDeleteMy Granddad was into slides in the late 1960s/early 70s, too, but at least you could see the point in most of his photos 🤣
DeleteI used to love slide shows -- but then, they were mostly our own slides and we were in them!
DeleteWow, these photos make mine look like great art!
ReplyDeleteRight?! These really are exceptionally bad.
DeleteAh, yes, the slide show . . . Such fun!
ReplyDeleteI don't mean you - I meant the ones we had in the past.
DeleteI enjoyed our family slide shows, sitting in the dark with the projector fan running. I'm not sure I was ever subjected to one by anyone outside our family, though -- maybe that would have been more boring. (Especially if the pictures were like these!)
DeleteYears ago when I was digitizing my parent's ten's of thousands of slides, I came across a large shoe box that probably held hiking boots, full of similar slides that my mom had culled before sticking them into slide trays. I remember starting to scan then before realizing that I had no desire to see any of those pictures again and stopped. After my mom died, I'm pretty sure all those plus the ones in the slide trays ended up in the landfill when my father decided to downsize. I still retain all the images that I digitized though.
ReplyDeleteWell, at least your mom had the good sense to cull the bad ones. Of course, these may have been culled in the past as well, and maybe the "shoe box" got sold to the dealer along with all the good stuff. That's why I'm putting them in the trash!
DeleteThe thing that baffles me on the bad ones isn't that someone took them. It's that they didn't throw them out when they got their slides back. Those take up a lot of real estate in the "files." The baby could be salvaged if it was cropped as a head shot -- it's cute, but boring the way it is. And Cliveden would be lovely if the horizon was straight (easily fixed these days) AND if it was cropped with a glorious sunset behind it. But maybe not THAT lovely. The others? Why?! (That said, I've been going through old photo albums and boy, have I pitched a bunch of photos!)
ReplyDeleteExactly! Why did they KEEP them?!
DeleteI also went through my albums years ago and threw away huge quantities of pictures -- mostly childhood shots with my crappy little Magimatic camera.
The dark one is an interesting silhouette, though. I agree that we don't know why anyone would keep the others. Unless a little kid took them and the fond parents thought awwww.
ReplyDeleteMaybe. Or maybe if they reflect a memory, they're more meaningful. To me they mean nothing.
DeleteYou describe many of the slides that I have. Some how or other the Micro manager had some major problems. she had some good shots destroyed by a number of diffeent issues. She won't throw them away .
ReplyDeleteHa! As I said above, I guess if you remember the event in the photo it means more to you. You can "fill in the gaps" of the bad photograph!
DeleteThese remind me of some of the slides I tossed from my very first trip to Europe. I had problems with exposure and a shaky hand.
ReplyDeleteWe all take bad shots. Thank goodness for digital and the "delete" button!
DeleteFrom an artist's point of view, even the "rejects' have value! Imperfection holds interest and possibility- a sort of fill in the blank thing. The story is not well defined or predictable and that is the beauty! A challenge and inclusion for the viewer is what art offers.
ReplyDeleteI think mistakes CAN be interesting -- but not every mistake is interesting.
DeleteCoonskin cap? Maybe in 1952, but surely not in 1982.
ReplyDeleteHa! But what is that on that guy's head?!
DeleteI like that baby one! Otherwise, I see no redeeming qualities in the discarded slides.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I kept the baby.
DeleteI do very much like the baby one as well. The gigantic overarching sky is a great metaphor for how huge the world must seem to that little person.
ReplyDeleteExactly! It does sort of convey the baby's experience, doesn't it? Maybe that was even intentional, though as I said this particular photographer seemed to frame a lot of photos that way.
DeleteThe rejected photos could be used in a course titled: "What is wrong with these photos and what could have made them better?"
ReplyDeleteBaby Contemplates Gigantic Sky" makes a great caption. It could be part of an exhibit with other photos with explanatory captions. I love photo journalism where the viewer fills in the blanks.
I think some of these photos could be improved only by going in the trash can! LOL
DeleteNope, you shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bath water (or the bad photos). My mother usually shook when she snapped. Lots of blurry shots. She also cut off the tops of people’s heads. AND nothing was flattering when she shot us because she was a foot shorter and always aimed the lense up our noses.
ReplyDeleteHa! Well, you ARE very tall, Mitchell. :)
DeleteI also have slides with people's heads chopped off. I just don't understand that. How hard would it have been to back up and include everyone?
The ones with tops of heads missing often happen when people press the shutter button and the camera dips from the pressure, I did that a lot years ago and learned to focus the camera a bit higher to allow for the dip until I learned to press more gently. Modern and digital cameras need less pressure on the shutter button too, so that helps.
ReplyDelete