Ping Stephen

[StuartR]

Stephen

Remember we passed a couple of comments in a recent post about me being unable / unwilling to delete any images, even the duff ones?

Well, one of my "almost" images (it was spoilt by the subject being blurred) that I posted on here, mainly because it amused me, I also posted on a wildlife forum just to see if anyone could tell me what the subject (a bumblebee) was. (it's a Bombus pascuorum if anyone's interested!)

Yesterday I got an email from a guy running a nature website asking if they could use the image on their site and, possibly, in some of their literature!

See, I knew I was right keeping all my duff images

Unfortunately, my self-imposed mission to be paid for a photograph has still to be realised - the site is run by a registered charity so I've let them use the image FOC. Anyway, you can't charge for a blurred image surely?

[StuartR]

Re: Ping Stephen

I bet if I had one of those fancy Canon 100-400mm jobs like you & Pops it'd be pin sharp

Mind you, I was using an IS lens (Canon 70-300) so I reckon it's just too slow a shutter speed - have to look at the EXIF.

[Stephen]

Re: Ping Stephen

Hey hey, great stuff Stuart. You have obviously justified keeping this one, though frankly so would I have done. This is no dud, but there are often ones that are, and I tend to bin those. Anything that stands a chance I tend to keep.

I suppose in the case of this shot, the bee may look not to be 100% but you can probably put that down to movement on the bees part and not a fast enough shutter speed on your part The website that want it will no doubt have it no bigger that 150pixels probably less so it will look spot on