Baby Bump Arch

baby arch

Don’t Monday mornings just make you feel like a pregnant woman laying under a big arch bleeding color onto the grass? Yea, same here…

← Previous post

Next post →


  1. Is this a dead body/crime scene?

  2. Oh no, she fell off the Arch.

  3. Looks like a very small person has splurged at Mickey Dee’s and had a hypo on the way out.

  4. I get it….she has a “curve” and she’s under a curve. What a cool concept and so wonderfully executed. NOT.
    I just shot a wedding for a couple because of a faux like this one. She was fresh out of school with artsy concepts where the couple and their family were tiny in every shot just like this. Wanting to make labels for wine bottles for their reception, the couple found they could not get a decent print after the crop of themselves. Luckily they contacted me and were thrilled their wedding pics featured them and not the landscape.
    Tip to faux…sometimes the subject wants to be the subject of the photo. Oh, and BW pics of predominately blue and green subjects are boring. Ironically, colour might have helped this pic. Might.

    • I personally am not a fan of maternity photography in general, and I don’t offer it. That said, if I were to do so, and a client truly wanted the arch in their maternity photo and had a legitimate reason other than “I live in St. Louis” (e.g. they got engaged under the arch, etc…) then why not do it with class. Get her off her back and have her stand in a place where you can see the majority of the arch behind her. Shoot from an ultra low angle with a fairly wide aperture. This would put the emphasis on the baby bump and allow the arch to stay in the shot, and the depth of field should blur it enough so it’s not the main focus. Keep the mom-to-be in 90 percent of the shot, not 10.

      But again, I don’t do maternity shoots, so it’s likely my idea wouldn’t look any better than theirs when it actually hits the sensor.

  5. Maybe she thought she was at McDonalds. LOL

  6. Is the Gateway to the West really situated on such an isolated plot of ground, or is this all Photoshop? It just seems that the angle of the arch and the angle of the landscape at the bottom don’t correspond. Maybe it’s just lens distortion…but something seems amiss BESIDES the horrible concept and execution.

    • Jdharris kind of already mentioned it, but there’s a grassy hill leading from the riverfront to the memorial that would effectively mask most of the stuff going on at the feet of the monument. Of course, there’s really not a lot to see there. The museum and elevators to the top are all underground. The entrance is even recessed, looking a bit like a bunker, actually. It’s a neat place to go, try to make it once in your life. I decided to take my life into my own hands and get some night exposures from the park on the property which came out great. (For those not in the know, the riverfront area, and to a lesser extent the monument park, have a pretty significant reputation for being a high crime area after hours. It’s very well monitored during the day, though.)

  7. Being from St. Louis, I think this was taken from down by the river front which puts the arch grounds up on top of the hill this unfortunate woman is lying on. Terrible!

  8. I feel in this case, you really have to ask the client…is this something you can put in an album and say that that was really you there?

  9. So you created a website just to sneer at people? This is really petty.

    • You must be new here. I seems to be more for generating ad revenue than anything else.

  10. Did anyone else notice the portion of the sky just above the railing? How the hell do you accidently leave that part of the image in color?

  11. Given the reputation of the area near the riverfront and the archway, are we sure this isn’t a photo of a crime scene, with a dead body that just hadn’t been picked up yet? No, that can’t be. Nobody could have so little respect for the dead that they would (semi) selectively color them.

  12. Dr. P. Peter Repage

    I am an amateur, not a ‘pro.’ That is, I am a physician by trade and became an accidental photographer 6 years ago when I realized I could not continue shooting my daughter in action unless I had a semi-decent DSLR in a creative mode (off AUTO), and had some clue of how to practice this art. 65,000 shots later, I think I’ve JUST BEGUN to learn the art of photography.

    It’s a fabulous art, one I think a person can go their whole life and never stop learning. As like medicine.

    You’ll pardon me for saying so, but it appears the focus of this site seems to be misguided anger at the masses (a) who are trying to carve out a living with a 2nd job that doesn’t require much prep because (b) sadly, many people today don’t appreciate the difference between a dept store family snapshot and professional portrait session.

    Wouldn’t your time be better served helping to educate these ‘fauxtographers’ on the finer points of focusing, composition, exposure, or perhaps strobe technique rather than laughing at them?

    • Nope…there’s no point. It’s like asking a satire magazine like MAD to start being more positive and reporting the news, there’s already more than enough magazines and media doing that. If nothing else, anyone who really wants to learn about improving their photography will have already tapped the wealth of resources available on the web already.

Leave a Reply