It’s like the child is asking, “why? Why did you do this to me?”
← Previous post
Next post →
Just because you can do it, doesn’t mean you should. This is a good example.
And especially if you can’t.
Would have been a neat effect in some crappy neighborhood news letter…back in 1992.
Why? Considering that it is just bad all the way around, why don’t people understand how to make an image NOT look flat and tacky?
All I can figure is that someone has VERY recently figured out how to isolate subjects and is practicing on someone else’s dime.
thanks for the late night laugh….
NO! STOP IT!!!
Flower + baby = good thing? Not necessarily, as this fauxtographer aptly demonstrates.
I like to imagine that part of the thought process (or lack thereof) went a little like “Maybe I should move the baby to make it look like it’s sitting in the flower instead of floating above it, but the top of the head is already touching the top of the picture, so this must be right.”
Sweet mother of pollination! This is awful!
could be worse. the baby could have cut and pasted bee-wings.
I love that the baby kinda looks like she’s shrugging her shoulders. As if she knew how bad this shoot would turn out, and was like “oh, well what’s a baby to do?”
Sorry, fauxtog, Anne Geddes you ain’t.
It’s so funny!
ewe that’s ugly.
It looks as if the baby is saying:
wow FFS at least get the kid smiling and also the fauxtog could have also went to walmart and bought a bunch of fake flowers to have around the kid… interesting idea of putting flowers and children together but this is terrible outcome better luck next time fauxtog. 😉
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.