Apparently disembodied feet are really hot right now, oh and date stamps of course, they’re…timeless.
← Previous post
Next post →
OK I’m not gonna make the requisite big feet analogy.
I actually don’t have a problem with this one – it’s not gross or poorly lit. No evidence of bad edits…
Date stamp – would I put that on a client’s image? no – but then I don’t watermark what goes to the client either. I might put a date stamp on something if I wanted to remember when it was shot or if the date has a special significance – but i think there are better ways to do it.
Nothing wrong with it? Who wouldn’t want a four year olds feet birthing out of a red towel.
Imma put it on me shot list for sure.
I’m pretty sure that’s a pair of jeans toned the same color tint as the photo, not a red towel…
Baby feet — with shallow d.o.f. have been and will be a really popular pose. I haven’t noticed a trend on adults, but hey, if that’s part of the portraiture market, so be it.
I don’t use date stamps, but that could easily be edited out. Other than that, its not a bad image.
Sure Dave you might “put” a date on an image to mark a special mile stone. I doubt you would leave the function on your P-N-S to handle that task. Other than the date stamp I don’t see anything amiss with the tootsies shot. I doubt it’s the only pose in the client’s set.
I love the photo of my babies feet. Its similar to this.. the time stamp is horrible, Yes! But I love my photo of my babies feet. 🙂
I like baby’s feets when they are impeccably pedicured and attached to an at least 18 year old young woman.
There should be no need to use a date stamp. Your camera embeds that info – along with a lot of other info – in the image and if you open it in Photoshop and go to File -> Info you will see the date it was taken and modified, along with other pertinent data. I hate date stamps, personally. I think they look cheesy and amateurish.
OTOH the feet are fine in my view. If the parents like their little baby’s feet (and what parent doesn’t?), a photo is cute. The black background, the good perspective with the leg falling away in the background and the black background – it all works for me.
More technical flaws then you can shake a toe at!
I don’t see anything wrong with this. They’re feet…
Oh, wait. I get it. I’m supposed to be snarky about this too, right? Hold on you guys, I’ll get it eventually! D’:
*fumbles for insults*
I’m with the other guys. While it’s not a knock-your-socks-off photo it is still a reasonably shot photo. The date stamp does scream amateur but the it might be included in a client’s portfolio and have some relevance.
Why a pro would put a date stamp like that on a published image is beyond me and is very unprofessional.
I actually think this is a cute shot. Minus the date, of course (my old film P&S’s button to turn that off broke. There was nothing I could do about it – drove me crazy).
I HATE FEET.
Yes the date stamp can be removed, but it shouldn’t be there in the first place. While the composition is not terrible and the photographer does get points for being in focus (seems to be an optional technique these days) my biggest issue with this photo is the either poor choice of coloring whether it was done in post edit or uncorrected white balance, it makes the feet look dirty.
This stinks… or at least it will when the feet get bigger. :-p
Seriously, this is likely to become one of the most cliche shots of all time… right next to the stupid hats shots
It’s sad how obviously easy it would be to clone out the date stamp. They took the time to crop the photo and edit the levels, but simply could NOT be bothered to clone out the distracting numbers. Fauxtography at its finest.
Apart from the stupid date stamp, I like this one. I get requests for baby feet photos all the time. Super cute.
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.