Flower Legs

flower legs

No matter how your day’s going so far, at least be thankful you aren’t stuffed head first into a giant flower!

← Previous post

Next post →


  1. I see nothing wrong with this photo, I think its well done and creative. I would have kept her legs in colour though.

    • Your post must be in jest. What do you mean by creative? Legs being swallowed up by a flower? Ask yourself this: what story does this picture tell. Right. None. It’s idiotic. Unless it’s an intelligent spread of photos re-telling Little Shop of Horrors – which isn’t the case here. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. There’s nothing redeeming about this image.

      • It’s meant to be art, not a portrait. The legs are meant to represent the pistil of the flower. Have you never seen work done where another object (even people) are used in replace of the natural form? Tony’s correct. If the artist would’ve used color finding yellow panty-hose and a yellow or pink skirt this would have looked a lot better. For an amateur, this isn’t bad.

      • You’re wrong Kat, this is an interesting idea – the execution and comp let it down but the idea itself is worthwhile and has creative merit.

      • I’m with Kat. The concept sucks.

    • I kind of thought the same. It’s not a style of art I’d be likely to pay for, but I remember seeing maypop flowers and thinking the pistil and petals looked like a ballerina standing on her head. I wouldn’t have desaturated the legs and dress though…and perhaps chosen a different blossom.

  2. Terrible ‘shop job. Interesting idea, terrible execution. Maybe if the dress were blended to look like part of the flower, perhaps?

  3. Possibly if there were more flowers that showed the pistil so you had a reference to what they were trying to do.

  4. Wow.. definitely brings back memories from Biology and discussions of he sexual organs of plants.
    Essentially every time you smell a rose you are rubbing your face in plant vagina and plant penis.
    Nicely executed, if that was the point.

  5. sadly the ides for this picture had so much potential if they set it up different and kept photoshop out of it…have the lady in a field of the flowers, photographer gets down low so some flowers are out of focus but in the front of the picture and the model is in focus and further away. so simple yet never thought of by a fauxtographer 🙁

  6. It must be an opium dream, after all that is a poppy. The legs should not have been white, but then I hate all spot color spot B&W. I teach high school kids, this is better than avg. More likely college. Still, not great, but not the worst out there.

  7. What. WHAT


  8. I thought this is one of dumbest ideas I’ve seen yet … legs poking out of a flower. WTH is the point here? You can’t call this a portrait … and the color flower and black and white legs things … just dumb. What a pile of crap.

  9. Hey, it’s not a baby sleeping in the flower, so it could always be worse.

    There’s a pretty significant difference between commercial photography and art. I suspect (though I can’t tell for sure) that this is supposed to fall into the art category. And from an artistic perspective, I think I mostly get what the artist was going for, which is a good thing. A lot of artists can’t even pull that much off, so bonus there. On the flip side, the execution isn’t that great. The mostly desaturated legs and the overly crisp edges where they pasted the legs into the image kind of kill it for me. Still, if this is a form of expression, and not something a client requested, I say good for yhe photographer for trying something difficult. Learn from this one, and do better on the next take.

    Now, if this was commercial photography that a client requested and/or paid for, the tables are turned. First, you should never do something just because a client requests it. Second, you should never agree to a shot outside of your technical ability. Third, you should just never do a shot like this as a portrait package.

  10. I actually like this concept. I just finished reading your article about the wall and found it so refreshing, and then scroll further to see you tearing apart the creativity and inspiration of other photographers, perhaps someone who may find your work inspiring and who may look up to you. Doesn’t it make you feel ugly inside to so publicly tear others apart?

  11. spanghew

    I’m really surprised that there are so many people defending the “artistic value” of this picture.
    It’s a pair of grey legs, which have been bizarrely (and inexpertly) pasted onto an out-of-focus poppy.

    I really enjoy surreal photoshop art, so if this had been brilliantly executed, I would maybe like it.
    As it is, though…. It’s one of the worse things I’ve seen on this website, made even worse by the fact that so many people see nothing wrong with it.

    • No one is defending the actual final piece, just the concept – which you agree with if you say had it been better executed you’d like it. We seem to be saying the same thing.

      • spanghew

        When I re-read the comments, I realised that was the case. I guess the first coment of “I see nothing wrong with this photo” just threw me off a bit there.

        For me, it’s not just the execution that makes this picture bad, though.
        If it were excellently done, then I would “maybe” like it, but even then I would consider it to be completely surreal.
        If they were going for the comparison between pistils and ballerina legs, then why use a flower that doesn’t even have pistils? I think this was a half-baked idea, from the beginning, and the execution just makes it worse.

Leave a Reply