Where are the feet?

[tom.w.bn]

Friends asked me to take some photos of them after the confirmation of their daughter. The place in front of the church was crowded so it was difficult to get a nice background. I was nonetheless very content with the results because I captured the positive mood of the situation quite well.

The reaction of the mother was: nice photos but where are the feet?



I personally don't like these complete body shots so much because people are so small on them.

What do you think about feet or not on such photos?

[_larky]

I'm a sometimes fan of feet, but I don't think feet are required to make a good photo.

[marcr1230]

here:

[tom.w.bn]

Originally Posted by marcr1230

here:

I tried to stitch my photos together with your shot but it didn't look so good

[btgc]

Feet are difficult. There are cases when they fit, but then face is out of frame. Smaller creatures clearly have some advantage as they fit fully more often.



Go Blonde, Riga 2010 #12 by mm35exp36, on Flickr

My dad all his life has been depicted in photographs with all legs and arms, despite being only a small part of frame. Probably because most photographs of him were made by relatives not aware there are countless ways to frame. Some amateurs learn face and arms are telling more than legs, sometimes.


Still rolling by mm35exp36, on Flickr

I think, full length portraits with legs included are just a matter of habit and merit of photographer.

[p.giannakis]

Sometimes the lack of feet can make the picture more interesting

[Nikon Bob]

That is the problem when you are not doing photography for yourself either as a favour or for pay. The person you are doing it for may have different tastes. There is no right or wrong way to take this type of photo it is just a matter of taste and who you have to please, yourself or someone else.

Bob

[functus]

I always tell people that they should already know what their feet look like.

[Neare]

Women like shoes.

[tom.w.bn]

Originally Posted by Neare

Women like shoes.

I think you nailed it.

[dave lackey]

Originally Posted by Double Negative

D'ohhh!

Ha! Love it!

[konicaman]

Maybe she just had a very expensive pedicure...

[robert blu]

...or just bought an expensive pair of shoes for the occasion !
robert

[f16sunshine]

Haha! The mother had spent hours coordinating their shoes. How did you miss it?

[tom.w.bn]

Originally Posted by konicaman

Maybe she just had a very expensive pedicure...

No. The girl did makeup and hair on her own. But there were new shoes when I remember right. But it's too late for me. My ex wife tried it many years to teach me basics Information about women without much success

[barnwulf]

A long time ago a photographer friend and I used to shoot a lot of weddings and took pictures of people for other occasions and we always took a full length vertical shots of them and made sure we didn't cut off the feet. If the picture was of a number of people we would shoot a horizontal shot but again always included the feet. On occasions shooting more candid pictures the feet were cut off because pictures were often taken much closer up. To this day I do the same thing and if I have to cut off the feet because of space limitations or shooting distance, it always takes me awhile to ponder where to cut off the legs? If I shoot closer I usually cut people off a little below the waist. I think most photographers in the business did the same. To me cutting people off looks more like a snapshot than a more purposeful picture that people may want taken of themselves. Just my outlook on this. Jim

[bsdunek]

Originally Posted by barnwulf

A long time ago a photographer friend and I used to shoot a lot of weddings and took pictures of people for other occasions and we always took a full length vertical shots of them and made sure we didn't cut off the feet. If the picture was of a number of people we would shoot a horizontal shot but again always included the feet. On occasions shooting more candid pictures the feet were cut off because pictures were often taken much closer up. To this day I do the same thing and if I have to cut off the feet because of space limitations or shooting distance, it always takes me awhile to ponder where to cut off the legs? If I shoot closer I usually cut people off a little below the waist. I think most photographers in the business did the same. To me cutting people off looks more like a snapshot than a more purposeful picture that people may want taken of themselves. Just my outlook on this. Jim

Agree. What I hate is a cut-off at the ankles or mid-calf. I ALWAYS take a wide lens with me in the hope I can avoid this.

[peterm1]

I agree I like to get in closer. Or use a longer lens. The half a leg photo is not a pretty look. But I have other things I do not like either - The tree growing from the top of the subject's head for example (Thats why fast lenses were invented - to blur the background :^) )

Non vertical verticals or non horizontal horizontals are non portrait examples of things not to do. I think with the latter, these "offences" are permissable only if they are so far off horizontal or vertical it looks like part of the deliberate design of the image.

Coming back to the portrait photo - you can occasionally do it the other way around though and it might work. (Still not sure if this one of mine does.).


P1000579a by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

BUt one thing I know is that it seldom works if you cut the head off :^)


P1000425 by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

[Greyscale]

Were the ladies in the OP more concerned about the feet, or about the $600 in new shoes that the feet were in that they bought for the shoot?

[robbeiflex]

My Mom has a thing about always getting the feet in all photos. She'll be visiting in a couple of weeks to visit us and her new grand-daughter. We'll investigate.

[tom.w.bn]

Originally Posted by barnwulf

A long time ago a photographer friend and I used to shoot a lot of weddings and took pictures of people for other occasions and we always took a full length vertical shots of them and made sure we didn't cut off the feet. If the picture was of a number of people we would shoot a horizontal shot but again always included the feet. On occasions shooting more candid pictures the feet were cut off because pictures were often taken much closer up. To this day I do the same thing and if I have to cut off the feet because of space limitations or shooting distance, it always takes me awhile to ponder where to cut off the legs? If I shoot closer I usually cut people off a little below the waist. I think most photographers in the business did the same. To me cutting people off looks more like a snapshot than a more purposeful picture that people may want taken of themselves. Just my outlook on this. Jim

Thanks for your input from the field.

[tom.w.bn]

Originally Posted by Greyscale

Were the ladies in the OP more concerned about the feet, or about the $600 in new shoes that the feet were in that they bought for the shoot?

That I own an M8 and a 5D is the most extreme form of luxury in my circle of friends. 600$ for a pair of shoes is not something we talk about.

[Jack Conrad]

Feet cost extra.
I charge by the foot.

[gb hill]

I almost cut off her toes...Which isn't good either!