This is a pretty link from Bonpoint’s Facebook photostream. As it’s a bit small and not too clear, here’s a better view:
….as so often, they include a superfluous boy: he’s perfectly harmless, but useless. And the little girl on the right, while cute in her own way, is visually a bit of an add-on. For the brand’s stylist and photographer, presumably the idea was to show the collection’s items aimed at boys and toddlers – but someone got in before me and did this:
…a terrible crop leaving part of the boy’s hand still visible. The Daily Obsession was clearly illustrating the girls’ and toddler styles, so to be brief did this (tho’ where they got the whacking 829 h original it comes from I wish I knew):
My best shot:
…with the girls looking very cute in their dark socks, shoes and dresses with the white Peter Pan collars – even if there is a slight resemblance to soccer players lining up to defend a free kick (the two with the white cuffs protecting their family jewels)…..
I’m merciless in cropping out boys where possible – nothing against them: I had two brothers, and now have three sons – there must be boys’ portraiture blogs where they’d feel right at home… The problem is positive discrimination: boys get put in fashion spreads that are all about girls’ clothes, just for gender balance. This for example (still with Bonpoint):
The boy is clearly ruining the picture: silly hat, duck feet… he’s got to go:
….it’s a bit blurred, as the focus seems to have been on his feet (!!)….but it now at least makes sense. You could legitimately complain that the photographer’s work shouldn’t be tampered with: and I’d agree for personal studio, editorial and portfolio work: but for fashion spreads you often feel that they’d be quite happy that you’re re-balancing the image, and giving it more visual cohesion……that’s my defence, anyway (with my hands carefully protecting my family jewels….)