babegoodman

I would go with one of the other posts.....it is about composition.
If you are not including their feet it needs to be the same for all people in the group if you are shooting a full length portrait ,the same would apply to hands.
If you not going to include their extremities it would be as advised ina UK magazine to consider a cut off point between joints ie between the knee and ankle or elbow and wrist. The magazines main critism of readers work is that it can look badly cropped or poorly composed....... But hey we as photographers try to create works that are individual to ourselves and subjects but a full length photo can look better if all the the person is included, and also if composed to leave out certain parts of a body

krispix Loc: London - UK

Come now! It's meters for measuring light and metres for measuring feet (?)

skydiverbob Loc: I retired in San Antonio

Scoutman Loc: Orlando, FL

Consider some of the possibilities:

1. Too large a group to fit in the group portrait, unless front row is kneeling or sitting on the ground.
2. Front row is in chairs. Probably want to show the whole thing, which would include the feet of the ones seated.
3. Bathing beauties in high-heeled strappy sandals. Gotta love THOSE feet.
4. Bathing beauties in barefeet. Gotta LOVE those too.
5. A meditation group who do head stands as part of their routine. Wouldn't look good without them.
6. As mentioned before, show only feet - shod or unshod -
particularly at a podiatrists convention.
7. People lying on their backs or stomachs, soles of their feet facing the camera.
8. Tantric group that practices elaborate henna designs on the hands and feet - show hands grasping feet in a sitting position.
9. Portrait of a foursome in bed, all male, all female, or mixed: choice of whether feet are inside the satin sheets or sticking out - some, all, or none.
10. Shots of a group dancing: definitely show the feet - some at slow shutter speed.
11. Group portrait of scuba club wearing all their gear - show them with front row wearing fins.
12. Group of muslims praying, hopefully facing East - all those feet and shoes a must.
13. Shoe advertisements - sell those $900.00 shoes. Feet are the most photographed subject in ads.
14. Group of folks running a marathon.
15. Shots of the track team as a group or running events.
16. Pictures of those women who race in high heels.
17. People who race barefooted.
18. Group in bell-bottom trousers - feet probably covered.
19. Jesus wandering the desert barefoot with his followers.
20. Group shot of nudists, who show everything.
21. Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers.

photosarah Loc: East Sussex, UK

Very funny, Jerry!!!

Old Redeye Loc: San Mateo, CA

:lol:

dirty dave

years ago I did a family photo (film days) when the photos came back the two women in the photo was furious because thier shoes was not in the picture. I now ask when I am shooting anyone that is dressed up and they are paying for it, if they want thier shoes in it.

Roy Hakala Loc: Red Wing, MN

For formal poses, I like the rule that you don't cut a limb. With a standing, posed group, either include the feet, or crop just below the jackets and avoid the legs completely.

johnshaun

Feet are useful .Some years ago I had an old family wedding picture which had lost the bottom right hand corner. I was able to reconstruct,by cloning other peoples feet! Of course if the photographer had not included their feet in the first place the problem wouldn't have arisen. It would have been another part of the anatomy that would have been missing.
Its a good job the feet were included!

Martys Loc: Lubec, Maine

I believe I read somewhere,....

If you "have to" include a portion of arms and/or legs in people shots,...don't cut them off at the joint,....(elbow, knee and such).

Careful composition prevails though IMO.

DaveMM Loc: Port Elizabeth, South Africa

To be picky, in the UK it is metres! A meter is used to measure something, i.e. ammeter.

To be serious, I would feel I should either cut the person off quite high up the leg/torso or else include the feet. I feel that to just cut off the feet means I have not composed properly (which is an error I make too often).

Designerfin Loc: Utah, USA

Great list scoutman. Dirty Dave makes a very good point. Shoes can be very artistic and some people LOVE shoes. I can imagine though that the size and arrangement of a group would almost dictate sometimes if you can include the feet. Or metres.

JoeB Loc: Mohawk Valley, NY

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Crwiwy Loc: Devon UK

Depends on the composition - it looks strange if just the feet have been chopped off or if there is a lot of background above the subject and yet the feet have been chopped off!

Generally, I favour including the feet for more distant shots an excluding them for closer pictures.
If in doubt - why not simply include the fet and crop as required.

ecobin Loc: Paoli, PA

When photographing babies (granddaughter, etc) I usually include feet since they are cute. For everyone else, it depends on the size of the group, what they're wearing, whether standing or seated, etc. I'd say less than 25% of my photos of adults include feet.