Does it hurt the image?

[DougC]

Took a series of images of this very cooperative fellow but as you can see, the foot is hidden due to the very uneven surface of the perch. Do you think it lowers the quality/impact of the photo?

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Nimi]

I was too distracted by the signature to notice. (Joke). But no, it's a great photo and the eye goes straight to the eye. And signature.

 

[DougC]

I was too distracted by the signature to notice. (Joke). But no, it's a great photo and the eye goes straight to the eye. And signature.

Haha! Actually, the dark area behind the signature it a big chunk of metal that I was trying to camouflage.

 

[NorthernFocus]

Yes. Still a nice image but IMO would be better with the foot visible. But that's a particular peeve of mine.

 

[Nimi]

Haha! Actually, the dark area behind the signature it a big chunk of metal that I was trying to camouflage.

Move it where the foot is missing.

 

[dupcak]

I personally think having the foot would improve the image. It's a very good image as it is now, but I think if the foot were visible it would be better. I have a photo from the Serengeti of cheetah stretching and yawning on top of a rock. It's two front feet were hidden behind a bump in the rock and every time I see it I get annoyed - however I can't get rid of it because my wife (and everyone else who has seen it) thinks it's a great shot. Just goes to show that us photographers are usually WAAAAAYYY more picky than the rest of the world.