There’s a growing school of thought suggesting that it doesn’t matter if hands, feet, or other body parts are cropped out of a photograph. This is increasingly becoming a convenient excuse for poor framing. We’re being told, “If you like it, then it’s okay.” But I think it’s worth asking: why do you like it?

Sometimes we make honest mistakes in our framing and unintentionally cut off body parts. That’s fine—acknowledge the mistake, learn from it, and move on. And if, after all that, you still like the image, then fair enough. But let’s not pretend a misstep was always intentional just because we don’t want to admit error.

Now, ask yourself: how often do you deliberately crop out hands or feet? Probably not that often—and when you do, you usually justify it with something like, “I wanted to focus on the [insert your reason].” I’m hearing more and more dismissive responses like, “I like it, so I don’t care what anyone else thinks,” particularly when body parts are cut off. But do you really believe that? Or is it just a shield against critique?

I often see people pointing to famous photographers whose images include cropped body parts, and using that to justify their own choices: “If it’s okay for them, it’s okay for me.” But back in the days of film—when viewfinders were often poor and framing mistakes easier to make—people were more forgiving, especially when the name behind the image carried weight. Being famous seems to grant automatic forgiveness, even when the mistake was likely unintentional. Over time, these errors have been rebranded as “artistic intent.”

So, be honest with yourself when evaluating your work. How many times have you looked at someone else’s photo and immediately thought, “Shame the hand’s cut off”? This isn’t just about technical correctness; it’s about the visual harmony and aesthetic appeal of an image. Sure, everyone has different tastes—but that doesn’t mean we should excuse every mistake as deliberate “style.”

Yes, sometimes cropping body parts works. Sometimes it doesn’t. Fame doesn’t make it right or wrong. Your own judgment should do that. If you’re okay using casual excuses to justify an error, that’s your choice. Personally, unless the image is exceptional in other ways, I wouldn’t use it—and I’d be honest with myself about why.

So here’s a question: if cropping body parts is just as valid, then why do we see far more images where everything is intact?

Of course, this is all subject-dependent. I’m specifically talking about photographing people—mainly models for my personal portfolio. I no longer work commercially, and that’s a different ball game altogether.

Perhaps one resolution is to re-crop the image in a way that makes the missing body part less noticeable, helping to salvage an otherwise strong photograph.

On a related note, I’ve been fortunate to have long-standing friendships with some very accomplished photographers—Igor Vasiliadis, for example, whom I’ve known for over 30 years since we exhibited together in London through ObsessionArt (now closed). Take a look at his work. If you’d like me to ask him anything, let me know—he’d be happy to respond. And while you’re there, count how many times hands, feet, or other parts are intentionally cropped.