to hoist my bosom in aghastedness at 'fun' class photos?

[Porpoise]

DS3 (8) came home last night with a "fun" class photo.

Instead of the usual serried ranks of sweet but slightly uncomfortable-looking kids, we have...

... them in groups of five, each 'artfully' arranged with some kids lying on the floor, others kneeling, others standing - all doing a thumbs up.

And they've all taken their shoes off.

The teacher is standing on her own in the middle, striking a bit of a Sandy from Grease pose.

And the whole mile-wide monstrosity is decorated round the edges with Union Jack bunting.

Anyone else had something like this done at their school? Did you actually fork out money for a print?

[2shoes]

yabu
tis only a bit of fun

[Krumbum]

Yanbu I think I'd cry with embarrassment for them!

[BonkeyMollocks]

T'is the new way don'tcha know

[Seona1973]

our school did it too - didnt buy it as it was expensive

[Katisha]

Yes we kept having these. With artfully placed props.

I think the thing that I disliked most was the shoes off thing, including the teachers. WHy?

In fact why are portrait photographers in general so keen to make people take their shoes off?

They may be "fun" but they are not cheap!

[Porpoise]

But I want the slightly constipated non-'fun' version of yore.

If I wanted cheesy socks-off stuff, I'd go to Venture or something.

And it's £12.50 for an unframed print - that's not fun.

[Sparklingbrook]

What is the bare foot obsession? I had a school photo of DS2 (10) cross-legged an barefoot.

[lardylump]

they are awful , and you cant get a flipping picture frame to fit unless you pay thier stupid prices!

we only have one dd and cant afford her photos... i feel for those who have more than one child!

[Babylon1]

I hope my dd2s class photos are "normal" considering I got up early and polished her shoes properly on Tuesday morning....!

If she comes home with a stockinged foot picture and no shoes in sight, I may just go scranny!!!

Oh and they are too expensive, definitely

[Beatlebum]

Ds brought home the proof of his class photo last night.

What a crap photo.

They were taken in groups, random kids so ds was made to lean stylishly against a girl who he can't stick - they both look so miserable. Most of the kids do, only four out of 26 are smiling.

And ds school is no uniform, so it just looks like a shite high street clothing ad.

They want £12 for a print that's long and awkward and you'd never find a frame to fit it, or up to £40 for a wooden float frame.

[Porpoise]

Thank you Adversecamber - nice to have a fellow bosom-hoister!

And at only being able to buy the frame from them - that's true! Hadn't thought of that - so that's £23.50 then, for one shoeless buntingtastic print.

[Beatlebum]

Oh, and ds class are all shoe less as well.

[DeWe]

I think the shoes off is because of what they're standing on. Certainly the ones I've had like that, they are taken in small groups on a white background and photoshopped together. So they are standing on white fabric laid on the floor with a white back drop behind.

Personally I prefer the traditional ones. You get anxiety about who's with who, who stands up, who sits down. We had one where they hadn't paid much attention to keeping them the right height-one teacher was definitely "slimmed off" in the photo (doubt it was his choice), and another where the teacher was made the same height as (year 4) pupils. And they've often misheighted pupils so a tall one may look small and the other way round.
The infant school photographer does both, and manages to get the photoshopping looking right, the junior school ones are dreadful.

[bogeyface]

Well comparing the recent "fun" photos with DS's old stlye school pictures, i much prefer to new style. The kids look happy and are enjoying themselves, which is a far nicer thing to look at!

Its only a picture FGS! I agree that they are too expensive, but they are hardly worth getting wound up about!

[MadreInglese]

@ Sandy from Grease pose

[bubby64]

Our DS's school tried this last year, it is supposed to show the children's "true" personality. One of my sons was doing an "ok" sign with his hand, and I asked him why, as he had never done this around us, and he said he was "told to do it as it looked good!" No it didn't, it looked knaff, and there was nothing "normal" about any of the poses. It was expensive and the school got loads of complaints, so I hope they are not doing it again, as this year I want to buy the class photo as it is their Y6 one and they all go off to various High Schools in September.

[Porpoise]

Liking your idea, Maryz.

But I honestly couldn't put that picture anywhere in my house - it really wouldn't go with all the twigs and pebbly shit.

[Sparklingbrook]

I have school class photos of both DSs going back to 2003. They are in the loft. I can honestly say I have never ever looked at them, and don't feel the need to. I can't imagine DS1 (nearly 13) saying 'Mum can I see my Year 1 class photo' any time soon.

[5Foot5]

I am awfully glad DDs school have stuck to the traditional poses!

When you get these "fun" pictures do they include a formal pose as an alternative? Bet they don't! Betcha if they did they would find most parents preferred the good old-fashioned stand in rows sort so the photographers wouldn't be able to justify their arsing around with silly poses another year.

[Porpoise]

MadreInglese, she really really does look like that.

All in black, sideways on, arms crossed. "You're the one that I want" is practically written in a speech bubble over her head - except that the bunting would get in the way.

[Katisha]

Is it this one?

[NoOnesGoingToEatYourEyes]

In a few years time, those class photo's will be on here