In the days of digital, I wonder how it's possible to take a bad picture. At least to print a bad picture. After all, if it's bad, you just delete it. Even portrait places -- I know Sears and Picture People do it this way -- let you pick out what you want before you're committed to purchasing a package of prints.
But that wasn't the case with Autumn's "school" pictures this year. Or last year, either, but last year's didn't turn out bad at all. This year, however, her picture could not have been much worse. Sure, she's sitting. But she's not looking at the camera. She's not smiling. She has this really uncomfortable, unhappy look on her face. And her dress has a huge drool circle under her chin, despite the fact that she did not wear her dress to school that day and was changed into it just for pictures.
I can look past the drool. She was teething at that point and soaked through bibs like crazy. I can also look past the fact that she didn't smile. Some of our cutest pictures of her are serious ones. But what really bothers me is that it looked like the photographer didn't even try. They were taking pictures at a daycare for crying out loud. There are babies, toddlers and just all young children. What about having a feather duster to tickle them? A squeaky toy to amuse them? Anything at all to get a look at the camera and, perhaps, a smile?
I've talked to two other mothers whose pictures were slightly better than mine. One had a child who wasn't looking at the camera or smiling, but otherwise was OK. The other mother said her pictures would do, but they weren't great.
I didn't get pictures taken at 18 months because I knew there would be school pictures soon. Last year, too, we all got a class picture so the kids could see their little friends. No class pictures this year. I should have gone to a studio and paid more money to get good results. As it is, I'm just glad that these pictures only cost me $14, because they're headed for the garbage.