Lady Flips Off Engagement Photo, Couple Finds it Hilarious


I suppose we all owe a small cultural debt to this anonymous older lady at a recent Colorado Rockies game. Thanks to her, we now know what the exact opposite of a photobomb looks like.

That would be having a cranky grandma type show up in the money shot of your carefully arranged proposal, flipping the bird at the camera to show exactly how she felt about the interruption.

The story starts with Kenny Lovelace deciding to pop the question to Molly Ryan via Jumbotron at Denver’s Coors Field. He had a ring, made sure family and friends were there for the moment, and had photographer Kerinsa Mullins on hand (surreptitiously) to capture the joyous moment.

Mullins had to stand up to get a decent angle once the message appeared on the big screen, and an elderly couple whose view she was blocking let her know they didn’t appreciate it, even as the rest of the stadium was in full “Awww!” mode.

Mullins got her shots, got out of the way as quickly as she could, and prepared to review the shots with the bride-to-be the next day. It wasn’t until then that they saw the lady shooting the middle finger at the camera.


The photographer was horrified, but Ryan thought it was a hoot:

“I couldn’t stop laughing. I said it was the greatest photo I’ve ever seen,” Ryan told news station WTOP.”There is a girl sitting behind us that is so excited for us. My mom is crying, I’m crying, and Ken’s nervous and then there’s this lady flipping us off.”

Ryan says she’s thinking of using the image for a “save the date” refrigerator magnet, and she’s issued a blanket invitation for the aggrieved senior to attend the wedding. “I would love for her to appear in one of my pictures at the wedding,” says Ryan. “That would be terrific.”

(via WTOP)

Image credits: Photograph by Kerinsa Mullins

  • deathlight

    What a Hag she is

  • Joel Ruiz Cantisani

    hahaha awesome!

  • Peter Neill

    maybe she was actually going to point behind her??

  • Justin Haugen

    Buy that lady a beer!

  • Mike

    The photographer is actually pretty stupid for not moving over 3 feet to avoid her anyways!

  • warrick moore

    Why was the first photo pixelated and the second one not ?

  • Chris Tamayo

    Haha that is freaking awesome.

  • SaveTheWorldGetTheGirl

    So when they share the article on social sites they can choose the censored thumbnail.

  • Wodan74

    If you think about it, isn’t it strange that a finger needs to be censored… I know that the gesture is not polite and not reflects a great education but I –probably because I’m a European– still find it a strange evolution how the (American) media thinks. Is it because they fear to sued or something?

  • Cherie

    It’s too bad we can’t see the young woman’s face. I hope they got another shot!

  • LeeH

    WTOP is not a Denver news station. It’s in Washington D.C.

  • Wolfgang Lonien

    How can you even call her a ‘lady’?

  • Anders Dahl

    In Europe, it’s common to leave images alone. But Europe is not the world. It’s all about making sure your content doesn’t get cut off from social and other site.

  • pete n pete

    Nice “lady.” Mean old bag.

  • Cloudsuck

    The comments are more entertaining than the content. I always scroll down first thing.

  • greenarcher02

    And yet killing and war don’t get censored. Ain’t this a nice world?

  • greenarcher02

    Yeah, lots of judgmental people over here

  • SaveTheWorldGetTheGirl

    I think it’s more a courtesy / erring on the side of caution than anything else. I doubt it’s anything legal, but if someone gets offended and decides to report the content as offensive it could potentially get pulled from whatever social site it’s being shared on since a lot of social sites seem to just pull reported content instead of actually researching if it truly is offensive.

  • Richard

    A picture worth a thousand words? Context rules. The moment the shutter button was activated does not prove that the finger flippant lady was even aware of what was going on behind her. From her point of view, it could have been an annoyed reaction to a photographer aiming the lens right at her, for whatever reason. It is a serendipitous moment, possibly freezing two emotionally unconnected events.
    Spin it whichever way you like….

  • todd

    Photographer whirls around and points a camera at you, or so it appears because you can’t see what’s going on behind you. The photo is taken and used to attract readers to PetaPixel without the woman’s permission. Peta Pixel makes money from advertisements on their page, so in theory at least, the image of the woman is being used for commercial purposes. Remember, she’s the subject of this article, not the bride to be. Without the woman it’s just another commercial photography shot, and yet the photographer gets exposure, no pun intended. One would expect that the photographer would at least speak to the woman, as she’s part of the event due to her location. The woman likely expected that the photographer would have the good taste not to promote her likeness giving what is considered a rude gesture, to potentially hundreds of thousands of people, without her permission. So the rudeness here begins with the photographer, not the woman, who is after all, the only person in the frame not benefitting from the exposure.

  • Ilkka

    There are two empty seats right in front of the couple. Surely the photographer should have sat there, turned around, moved back a bit and used a wide angle lens. Why sit (or stand) what looks like 5 seats away?

  • Alexander Petricca

    The woman was likely oblivious to what was going on behind her and assumed she was being photographed without consent.

  • Tzctplus -

    Street photography wouldn’t exist thinking like that.

  • Ivy

    Do you want to find a partner who will exceed your expectations? Try___billionairefish.com___the largest place for finding educated wealthy men and classy gorgeous women for relationships. Have a try and good luck! :)

  • Meesha

    What a classy woman the bride is for not getting upset! And the comments about the photographer moving over? This was one of several photos.

  • Rob S

    One more reason that all the oldsters who complain about “those rude kids these days” are full of it. I dont find it one bit funny that someone thought that was the way to interact with their fellow man.

  • PeopleJumpToConclusions

    How do you know the photographer could move over. Ever assume that the seats next to them are blocked by other spectators. People jump to conclusions when they don’t know s–t!

  • Uncle Wig

    todd, you do not understand the difference between commercial and editorial use. If the woman appeared in the advertising, that would be commercial use and would require the woman’s permission. Using a photo of the woman to illustrate a factual article is editorial use, and does not require her permission.

  • Pete

    Classy lady.

  • Matt

    Actually war coverage in the US is highly censored, courtesy of Dick Cheney. No one saw much of what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan over the past +10 years, although we were engaged there longer than WWII or Vietnam.

    But Miley Cyrus jumping around half naked, like a stripper with a hormone disorder gets broadcast on network TV.

  • Bill

    >The photo is taken and used to attract readers to PetaPixel without the woman’s permission.

    This photo was taken in the US, not France. The photographer had every right to take the picture without getting permission from every person in the shot.

    PP also does not need the permission of anyone in the picture to publish it as it has been.

  • Todd

    I’m quite aware of the difference between editorial usage and commercial usage, as I’ve been an art/creative director for about twenty years now. I’m also a professional photographer, and the first thing I do on a commercial assignment is look out for who might be in the shot that shouldn’t be. It’s not just professional, it’s good manners. The lady obviously didn’t want her photo taken, and so the image should have been discarded. Instead, it was posted online, where she is now being judged as a mean old bag, hag, et al. The article isn’t about photography, or even business ethics, it’s about how funny a photo of an old woman flipping off a photographer is. Sure, legally they’re in the clear. But from the standpoint of basic human decency, they fail the test. The bride to be thinks its hilarious, as does the photographer. Petapixel gets readers and advertising dollars. The woman who started the ball rolling by giving an obvious indication about how she felt about having her photo taken without permission doesn’t get to weigh in. Bad form all around.

  • Todd

    With thinking like this, a lot of crappy street photography wouldn’t exist. Street photography should tell some kind of story, and I don’t see a story here. Just rudeness on the part of the photographer and an innocent bystander.

  • Larry

    The photographer could have gotten up LONG before the picture was taken and moved to almost anywhere else. There are a number of seats above the couple that he could have moved to, and taken the pictures from there.


    Larry, you’re an idiot.

  • Larry

    Thank you for your well thought out and eloquent reply. I’ll give it all the consideration it deserves.

  • AnonymousCoward

    “Lady”? So a guy with the same age with the so called “lady” were to flip off the camera, he would be addressed as a “Gentleman” in the title?

  • David Vaughn

    Is it cold up there on your high horse, Todd?

  • greenarcher02

    I meant depiction of war. But a finger is not.

  • Mark Wheadon

    Because the same moment captured up-close with a wide-angle lens would be a very different image.

  • Tyler Magee

    this is the only time kicking an old lady in her face is alright.

  • Koko Valadez

    DAMNIT LARRY! Can’t take you anywhere!

  • Anthony Tony Mullins

    A couple of seats above the couple? wouldn’t you just photograph the back of their heads? Moron.

  • David Liang

    The truth is simple and eloquent, thank you captain obvious.

  • tyrohne

    i thought Marge Schott was dead?

  • jim1061

    It’s amazing you people are arguing about the photo position in some kind of effort to defend the old geezer that should be ashamed of herself. She is a disgrace.

  • Tzctplus -

    You forgot to add “IMHO” to your dissertation.

  • Tzctplus -

    Good to see you accept you are wrong, but goodness, it takes a while to get to that point.

  • Tzctplus -

    Why is she a disgrace? Pointing a camera face blank to somebody is quite an intrusive act, the subject (incidental or otherwise) doesn’t have any obligation to behave in a way that the photographer or his audience would find palatable.

  • Tzctplus -

    I can’t believe you wrote that. Appalling.