missing fingers product wrote:
ive seen the photos and i dont like how the photographer is making these kids cry , it seems very staged and fake in the photos. perhaps if the photos where done spontaneouly it have better results but forcing kids to cry is pretty much child abuse art or not .

Making a child cry is *not* child abuse. Children cry many times a day for no reason.
Telling your kid they can't have something at the store makes them cry
Go to bed...cry
wake up...cry
quit watching that show...cry
eat your vegetables...cry

My goodness, I guess every parent on earth has abused their children, by your logic...
Plus, weren't those kids actors?

Jack D Trute wrote:

Looks like Dubya pooped his pants again!

Jack D Trute wrote:

I'd be crying too.

ModelInstinctive wrote:
As long as the crying isn't perpetuated or induced by the photographer.  Babies cry all of the time...that is fact of life that I would imagine that the photographer is probably trying to convey and capture.

The crying was induced...they gave the kids candy, and then took it from them.

They should haul her straight to jail, and give her, what...a 3 year sentence or something. For sure...

Oh, and some of the kids were topless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PORN FOR SURE! Straight to jail....




j\k

Mandy McKeating wrote:
can someone post a link to these photos? i cannot seem to find anything on her site.


additionally, i would assume that all these children had their parents present, as well as permission to do whatever she did. taking candy away from a child is NOT child abuse.

taking candy away from a child may not be seen as child abuse but the emotional stress the child may suffer from having something suddenly taken away from him/her to initiate a reaction could be seen as a form of child abuse .... the parents should be held also responsible for the emotional abuse the child is facing , and dont say small children do not suffer from emotions stemming from having something ie. candy , toy etc...they are enjoying taken away from them .....

missing fingers product wrote:
taking candy away from a child may not be seen as child abuse but the emotional stress the child may suffer from having something suddenly taken away from him/her to initiate a reaction could be seen as a form of child abuse .... the parents should be held also responsible for the emotional abuse the child is facing , and dont say small children do not suffer from emotions stemming from having something ie. candy , toy etc...they are enjoying taken away from them .....

I'm sure small children do have many emotions. But the same emotions that they feel while having that candy taken from them, they probably felt many times the day before, when they were putting crap they found in the floor in the their mouth, and their parents stopped them.

If a baby is sucking on your cellphone, and you take it from them. Is it emotional abuse?

How about you take their favorite toy from them, to strap them in their car seat?

How about them getting in the cabinet, and eating out of a box of cereal, and you stop them. Nothing was wrong with them eating the cereal, it would in no way harm them. But you stop them anyhow....

e-string wrote:
Taking candy away is NOT child abuse. lol

That's right, its child neglect.

Farenell Photography wrote:

That's right, its child neglect.

actually child neglect would be not taking in consideration the child's well being , physically or emotionally . basically you dont care enough to even take the candy from that child . or change its diapers , feed it , kiss it , put it to bed , play with them , tell it you love them, etc...

missing fingers product wrote:

actually child neglect would be not taking in consideration the child's well being , physically or emotionally . basically you dont care enough to even take the candy from that child . or change its diapers , feed it , kiss it , put it to bed , play with them , tell it you love them, etc...

dont care enough to even take the candy


So, it is ok to take it away now?

Carpe Imago Photography wrote:
Photography in its purest form should be about capturing moments that happen...not making them happen.  I realize that flies in the face of what most of us do in the area of glamour or fashion, but how many times do you see photographers hurting models just to make them cry?
.

But we sometimes force or plan something to happen during a shoot. It is no different then adding a fan if it isn't windy. You are capturing that you made it windy. Without the fan. the models hair wouldn't be blowing around.
If you didn't take the candy from the baby. He wouldn't cry.
Really there is no difference. You still made an event happen. You didn't sit outside and wait for the wind. Just like you didn't sit around to wait for the baby to cry.