Bloody Baby

Status
Not open for further replies.
It would be interesting to find out who had babies/small children amongst the posters.
My guess is that folks with babies are in the 'it makes me uncomfortable' group which is where I sit!

as for the shot, it certainly divides opinion, but I don't think thats what the OP was aiming for...
 
whatdoesthisbutt said:
It would be interesting to find out who had babies/small children amongst the posters.
My guess is that folks with babies are in the 'it makes me uncomfortable' group which is where I sit!

as for the shot, it certainly divides opinion, but I don't think thats what the OP was aiming for...
Click to expand...
Well I have had two... and though they are not babies any more, it wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest.
 
Some of the context in this thread is one of the reasons I don't visit this place as much.:wacky:

For christ's sake lighten up.:| Its a child dressed up in makeup, its halloween FFS.

Believe it or not its not real blood.:bonk:
 
They look the same when they have ketchup all over them after dinner .... chill man :dummy:
 
To the OP (sorry, I just can't bring myself to call you Buttkicker :LOL:)

A well spotted shot (y)
By your own admission it was a quick grab shot and there are plenty of flaws, however, it's clear by this thread that it's provoking some emotional responses and that's what makes it a good shot IMO.

If it was a baby dressed for Halloween as a cute little pumpkin then I don't think the shot has enough technical merit to stand on its own, but the subject matter and the realism of the make-up has the shock factor to draw viewers in and make them react.
I think Janice hit the nail on the head when she said "we are not programmed to see a baby in this state and just think "oh, that's a bit of fun""


With all the focus being on the subject here, I really don't think that posters are giving the OP enough credit for this photograph. Putting aside the fact of the mother dressing the baby up, he spotted the opportunity for an emotive, unusual shot and he took it.

Context has a lot to do with it too.
The image wouldn't have drawn half as much attention if it showed the mother and baby in the middle of a crowd of other "zombies", (adults and children) all dressed up, laughing and having a lot of fun . . . although that was probably the reality of the situation.

I don't know if this was a deliberate decision or just good luck (grab shots are often like that) but the OP has isolated the subject from the crowd and taken away any contextual cues. He's also managed to catch the mother with what could be interpreted as a menacing expression on her face. IMO these are the 2 over-riding factors in provoking the reactions that he has . . . and they have everything to do with the photographer rather than the subject. So for me, that deserves a "well done".
 
Last edited:
SarahLee said:
To the OP (sorry, I just can't bring myself to call you Buttkicker :LOL:)

A well spotted shot (y)
By your own admission it was a quick grab shot and there are plenty of flaws, however, it's clear by this thread that it's provoking some emotional responses and that's what makes it a good shot IMO.

If it was a baby dressed for Halloween as a cute little pumpkin then I don't think the shot has enough technical merit to stand on its own, but the subject matter and the realism of the make-up has the shock factor to draw viewers in and make them react.
I think Janice hit the nail on the head when she said "we are not programmed to see a baby in this state and just think "oh, that's a bit of fun""


With all the focus being on the subject here, I really don't think that posters are giving the OP enough credit for this photograph. Putting aside the fact of the mother dressing the baby up, he spotted the opportunity for an emotive, unusual shot and he took it.

Context has a lot to do with it too.
The image wouldn't have drawn half as much attention if it showed the mother and baby in the middle of a crowd of other "zombies", (adults and children) all dressed up, laughing and having a lot of fun . . . although that was probably the reality of the situation.

I don't know if this was a deliberate decision or just good luck (grab shots are often like that) but the OP has isolated the subject from the crowd and taken away any contextual cues. He's also managed to catch the mother with what could be interpreted as a menacing expression on her face. IMO these are the 2 over-riding factors in provoking the reactions that he has . . . and they have everything to do with the photographer rather than the subject. So for me, that deserves a "well done".
Click to expand...

what a great post Sarah
money is in the post LOL
this was a grab shot I got two frames before she was engulfed in bodies - the other one has other people in it and in my opinion has no impact at all

I liked this one because of the look on the Mothers face - I thought she looked menacing so hastily tried to get some shots
I was fully aware that posting this image would probably have two schools of thought about the content, and as such people are entitled to there opinions

mine is that it was a harmless charity fun day enjoyed by all who attended so any one who is disturbed by the image please dont be

Sarah seen as you cant bring yourself to call me by my username 'Sir' will be sufficient next time;)
regards
Chris
 
I like the idea, and the shot is interesting. I'm just not sure I'd be up for covering my own baby daughter in fake blood, not even for charity.
That said, it's a bloody good make up job and it does trigger some unpleasant thoughts of role reversal that the mother has been feeding on the baby. I like things that create a reaction or make suggestion, even if it's a bit sick.

Fair play to the parent for having, or rather not having the *******s to do it.
I feel some have taken it a bit too far in the thread though, like the Vicars wife in the Simpsons screeching "WILL SOMEBODY THINK OF THE POOR CHILDREN"

It's all getting a bit serious for something that is a essentially a charity halloween outfit.
 
No not a social worker (thankfully), am thinking on the lines of causing distress to members of the public. I think there is a clear distinction between this image and something like this
kids-frankenstein-costume.jpg
 
Buttkicker said:
Sarah seen as you cant bring yourself to call me by my username 'Sir' will be sufficient next time;)
regards
Chris
Click to expand...

And for being so cheeky, I'll take back all the nice things I just said about you CHRIS ;) :LOL:

SimonM said:
No not a social worker (thankfully), am thinking on the lines of causing distress to members of the public. I think there is a clear distinction between this image and something like this
Click to expand...

But you need to remember that this photograph isn't a true representation of what the public would have seen.

The reality is that this was just one person in a crowd of people - all ages, all dressed up and all probably laughing, joking and having great fun.
What we're seeing in the photograph is a single moment taken out of context. Isolated from the crowd and with a momentary facial expression that could be taken as menacing.

As I said in my post above, I think that this is why this photograph is actually very clever.
 
SimonM said:
No not a social worker (thankfully), am thinking on the lines of causing distress to members of the public. I think there is a clear distinction between this image and something like this
Click to expand...

Now that outfit really does trouble me.
 
Last edited:
I still don't have a problem with it............... someone though, slicing a cow in half and preserving in formaldehyde or a pile of bricks or an unmade bed and trying to pass it off as art I do though,

Great capture at the right moment, I am sure mum clocked you a fraction of a scond before and then looked away, unworried, at something else which made your capture make her look more "demented?"
 
Last edited:
I love it! .... Excellent shot. Shame the mother didn't do a bit more gruesomeness stuff with make up on the baby for some really shocking effect :cool: I know what I'm doing for next years Halloween :D
 
Alison said:
Am I the only one who thought this was Liza Minnelli with a doll covered in ketchup at first glance? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Apparently so:)
 
Funny thread :LOL:!

When I saw the title, I thought; "Oh no, not another bloody baby photograph" (since so many people insist on posting pictures of their bloody offspring on an almost weekly basis, under the guise of "Look at my new lens" etc.). But this time, I was wrong :eek: - it actually was a bloody baby :LOL:!

About bloody time!

So Chris, it seems that technical excellence really isn't all that important in photography. Controversy is far more interesting to the general public ;).

Good capture (y).
 
theMusicMan said:
And many would be telling you to mind your own business, and get a grip.

How patronising... as if you know better eh!
Click to expand...

My consideration is that the content can appear shocking to some people for example the elder generation or sadly someone who may have recently lost a child.
As someone who has had to deal with the death of children it is not a subject I take lightly. Because of our social sensibilities and development there are some
subjects which remain taboo, and to certain elements within society who would be deeply offended or shocked by this image.

As for being told to mind my own business and get a grip, I'm afraid that there is an offence for displaying material it is covered under the Public Order Act:
Sec 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, which was inserted by section 154 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994:
“
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he:
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove:
(a) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(b) that his conduct was reasonable.
 
Bringing the public order act on TP :clap: quality :dummy:

To bring article 2 into real life (the one you highlighted) you would need to prove that you and the person harrassing\alarming\distressing you are inside dwellings. With mobile internet, that might not be easy to do.

I have also had to deal with the passing of a small one - but you learn to accept it, move on. you can never forget it, but in time makes you stronger. But you cant have a go at people if they take a photo which upsets you, the OP didnt have that in mind nor could they help it. This applies to any walk of life, not just children.


EDIT - Think what is needed is something similar to the NSFW tag - this is safe for work but is at danger of upsetting people (this thread proves it). A disturbing pic tag?
 
Last edited:
SimonM said:
My consideration is that the content can appear shocking to some people for example the elder generation or sadly someone who may have recently lost a child.
As someone who has had to deal with the death of children it is not a subject I take lightly. Because of our social sensibilities and development there are some
subjects which remain taboo, and to certain elements within society who would be deeply offended or shocked by this image.

As for being told to mind my own business and get a grip, I'm afraid that there is an offence for displaying material it is covered under the Public Order Act:
Sec 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, which was inserted by section 154 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994:
“
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he:
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove:
(a) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(b) that his conduct was reasonable.
Click to expand...

FFS!

Maybe i have missed the point but i don't see the threat abuse or insults............ :shrug:
 
That's because there weren't any. I reckon any officer trying to use the Public Order Act for what is essentially a bit of harmless fun would have had a new one torn by his sergeant or inspector.
 
Im shocked at the way this thread has gone. Pathetic.

If it makes you feel uncomfortable, then use the RTM button, and/or suggest a NSFW tag and walk away from the thread.

Simon, you are incorrect I'm afraid, let's rebold some salient points of what you quoted

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he:
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
Click to expand...
As there is clearly no intent to cause harassment alarm or distress and the visible represenation is clearly not threatening, abusive or insulting, then I don't think there's a case to argue
However, that's moot, and I'm getting sidetracked.

This thread has annoyed me. If you aren't going to comment on the photography. Don't comment at all.
 
(I had an anti-simonM rant here, deleted it simply because it looked gramatically incorrect)
Baby photo = good.
Whingers = typical modern muppets. A disease in our society. Get a grip.
 
Dave, thanks for that perhaps I should have clarified that the image if viewed could be construed as disturbing, causing alarm or distress.
If it was printed off and displayed in a position within a property where it could be viewed by passers by then it does apply. Also if confronted on the street part one can apply, just the same for someone wearing an offensive t shirt.

Can I ask what is the problem with mentioning the public order act on TP? Or am I now be accused of being the thought police?

Personally I have dealt with the loss of a child and professionally more than I care to think about.

I'm not having a "go" I'm provoking discussion, I actually like the shot it's the content I find disturbing.
 
Marcel said:
Im shocked at the way this thread has gone. Pathetic.

If it makes you feel uncomfortable, then use the RTM button, and/or suggest a NSFW tag and walk away from the thread.

Simon, you are incorrect I'm afraid, let's rebold some salient points of what you quoted

As there is clearly no intent to cause harassment alarm or distress and the visible represenation is clearly not threatening, abusive or insulting, then I don't think there's a case to argue
However, that's moot, and I'm getting sidetracked.

This thread has annoyed me. If you aren't going to comment on the photography. Don't comment at all.
Click to expand...

Marcel, can you explain what is incorrect? I have quoted the law. I am not saying it applies by the image being posted on TP however given the right situation it could quite easily.

As for your comment about not commenting, I was joining in a discussion on the content which had already commenced. Several other members had commented that they found it disturbing I attempted to quantify why.
It is obvious that by expressing my thoughts and asking for considerations has irked several members including one mod, for this I apologise.
 
SimonM said:
My consideration is that the content can appear shocking to some people for example the elder generation or sadly someone who may have recently lost a child.
As someone who has had to deal with the death of children it is not a subject I take lightly. Because of our social sensibilities and development there are some
subjects which remain taboo, and to certain elements within society who would be deeply offended or shocked by this image.

As for being told to mind my own business and get a grip, I'm afraid that there is an offence for displaying material it is covered under the Public Order Act:
Sec 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, which was inserted by section 154 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994:
“
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he:
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove:
(a) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(b) that his conduct was reasonable.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I just despair at the lengths people will try to go, just to impose their will on something they don't even have to look at.:shrug::bang:
 
Simon. Thanks for the apology :)
My point was aimed at everyone (re : the photography).
That said I do understand the underlying reasoning behind your point.
However, it's at an event where people have dressed up in a similar manner, at a time of year when everything takes on a gory/dead/bloody slant (I blame commercialism for that but that's by the by).
I understand it may be distressing to some people, but then again seeing someone walk past with a newborn child would.
There are many many things that would distress someone who has suffered the death of a child. However, if we were to modify every single thing we do 'just incase someone gets upset' then no one would be able to go outside their front door. Do we stop people wearing joke axes on their head covered in blood, incase a relative of a murder victim sees them?

The point I was making about the Public Order act is that the first part is key. Intent. It only applies if the intent was to cause harassment, alarm or distress. At an event that is marketed for families, at a time that is marketed about blood, gore, death and scary (in the name of fun), and then photographed and posted on a photography forum to invite discussion about the photography.......I don't think any right-thinking person would be able to argue there is even the tiniest bit of intent to cause alarm or distress.

Therefore the POA does not apply in the context you posted :)

Anyway, onto the photos.... :)
 
I love the shots, really different from the norm.:clap:
 
SimonM said:
As for being told to mind my own business and get a grip, I'm afraid that there is an offence for displaying material it is covered under the Public Order Act:
Sec 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, which was inserted by section 154 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994:
“
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he:
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove:
(a) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(b) that his conduct was reasonable.
Click to expand...

Well to get round this, all you need to be is a woman as it only refers to a man :D

Based on the above, if you take a picture of a piece of steak you could be intentionally trying to cause distress to vegetarians or vegans!?!?

I have a 1 year old boy, this picture does not distress me, it is fake, it is make believe, it is pretend. Take a reality check!!! :bonk:
 
Not my cuupa Tea, Child covered in blood is any parents nightmare!! Strange
 
Ub3rTiger said:
Parent with a sense of humour if you ask me, as long as the baby is happy and not scared then why not get them involved...
Click to expand...

Agreed: it's all good fun IMO...lol

...if you think different, then you're wrong and should lighten *edit* up a little - it was a hallowe'en event, FFS...:LOL:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
keirik said:
assuming that means you were a social worker, then I'm not surprised, most of them have got no connection to real people (and yes I speak from experience)
Click to expand...

Woah! Dont use this as an excuse for having a go at social workers. I am one of the aforementioned pariahs and I thought the photo and the costume was great. I am more concerned at parents who dress their kids up as fairies and princesses, however there is no legal nor moral expectation to expect either group of parents not to.

If someone reported this photo to me whilst I was at work, the only reason I would speak with the parents would be to commend them on their costume-making skills.

Similarly, the public order act does not apply here. Lighten up folks.
 
To put it simply, all the members getting worked up about this, think about it.

Its a perfectly happy baby with a bit of fake blood on its head.
 
SimonM said:
I'm not having a "go" I'm provoking discussion, I actually like the shot it's the content I find disturbing.
Click to expand...

Errrm... I care to differ with your words there Simon, I'm afraid.
SimonM said:
Slightly off topic (sorry mods) but I find the content quite disturbing and in poor taste.
Halloween is a time for fun and games for children, not making your baby look like a dead baby with blood dripping off it, to make your own "costume" seem spectacular :nono:

Put it this way if I was at work in my former job I'd be having a serious word with the parents.
Click to expand...

Seems to me you are most certainly having a go, Simon. Making a clear and unequivocal comment that if you were in your former job, you would be having a 'serious' word with the parents. That sounds like a threat to me.

You have no right to do that. You are asserting your previous authority (whatever that was) unnecessarily and you need to lighten up. To quote the Public Order Act shows quite clearly that we really don't need people like you telling us what is right or what is not right.

There, are you now going to arrest me for daring to disagree publicly with you, for having an opinion that is vastly different to yours?
 
:LOL: I'm now going to be offended/shocked/horrified/upset/ because i have told I should be, and I might have also read the daily mail that someone left in the cafe today when it was friday fryup time.

Please remove my previous comments about how the kid didn't look upset or hurt in any way, and the mum seemed to be a caring loving Mother, who just happens to be joining in the spirit of things. I cannot see any small children being harmed in the making of this photograph.

Quite obviously this is not the case, and all authorities should be noted immediately.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top