What am I missing here??

[mechawombat]

So I am the proud father of a newborn baby girl.

I have wanted to dip my toes into the big pool of newborn photographers and here is my opportunity to hone my skills etc etc.
So I have taken only one session with my little princess and I think I got some good shots.
I am shooting with three different cameras to nail a specific look and looking to see which will give me that with lens combo etc.


However......

I have had allegations raised that I am abusing my child through sexualisation for the sake of "ART" from a member of my family.

These are the pictures I posted.


Snuggle pot by Mecha-Wombat, on Flickr


Zara as Snugglepot by Mecha-Wombat, on Flickr


So what part am I missing??

Their grievance is that the baby is naked, and she has been forced to pose in this manner.

I am really torn as I am really thinking of taking newborn photos as a second business and have a studio set up but I now feel like I am doing something dirty.
I am a man, these are newborn photos, not boudoir photos and quite frankly and honestly these thought have never even crossed my mind. This is MY BABY GIRL! and now I am second guessing myself.
So if I have missed a point please can someone point it out in the great way AP does cause I am at a loss.

[rookie]

Its your family member who has a problem if they see anything sexual in this shot,I think they need help personally.

[ricktas]

It is them that sees this as sexual. It is their problem, not yours. The human body is a beautiful thing and you are not showing anything that any one of us has not seen before, if someone sees these as sexual then they are the ones with the problem and I would be careful letting that person near my child.

Beautiful photos, congratulations.

[I @ M]

Firstly, congratulations.

Then, the first image has better colours and contrast as well as ( to me ) a more pleasing angle of view rather than just side on. I would try to lower the levels in the photos though as they appear just a little overly bright, I think that softer lighting with less highlights will portray babies better.

The issues that you are being confronted with re the images totally baffle me. I see nothing here to indicate that the child is being "forced" and in fact, quite the opposite, she looks totally relaxed.
Images of this kind are done on a daily basis to provide parents and family members fond memories of new arrivals. I would not have a clue as to how many babies are born on a daily basis around the world but I would hazard a guess that an extremely large amount of them would be photographed extensively right from the point of delivery through to the first few months of their lives.
Somehow I think that the number of babies being photographed harmlessly in the above manner would far outweigh the people that see that as wrong.
A bit of a moral minority thing -----
Besides, your daughter is not nude, she is wearing a hat.
You have to live with the friends or relatives who are causing you some grief at the moment and react accordingly but if it were me in your shoes I am afraid that I would be telling them politely that they need to examine the whole issue in a little more balanced way.

[Analog6]

If anyone sees anything 'sexual' in those beautiful shots of the baby then they are seriously sick. Newborns come naked, it is their natural state. Babies often get into these types of poses quite naturally. It is all a crock, tell them to go boil their head and never leave them alone with your children.

BTW - I like the first one best, with the face in more prominence. Good luck with your new venture.

[Glenda]

Beautiful shots and she certainly doesn't look to be 'forced' in any way, she looks totally relaxed. And, there is certainly nothing sexual about these shots.

[bobt]

Good grief! As others have already said, anyone who sees anything sexual in this is a very disturbed person! It reminds me of the guy in the Psychiatrist's office who was shown a series of ink blots. When asked what they were, the guy said "They are all naked people!". The psychiatrist said "You have some significant problems", to which the guy replied "Me? You're the one showing me all these dirty pictures!"

Babies in particular are just made to be photographed naked, and they're great shots. Your daughter will cherish them when she's older.

[extraball]

children are certainly sexualised as models these days, however this band-wagon jumping relo needs to re-evaluate their thinking in this case. Great photos as well.

[fotog]

Ignore this person and don't be discouraged from photographing your beautiful daughter. I like the shots but yes slightly less highlights.

[alsocass]

+1 what everyone else said.

Newborn photography is done naked.... everyone loves a cute little baby bum!

Best part of my day is when my 1yo runs around naked outside in the afternoon... love watching that cute butt jiggle as she runs! What a shame that this person turns the innocent stuff into sexual stuff.

[Kym]

Time to disavow 'a member' of your family. Seriously - they have problems.

[geoffsta]

I have seen newborn shots in worse positions than these. Your little princes was in this position most of the time that it was in the womb. So what can be wrong with it.
If they are concerned. Go to Google/images, and type "Newborn photography" Then they might see that it is the norm for this type of thing.

My wife is like your friends. A female friend and I took some images of a co-worker when she was pregnant. And althought she had on a bra and pants, leaving the belly exposed. My wife took it as nudity.
Like you, now I second guess any images I take. As I do not want to offend my wife.

You often wonder how photographers like Brian500au is taken by his friends. Do they class him as a pervert??????

Most of us have a line we do not wish to cross. And most of the time you'll see a thread with (NSFW) were the images are no were near offensive. But to the creater of the image, it's that close to their line, that they second guess themselves.

[mechawombat]

Thanks AP members

You guys and girls ROCK!
I am glad I am part of such a supportive community.




Totally agree #1 is better than #2. It is part of finding that combo of lens and camera as I have shot with only because I have readily available access to these cameras.
But this was not a CC thread

[extraball]

It's easy to judge the relative harshly in this thread, but there must be a good reason for developing such a warped viewpoint. It is probably the fear shoved down our throats by, the politically correct, the guardians of sensitivity, and the media. I doubt that this relative finds the photo sexually provocative, so don't go thinking that they can't be trusted around children. Tough one when it's so close to home.

[ScottM]

Another +1 to everything said already.
I admire the shots, and this type of pose in this style is a common thing, not to take anything away from you or the profession. I don't know how people can consider this sexualising a minor. Would it be the same having to change her in a family environment or undress a baby to change a nappy in a mother-baby change room, where possibly another mother might come in too to change her own? (I don't know though if these are single person-lockable, or shared) Or would one have to erect a shield? Things have gone too far, but thankfully it's only a minority who are swayed by such thought and concerns to that sort of level. Men especially will come up against this more often, whoever we are!

She looks very relaxed here and not forced or uncomfortable.

The first one is the best. It'd be nice to see her face just a little lighter in relation to the brightness of her back.
The second one suffers from some conversion problems - the colour looks washed out and much cooler in temp. Her right eye's showing a bit of 'awakeness'. Corrected though, a parent would still love it

Good luck on your endeavours!

[ricktas]

I would be much more concerned about some of the stuff teenage girls wear when walking around our streets..and although they are not naked, it is highly sexualised. Being naked does not mean sexual, and vise versa!

[AVALANCHE]

Great choice of the maroon background. It reminds me almost of the inside of the womb still and like as if you have recorded a moment she has already experienced.

As for your family member, it's already been said above. Art is subjective, and if they see it as porn, to me that shows a poisoned mind and you really have to wonder if they're the type to cry "sexualisation" at everything chance they can...probably to cover their own perverted agendas. I'd isolate myself from them if that behaviour continued. Don't let one person spoil the chance for many others to see your work. Cheers.

[stevo01]

Totally agree with everything that has been said earlier, nothing wrong with these shots at all, they are fantastic and show the ethereal quality of a newborn baby. Number 1 is the shot for me, number 2 appears a little washed out and could do with some warming up.

[jim]

I can see a hint of "exploitation" here, as the images are vaguely reminiscent of those of Anne Geddes; who uses children almost as props to make the most nauseatingly cute images, and makes a lot of money doing it...

Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with what she does (other than perhaps an offense against good taste) and in your case as you're the father even the charge of exploitation doesn't really stick.

No hint of sexualisation whatever.

Both effective poses, the skin colour in the second is the more natural looking.

[Mathy]

They're gorgeous images and you should be proud of them, love the snappy beanie by the way

It's a bit if a sad world we live in when you receive comments such as you did.

People get wound up over images of children, mothers breast feeding in public - the list goes on. The world has far more important issues that need addressing IMHO.

Enjoy taking pictures of your little girl and keep up the good work , cheers Deb