Author Topic: Photographing our children for stock/money ? (Read 28491 times)

caspixel · « **Reply #25 on:** July 04, 2011, 08:21 »

Wow. Now this is *really* off topic.

TMI? I think so.

jm · « **Reply #26 on:** July 04, 2011, 08:33 »

I'm happy that there are no images inserted in this thread to support your arguments.

Slovenian · « **Reply #27 on:** July 04, 2011, 08:40 »

Quote from: caspixel on July 04, 2011, 08:21

Wow. Now this is *really* off topic.

TMI? I think so.

That's why I'm here, to make things interesting

. I mean, why not make a thread philosophical from time to time. Some threads just should be broadened. Some horizons as well

.

TMI.

jm73, scared of water?

jm · « **Reply #28 on:** July 04, 2011, 09:08 »

Quote

jm73, scared of water?

Yes, I'm non-swimmer.

lisafx · « **Reply #29 on:** July 04, 2011, 09:16 »

Quote from: Slovenian on July 04, 2011, 03:47

Than why do it at all. The way you wrote it, you don't seem like a true believer. It's not just a spritz of water, it's a spritz of holy water, I don't think any true christian should make it sound as irrelevant by adding the words just. It's like saying eh why confess, he's just a priest, why go to church it's just a building or even why raise children in christian manner it's just 10 commandments. I could make some stronger statements, but I won't, I just wanted to say baptizing children if you're not really a believer makes even less sense. Unless someone lives in some backwards redneck town, where the family would get outcasted for not baptizing their children, but then again you could move. Americans do move around the country a lot, don't they (every time they get a new job).

LOL! So you, an atheist, are going to tell me whether or not I am a "true Christian"?!! First off, I don't believe I characterized my current religious beliefs in this conversation, other than to say I used to be an atheist (one who was certainly more consistent in my opinions than you seem to be). Nor did I claim to have had my daughter baptized. But here's the thing. We're not talking about me.

YOU were the one who claimed to be an atheist. So why would YOU get all worked up about someone spritzing a little water on a baby's head? Let me repeat this point because you seem to be having trouble grasping it - Baptism only has meaning if you are a Christian. If the kid grows up to be an atheist, it won't matter to them one way or the other. Which was my point.

For a supposed atheist, you seem to be awfully irrational on the topic of religion

Quote from: helix7 on July 04, 2011, 06:48

I'm deferring to the medical community on this one, where the benefits are believed to outweigh the risks. And frankly if it at all deprives anyone of sexual pleasure, I think that's a benefit as well. Like most guys, I'm not exactly of the mindset that I wish I got off faster in bed. And if circumcision has anything to do what that, then I'm happier my parents opted to have it done for me.

^^ Well said. This is almost word for word my husband's take on the subject when I discussed it with him

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #30 on:** July 04, 2011, 09:32 »

This thread is a case study in how conversational topics deviate.

dirkr · « **Reply #31 on:** July 04, 2011, 10:12 »

Quote from: Zeus on July 04, 2011, 09:32

This thread is a case study in how conversational topics deviate.

I'm just waiting for another twist in the discussion until it turns into a perfect example for Godwin's law.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #32 on:** July 04, 2011, 10:36 »

Quote from: dirkr on July 04, 2011, 10:12

Quote from: Zeus on July 04, 2011, 09:32
This thread is a case study in how conversational topics deviate.

I'm just waiting for another twist in the discussion until it turns into a perfect example for Godwin's law.

It's rapidly approaching 95%.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #33 on:** July 04, 2011, 10:42 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 04, 2011, 04:16

Quote from: Zeus on July 03, 2011, 15:55
My daughter is now talking about getting her own agent and keeps negotiating me up in price. I have no idea where you'd get the idea that this is exploiting your kids. You'd be the first stock photographer in history not to do it.

Plenty of us don't sell child pictures. I'm not entirely comfortable with where they could end up or the reaction they might cause from the subject if they pop up 15 years later, and if I would worry about that for my kids I won't do it with other people's, either.

Plenty? What happens in 15 years time? The child is likely not recognizable in their current form and even they were would likely take pride in their involvement in your work. You're message to your kids may in fact have an opposite effect. Especially once they figure out other kids get to work with their parents. I'd worry about the worrying.

Slovenian · « **Reply #34 on:** July 04, 2011, 11:01 »

Quote from: lisafx on July 04, 2011, 09:16

Quote from: Slovenian on July 04, 2011, 03:47

Than why do it at all. The way you wrote it, you don't seem like a true believer. It's not just a spritz of water, it's a spritz of holy water, I don't think any true christian should make it sound as irrelevant by adding the words just. It's like saying eh why confess, he's just a priest, why go to church it's just a building or even why raise children in christian manner it's just 10 commandments. I could make some stronger statements, but I won't, I just wanted to say baptizing children if you're not really a believer makes even less sense. Unless someone lives in some backwards redneck town, where the family would get outcasted for not baptizing their children, but then again you could move. Americans do move around the country a lot, don't they (every time they get a new job).

LOL! So you, an atheist, are going to tell me whether or not I am a "true Christian"?!! First off, I don't believe I characterized my current religious beliefs in this conversation, other than to say I used to be an atheist (one who was certainly more consistent in my opinions than you seem to be). Nor did I claim to have had my daughter baptized. But here's the thing. We're not talking about me.

YOU were the one who claimed to be an atheist. So why would YOU get all worked up about someone spritzing a little water on a baby's head? Let me repeat this point because you seem to be having trouble grasping it - Baptism only has meaning if you are a Christian. If the kid grows up to be an atheist, it won't matter to them one way or the other. Which was my point.

For a supposed atheist, you seem to be awfully irrational on the topic of religion

I couldn't put it better than BaldricksTrousers if I wanted to, so there you go Lisa

:

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 04, 2011, 10:00

There was a time when the catholic church kidnapped children of non-Christian families if a servant secretly baptised the child. At the moment of baptism the child "became Christian" and had to be protected from its non-Christian parents. So baptism is not just a harmless piece of theatre.

Even today, Godparents vow to ensure the child is indoctrinated in the appropriate brand of Christianity and in some faiths the godparents are regarded as having as many rights over the children as their natural parents.

Indoctrinating children is wrong.

Quote from: lisafx on July 04, 2011, 09:16

Quote from: helix7 on July 04, 2011, 06:48

I'm deferring to the medical community on this one, where the benefits are believed to outweigh the risks. And frankly if it at all deprives anyone of sexual pleasure, I think that's a benefit as well. Like most guys, I'm not exactly of the mindset that I wish I got off faster in bed. And if circumcision has anything to do what that, then I'm happier my parents opted to have it done for me.

^^ Well said. This is almost word for word my husband's take on the subject when I discussed it with him

Well of course, it would be weird and even more counterproductive to say otherwise. It's like you'd hear Obama confess that he can now see that America has never brought democracy to any country they occupied. No one will state the obvious if he/she knows it's not going to bring any good to him

.

Lol I think it happened to a lot of girls at least a few times, that she was thinking to herself; " Will you ever finish you * amateur?!?"

. Longer is not necessarily better, what about nooners or discotheque bathroom adventure's, park benches when you scored at a party. Time is limited sometimes;)

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #35 on:** July 04, 2011, 11:26 »

Quote from: Zeus on July 04, 2011, 10:42

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 04, 2011, 04:16
Quote from: Zeus on July 03, 2011, 15:55
My daughter is now talking about getting her own agent and keeps negotiating me up in price. I have no idea where you'd get the idea that this is exploiting your kids. You'd be the first stock photographer in history not to do it.

Plenty of us don't sell child pictures. I'm not entirely comfortable with where they could end up or the reaction they might cause from the subject if they pop up 15 years later, and if I would worry about that for my kids I won't do it with other people's, either.

Plenty? What happens in 15 years time? The child is likely not recognizable in their current form and even they were would likely take pride in their involvement in your work. You're message to your kids may in fact have an opposite effect. Especially once they figure out other kids get to work with their parents. I'd worry about the worrying.

I think you will find if you bother to look that there are a lot of microstockers who do not shoot kids. Everyone is free to choose what they want to upload and lots of us specialise in one thing or another. I'm not criticising those who feel fine about child shots, I'd be surprised if they hadn't thought it through and it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that it's all OK. It's also reasonable to think there might be pitfalls and you'd rather leave it alone. Same goes for people shots in general. Do you know how much legal trouble Doisneau got from people who claimed to be his Paris kiss couple?

Don't bother wasting your time trying to concoct an absurd guilt trip to lay on me, it won't work.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #36 on:** July 04, 2011, 12:20 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 04, 2011, 11:26

Don't bother wasting your time trying to concoct an absurd guilt trip to lay on me, it won't work.

Nothing like that at all. I always push folks a bit further than I should to see where and why their resolve lies. I usually learn something, thanks.

Shank_ali · « **Reply #37 on:** July 04, 2011, 14:12 »

Well this thread made it onto the Microstockgroup newsletter

Let's now try and stay on track....

lisafx · « **Reply #38 on:** July 04, 2011, 15:17 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 04, 2011, 11:26

I think you will find if you bother to look that there are a lot of microstockers who do not shoot kids. Everyone is free to choose what they want to upload and lots of us specialise in one thing or another. I'm not criticising those who feel fine about child shots, I'd be surprised if they hadn't thought it through and it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that it's all OK. It's also reasonable to think there might be pitfalls and you'd rather leave it alone. Same goes for people shots in general. Do you know how much legal trouble Doisneau got from people who claimed to be his Paris kiss couple?

Well, that about sums it up. Some people shoot kids for microstock, and hopefully do it in a responsible and sensitive way, having considered the possible pitfalls, and some people choose not to. Lots of people prefer not to shoot models altogether, for the same reasons. To each their own.

lisafx · « **Reply #39 on:** July 04, 2011, 16:47 »

Hmmm. Yet another attempt to derail this thread?

Sorry. Not biting this time.

My father in law has a great old Southern saying that seems appropriate here: Never try to teach a pig to sing. It only wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Slovenian · « **Reply #40 on:** July 04, 2011, 16:53 »

It's not a waste of my time if I get someone to start thinking;). I know what you're trying to say, you can't convince the a priori unconvinciable (read stubborn, those that are hiding from the truth - don't know the english expression, sorry). Good thing is that there are ppl among us, who are different, without them there would be no development and we'd still live in stone age. Why change stone for copper, right?

Mantis · « **Reply #41 on:** July 04, 2011, 18:23 »

Quote from: Zeus on July 04, 2011, 09:32

This thread is a case study in how conversational topics deviate.

No, it's a case to never mention religion or politics in a thread about taking pictures of your kids.

leaf · « **Reply #42 on:** July 04, 2011, 20:45 »

This is an interesting and very relevant topic.... so it will no longer be derailed by religious or political posts. Such posts will be removed.

MatHayward · « **Reply #43 on:** July 04, 2011, 21:53 »

Photos of my kids sell pretty darn good and I am thrilled about it. So are they actually. We have some Russian neighbors that subscribe to a Russian Magazine. The month before last they received their copy of the magazine. My wife and youngest daughter were on the cover. The neighbor kids couldn't get over here fast enough. My youngest (the cover model) was beaming with pride, my oldest was green with envy.

They are both in Microsoft Clip Art and both showed up in projects they were working on in school at different times as a complete coincidence. They felt pretty cool about that too. Countless other stories where their image is used online and in public area. They love it!

I don't get the fuss. Some posts implied a concern that something deviant would happen with the images. I think there is a better chance of that happening with unprotected images being taken from Facebook.

I break out the seamless white paper, set up a couple of lights and tell the kids it's time for them to earn their share of the house payment for this month. If you have children and don't feel good about shooting them for stock then more power to you. If you don't have kids and feel compelled to judge me for shooting mine for stock then you can stick it where the sun don't shine.

One more point to make: If I didn't do formal shoots of my kids for stock it's safe to say I wouldn't have nearly enough photos of my girls. It's tough to break out the gear if there isn't a direct purpose.

Mat

Shank_ali · « **Reply #44 on:** July 05, 2011, 01:11 »

come on Mat your last response wont fly.Photo albums off our children will always exist.More so with mobile phones and cool point and shoot cameras.
Are you suggesting your children will be able to look on the web and see themselves growing up later in life !

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #45 on:** July 05, 2011, 05:44 »

Quote from: MatHayward on July 04, 2011, 21:53

If you have children and don't feel good about shooting them for stock then more power to you. If you don't have kids and feel compelled to judge me for shooting mine for stock then you can stick it where the sun don't shine.

Mat

You're being over-sensitive, nobody's judging. And while the thread says "our children" I think it's valid to consider "other people's children" as being part of the same subject. Which means everyone is entitled to an opinion.

My concern is not about weirdo usages, which is pretty improbable, I think a more likely problem is teenage embarrassment over old photos they may decide they don't like popping up in mass circulation publications years after they were taken. I'm not sure if that is something to be concerned about but I think it's something to take into consideration.

helix7 · « **Reply #46 on:** July 05, 2011, 06:47 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 05, 2011, 05:44

...And while the thread says "our children" I think it's valid to consider "other people's children" as being part of the same subject. Which means everyone is entitled to an opinion...

Actually that brings up an interesting point. Are we really talking about other people's children here? Or just stock photogs who use their own kids as models? And if we're talking about using other people's kids as models, that opens the discussion to parents who encourage their kids to be models, actors, singers, etc., and at what point they'd be considered exploiting their kids.

Really in the grand scheme of things a parent can do that might potentially embarrass the kid later in life, modeling for stock is pretty tame. Stock photos tend to be fairly generic in nature. That's the point of them. Highly useful, multi-purpose images. Not art photos in elaborate settings, costumes, makeup, etc. Compared to some of the other things parents do that might be considered by some to be exploitation (if they're hoping it turns into a payday), like acting, singing, dancing, and (i think) most embarrassing toddler beauty pageants.

I'm not necessarily saying that any of those things are exploitative, just throwing them out there in the context of a stock discussion. In the grand scheme of things, maybe stock modeling is fair down the list of things a parent can do to their kids that could possibly be considered exploitation, given the tame nature of stock and the myriad of other things a parent can do that might seem far more exploitative to some.

madelaide · « **Reply #47 on:** July 05, 2011, 07:03 »

The issue is what can be considered "exploitatiom". Is exploitation to have the kids wash the dishes? Maybe if this is a regular chore, but if, his an occasional help, I think it's ok, it's even a lesson for life. Modelng is not a lesson for life, but if the kid enjoys it and if this doesn't occupy too much of the kid's free time, fine.

These parents who force their kids into modeling, acting, etc is another story, this normally means a lot of pressure on the kid.

lisafx · « **Reply #48 on:** July 05, 2011, 09:03 »

Seems like the operative word in most of this discussion is "force". If you force your kids to model, that implies that they hate doing it, and that there is probably no compensation for it. I very much doubt (m)any of us who photograph our kids for stock are forcing them.

Most of the accounts I have heard are either that the kids are eager and enthusiastic to do it, or else are paid/compensated in some way.

My daughter always has gotten paid to model. She liked the money, and it beat having to mow the lawn.

Now that she is a full time college student and has a part time job and a boyfriend, she doesn't want to spend what little free time she has modeling. Fair enough. There are plenty of other people with kids who are eager to model. None of them are forced either, and all of them are paid.

On the issue of whether they will grow up to be embarrassed about it, I may be in a unique position to answer that, considering my daughter is now an adult, but did model for stock as a teen. She's not embarrassed when someone finds and in-action. She's not all that excited about it either. It's just no big deal to her either way. But she does certainly enjoy the perks the extra money has provided for her.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #49 on:** July 05, 2011, 09:31 »

in my opinion I think that if children aren´t forced and like to all shooting etc I would say yes, they won´t regret it later for sure, from 5 or 6 years (maybe less) they start "recording" what was for them a nice/pleasant experience and a bad one if that´s the case.. I don´t see a downside if they enjoy modelling and be part of mom/dad work once they will see their pictures on websites (even on agencies) and they will have their opinion, if positive its all good!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Photographing our children for stock/money ? (Read 28491 times)

caspixel

jm

Slovenian

jm

lisafx

PeterChigmaroff

dirkr

PeterChigmaroff

PeterChigmaroff

Slovenian

BaldricksTrousers

PeterChigmaroff

Shank_ali

lisafx

lisafx

Slovenian

Mantis

leaf

MatHayward

Shank_ali

BaldricksTrousers

helix7

madelaide

lisafx

luissantos84

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors