Silver lining? When the train comes, maybe it will take out the fauxtog and stop before it gets the baby…
← Previous post
Next post →
Oh no! Tyreese and Carol abandoned little Judith on their way to Terminus!
What a dumb idea for a photo. No originality on the fauxtogs part, and the parents are silly to have gone along with it.
I have to share what my son just said. “Let me take a closer look. Oh! His feet are tied up! Someone must have tripped him!” That’s right, this poor infant has fallen and he can’t get up.
You have to wonder why they think adding a baby enhances that scene, or how the scene enhances the baby’s photo.
If the scene behind the camera is similar to what the camera shows, the opportunity to be run over by a train is minimal. The largest risk is the baby’s cloths and hair will be covered in creosote. The next largest risk is cancer caused by exposure to the sun without adequate sunscreen. The third risk is a traffic accident will cause a vehicle to come off the road and over the tracks, taking out baby and photographer. Statistically there is probably some chance a train will arrive so quickly that there will not be time to grab the baby and run 6 feet, but it’s a pretty small chance if you can see 5 miles of track in each direction.
Ahh.. Litter louts!
I live near a railway and I’m forever picking up discarded babies…. : )
no one realizes how fast a train travels. In my biz, we recently lost a camera asst. due to negligence similar to this. 60 seconds was all they had.
A bullet train may can travel fast enough to present a real danger….but not your average freight. Back when I was a kid we used to walk the tracks all the time, and you could feel the train coming 2 minutes out, hear it one minute out and see it within half a minute.
Still….WHY? Tracks are photogenic, and perhaps that’s even a really cute baby…but this shit is just plain sick.
The train in question that killed Sarah Elizabeth Jones (if Thom and I are on the same page) was a regular run of the mill freight train. The big problem in that situation was that they 1) weren’t authorized to be there, 2) didn’t know the train schedule, 3) had a giant prop (a bed!) that they tried to move once the train was spotted before giving up and saving themselves (or trying to), and 4) were shooting on a bridge with no place to flee to. In the end it was wholly stupid.
In this situation, I don’t think it’s quite as dangerous, but still stupid. You are still trespassing on railroad property, and you still don’t know when there will be one or more trains coming your way. It’s easy to say that if a train comes you can just run, but stuff happens. Train tracks are tripping hazards. I’ve seen people severely sprain ankles on less. If that happens, suddenly we have a helpless baby, a mom that is in extreme pain and can’t walk, and a single photographer loaded down with gear who has to try and get them all to safety, assuming he doesn’t injure himself int he process.
I know that’s extreme, but it’s possible. As a parent, I would never lay my child on a train track and then get far enough away that I would be completely out of frame, and as a photographer, I would never ask a client to take such a measure for a picture that’s just about as cliche as they come.
There is a facebook page for Sarah called Slates for Sarah. It’s really uplifting seeing how the film industry remembers her.
I’d bet 1,000 dollars they were trespassing to shoot this garbage.
On top of the train risk… too bad if the bub decided to roll onto those rocks… and even faceplant while rolling. Could be a very nasty situation.
It might work as a weird first-year high-school photo project if the “model” was plastic doll, but as a family momento I’m just stunned that anyone would even agree to let a psycho fauxtog do this with their child, then take pictures!
wow , that’s bad .
its at a train station too ?? , surely that’s illegal ! if not it should be .
Lost your password?
Username or E-mail: