Baby Blender


This picture is cute until you take a good look at that tiny baby in the bowl…

← Previous post

Next post →

77 Comments

  1. this terrifies me

  2. minus the baby it could have been a cute shot. Not sure why they felt the need to stick the poor baby in the bowl.

  3. Not sure this belongs here. I don’t much care for the setup but it is a well lit and executed shot. This person knows how to use the camera and editing and it is not bad.

    • ithurtswhenipee

      It take more then knowing how to operate a camera to be photographer. That’s kind of the whole point of this site.

      • Gal with a Camera

        @ithurtswhenipee, oh my goodness!! I busy laughed out loud at your username… that sounds so funny when you read it out loud! Lol.

        Sorry to hear about your problem, though… ๐Ÿ˜‰

      • I happen to love the content. It is so Jonathan Hobin.

    • The blurry mess above the baby’s head says otherwise.

      • you mean the depth-of-field?

      • Probably a composite. Not a terrible thing, considering that they are at least 3.5′ off the ground. It’s a nice shot. Poorly posed, but not NEARLY as poor as the other images on this site, or elsewhere. You’re grabbing straws with the “blurry mess” statement.

      • What blurry mess?

    • I love this shot. Any parent will see the humour in it.

  4. Virginia

    The quality isn’t AWFUL, but just odd subject. So what, the kid baked up a baby brother? Weird.

    • Gal with a Camera

      Oh so THAT’s where babies come from! You bake them! Neat-o…

  5. Ok, I gotta say – despite the fact there is a possible dead baby corpse in this picture, I really like the lightning he achieved on this one (assuming the poor guy at the left is not PS’d, that is).

    • TollTollPhotography

      Yeah… it’s great lightning… I wonder how loud the thunder is.

      I think that this photo is meant to be like the two were making cookies and the little one fell asleep and the brother is eating the icing… not that the baby is being cooked. I mean, look… the cookies are already made, it would be different if there were no cookies.

  6. kristin

    It’s actually a very good picture, technically speaking. Conceptually, on the other hand, it is pretty darn awful!

  7. I’ve seen a lot worse posted here. I kind of like this one.

  8. The baby is in the bowl. The little boy is eating a brown substance off of the spatula… The cookies are already made. What exactly is the brown substance? I see cookies… not brownies…

    • photochick

      hahahaha, he’s eating poop!
      Ok this photo actually isn’t that bad. I’d say the mother of the children loves baking cookies or cupcakes (might even have a WAHM business out of it) and wanted a shot that showed her fun attitude. I personally would have photographed it for the client, but would NEVER have put it online. As long as the baby is safe I see no harm in this shot. And the baby’s face is clearly photoshopped in (hence the weird head twisting thing going on).
      I love the lighting on this one!

  9. I have to agree, this image does not belong her, although the composition isnt something I would hang on my wall, the technical skill set used to create it seems to be there. I love this site, Ive seen pleanty of images that belong here, but i must defend this photographer in saying that it appears to me this photographer has a good mastery of the camera.

  10. This one isn’t so bad, in my opinion. I’ve seen way, way worse.

  11. Brandi

    Original idea, cute idea but just took a bit of a wrong turn with where the baby is. Besides the odd placement of the baby, I see nothing wrong. They did a fine job.

  12. VDubbs

    This is really good lighting and pretty good PS work on adding the baby. This does NOT belong here. This person is obviously a photographer. You not liking something doesn’t take away someones professionalism (its only your opinion), there are far worse images by fauxtogs floating around out there.

  13. Haha this is horrible! Content is key for photography. I can’t believe there are so many people that actually like this photo! It worries me…

    • I do agree that content might be key for photography— but equally is creativity- and eventhough it isn’t your cup-o-tea, it is damn creative. I say its a head and shoulders above ANYTHING else I’ve seen on this site.

    • its very well lit and looks like a real PHOTOGRAPHER took this. nice colors. great lighting, simple and effective DOF i like it. i think its great

  14. I hate to say it, but this concept had potential, and the photographer came really close. This is far and wide from being the worst on this site.

  15. Kristen

    Um, it’s weird. The baby looks dead and the sibling is eating its remains. Certainly does not give me the warm mommy feelings.

  16. No, it’s not “really good lighting”, but it’s “okay” lighting. I would call it a mistake, myself. Despite the bizarre composition and major failure in lighting, it’s otherwise a good picture.

    Why isn’t it good lighting? Looks like he’s using either an off-camera or reflected flash, or a sunlit window on camera right. He also has tungsten lights turned on in the kitchen, and that makes the WB vary throughout the picture; thus, it’s not “good lighting”. The left half is tungsten making the baby look jaundiced, and the right half is sunlight, and all the shadows are orange because he balanced on sunlight. If that was a flash, he should’ve added a CTO gel. It could be fixed, with some difficulty, in post.

    I think the composition, while bizarre, is appealing, but won’t appeal to everyone. The parents probably think it’s a scream, while some people might want to scream instead. It’s a polarizing image — some will love it, others will hate it.

    I just think the light should’ve been fixed.

    • There’s nothing wrong with the lighting. This image doesn’t belong here.

    • I know the folks that took this (no i did not submit it here) and they have had other sets with varied lighting. I think it is a well done picture and the lighting and subject are not bad, but are matters of personal opinion

      • You have to be kidding. This bad in every way. Bad compo, bad lighting, bad skin tone.

      • I actually like the picture, although the varied lighting here looks like laziness to me, not creativity. I don’t think it’s deserving of being here, except for its polarizing composition. Half of the viewers are thinking “huh?”

  17. boriscleto

    Baby…It’s the Other Other White Meat.

  18. maggie

    That’s not a blender, it’s a mixer. It seems like an insignificant difference until you imagine the blender with a baby in it…much more disturbing, right?

  19. BurninBiomass

    Guest : I love your cookies! whats your secret?

    Mom : Look at this picture

    Guest : *BARF*

  20. While I generally try not to associate babies with food in photography, I don’t put this in the same scary category with some of the other images that grace the annals of this site. I am sure there people who would pay for this kind of work. This image obviously took time to plan out, set up, and execute. Not my style but not in the same category as most the images here. I would really love to see some of the harshest critics on this site link their online porfolios next to their be-rating comments ; )

  21. Rachel

    One of my main problems with it is not the mixing bowl itself, but the presence of the mixer (that’s not a blender, YANAP) in the photo. It just looks so dangerous, especially with a NEWBORN so close to it. If they’d waited to try this concept once the poor little baby could hold up its own head and taken the mixer out of the shot, it would be much better. But then I guess that would take away from the “I just mixed up this new brother” feel. So I don’t know. They should have just gone a different route.

    • The baby wasn’t near a mixer. He was Photoshopped in. And not very well.

  22. Conceptually a bit odd perhaps, but if I were trying to showcase some of the horrors that fauxtographers come up with, I’d hardly hold this up as an example of someone who didn’t know what they were doing.

  23. Clearly, the baby’s head is shopped in. No kid normally lies with their head turned at MORE than a 90 degree angle.

  24. Patricia

    I think the baby’s head looks a little over-rotated…but other than that, I really don’t hate the picture. I don’t particularly like it either. I agree, the photog has skills and the editing is good. A caption explaining what this picture means might be helpful?? The concept is lost on me.

  25. something about the way the baby’s head and hands are placed looks really odd. I agree that they should have had brownies there instead of cookies. its a weird picture to me.

  26. If the lighting had been more balanced (as in light temperatures), and had the props been more carefully considered, and had the baby not been included at all, this would’ve been a cute shot. The toddler with the popsicle is adorable and I’m sure the ‘tog was going for the “kid tried to cook his own sweets” concept…. but the absence of bowl-fulla-batter or torn-sack-of-flour or broken-eggs-everywhere makes it appear too staged. (And yes, those things could be included in the shot without presenting a danger to the toddler.

    As for including the baby in the shot, that was the biggest mistake. It turns what should be a “This happens to ALL parents eventually” fun shot into a “OMG call Family Services” nightmare.

  27. Agggh! This image gives a whole new meaning to the phrase ‘baby cakes’. And why does the older boy licking the spatula imply cannibalism?

    Yikes.

  28. Pelham

    The kid’s licking a spatula, with which he just mixed up kid bro/sis, not a popsicle. The mixed lighting is a bit horrendous, but overall the concept is at least slightly original, if not very safe.

    If the parents are going to be the first ones jumping on the StupidWagon by allowing their offspring to be around potentially dangerous items during a shoot, they’ve got nobody but themselves to blame when FS comes knocking.

  29. Photoshop failure; the baby appears to have a broken neck. Notice the way its’ laying and the position of the arms… this is despite the subjective dis/likes of the image.

  30. I don’t think this is photoshop. The white balance is off because of the two different lights. It’s looks as if there is a light/flash off to camera right. It also looks as if there is a kitchen light hanging over the blender. You can see the reflection in the microwave window. I thought it was photoshop at first, but I think it’s a bad mixture of lighting. Not too bad, there has been worse on here.

  31. Jackie Baughman

    I am a newborn photographer and so tired of seeing shots that have nothing to do with a newborn. Seriously, what the heck does baking cookies have to do with having a baby other than the cravings mom had while pregnant. The lighting isn’t horrible but it certainly isn’t good either. Without the newborn this shot would be OK if the lighting were adjusted a bit but with the baby it looks ridiculous.

  32. i’m with stef. the lighting in the picture isn’t great; it’s a little too severe for a kitchen shot. the whole image is dark and looks creepy, rather than cute.

    composition-wise, the subject is framed well, though. and it’s interesting, if slightly bizarre. i think it would’ve worked better with brighter background lighting. this is like a deleted scene from rosemary’s baby.

  33. inspiration came from here — 4th image down. http://confessionsofapropjunkie.com/?p=6385
    it’s all over pinterest.
    this rendering makes it look like the kid is a cannibal…

    • I saw it on pinterest too and it’s super cute. This version is a total miss.

  34. Elizabeth

    Sorry, y’all…unless Mom’s a baker, I really don’t see why anyone would whip this up…har har. Seriously, though…there is something really wrong with that baby. At first glance, it looks like it is on its stomach with one hand on top of the other, but then it kinda looks like an over-bent hand, and the baby is on it’s back (am I seeing things or is that a belly button on top?). Idea was kinda cute, but the execution is a bit morbid…maybe the baby in a bit more natural position in a basket surrounded by cookies, with a few utensils scattered about and the kitchen aid in the background? I am really confused by this…

  35. not a bad photo, but babies are gross

  36. Umm, I actually like this photoโ€”it’s cute, funny and well shot. I don’t think it belongs on this site at all.

  37. This is definitely not a fauxtographer’s picture. It’s one thing to make comments about a horrible photo that even a non-photographer can say “That’s bad!” but all you making comments about the lighting…why aren’t you posting your website to your pictures? If you have so much to say and so much knowledge then you shouldn’t fear posting your portfolio…your pictures must be amazing.
    I also think the concept is cute. I think it plays on the “sugar and spice and everything nice” type saying. Just because it doesn’t fit your mold of a newborn portrait does not make it a bad photograph.
    I just find it funny when so many lash out with negative comments yet don’t post their own work.

    • Pelham

      I, for one, don’t post links to my own professional portfolio, because I don’t shoot the kind of subject matter that pops up here. We don’t see much in the way of sports/action/events/food/wildlife/stock/street photography/portraits here, do we?

      No. Here we see weddings, engagements, maternity, infants and the occasional drunken party, none of which I shoot, though I have done a couple of weddings in the past. But, as I don’t really want to be a wedding photog, I don’t have any wedding images up. Happy?

    • Periodically, ignorant people post something like “opinions are not valid without submitting oneself to the same scrutiny.”

      They are — you are — simply, wrong.

      You posted your own opinion about the piece, but didn’t post a link to your professional art critic or pro photographer page. So, is your opinion invalid for the same reasons?

      While I don’t fear posting my port, there’s utterly no reason to post it here. Are you going to hire me, after seeing my stellar images? I don’t think so. The only people who actually care about portfolios of critics are ignorant people trying to enforce some misguided sense of justice or “put someone in his place”. But you’re far from qualified to do that, just like you’re claiming others are unqualified to critique an image.

  38. NicCole

    Swear to god, while I was staring in horror at that poor baby, Firefox SHUT DOWN. Even my internet knows how bad that shot is and was trying to save my brain from the horror.

  39. The mixed lighting doesn’t bother me. Most of the toddler’s face is a decent skin tone, just a bit of orange on the side. Yes it could have been evened out with some work, but I don’t think it’s strictly necessary for a good shot. The concept however (by which I mean the baby in the bowl) is incredibly creepy and I get kinda sick looking at it. Overall though, not really a picture for this site in my opinion.

  40. Wow…indeed that IS a spatula. I’d never seen red ones like that before until yesterday afternoon on a cooking/recipes site. Now that does raise the question ‘Where’s the rest of the batter?’ Oh wait….did that fudgy mess come from..?? …… ewwwww!

    It all puts me in mind of a commercial (IIRC for KitchenAid) with a toddler trying to follow along with the TV chef baking a cake….but the mess in this photo is just too ..I dunno….sterile? That boy would have fudge in both ears and on top of his own head if this was a real surprise snapshot.

  41. Should be removed….yeah it was a silly prop choice with the blender over the bowl….but it’s nevertheless creative, well lit etc what everybody else has said above. BUT it’s NOT worth bashing, and NOT WORTH PUTTING ON HERE… not even in the same ball park as the other photos on here. ***EPIC FAIL*** GOES TO ‘YOU ARE NOT A PHOTOGRAPHER’ for this choice….biatches!!

    • It’s not brilliant I agree, but neither is it worthy of this site. I would say that YANAP is running out of worthy submissions, but then I’ve submitted several that have all been ignored…..

      • Yeah, I don’t think it’s worthy of this site. Frankly, I kind of like it.

        But there’s no way they can be running out of good submissions!

  42. Not a bad shot at all, apart from the positioning of the baby – it’s technically a good shot so I am not entirely sure why it’s here. If I had this in my portfolio I would be OK with it.

  43. robert

    I still can’t decide if the baby lies on its belly or on its back. The head looks twisted and broken. The expression on its face is lifeless. The shoulders / arms are in an unnatural angle, the fingers are the wrong way ’round.
    What elements in the image negate these horrors to redeem it to a nice pic? Just because there is a baby involved doesn’t magically add fairy points to an image. We must still judge the image on its merits, not on its fuzzy and cuddly content.

    I’m sure the child will grow into a strong and healthy human being, but this picture doesn’t tell that story at all. That’s why it earned its place on this site for me.

  44. I actually love it hahahahha

  45. Parents everywhere run to find Mixmasters and pull out their point & shoot cameras.

    Different tastes. I wouldn’t have this image in my house. Too reminiscent of cannibalism in my mind. Did they run out of Anne Geddes pumpkins??

  46. it’s the soylent green!!

  47. AaronG

    This composition is obviously based on a pun off ‘baby batter’. And the baby’s head is at a weird angle. Either it has a deformed hand or its head is pointing the wrong way.

  48. Personally, I think the white balance is a bit off. But the subject, I love! It’s a bit quirky, a bit different. I’m sick of all the standard happy family photos, this just has something a bit different about it, if I was the client I’d be really happy with this.

    Bad call on this one https://youarenotaphotographer.com/ I think.

  49. Frankie

    shouldn’t be on here…..

  50. tahrey

    For everyone having trouble figuring this one out:

    The baby is TOO SMALL. Unless it’s some kind of strange dwarf, or a premie. Compared to the toddler, it should be somewhat larger, just in terms of head size alone. Babies are smaller than toddlers, yes, but not so much that their head swells over 3x in such a short space of time.

    It was almost convincing, until I realised it.

  51. Snappy

    Conceptual fail…
    And that mixer-ravaged baby is oozing egg yoks and milk all over the cookies! Save the cookies!

  52. Wsroadrunner

    A young Jeffery Dahmer in the baking….

  53. I really like this photo. It doesn’t deserve to be on this site.

  54. Proportion is way off, baby is way too small & at strange angles

Leave a Reply