Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas! If you’re going to let a baby play with Christmas lights, might as well do it in a piss poor image.

← Previous post

Next post →


  1. That is just an awkward photo!

  2. RS Designs

    Talk about electrocution –

  3. A photographer

    I like it. The expression is good, the framing is acceptable, and any Photoshop tinkering has been subtle.

  4. So, who thought it was a good idea to let kids play with electricity and glass?

  5. Hopefully it is a battery powered light string and plastic bulbs, not glass.

    Poor exposure and composition as well as some motion blur.

  6. Another Steve

    The overall composition is okay, but the exposure isn’t. I also think this could have used a bit of ‘shopping to remove the reflections from the eyelids–to me, it looks like the kid has glow-in-the-dark eyes.

    And what happened to the feet? They don’t look human. Congenital abnormality or oblivious fauxtographer?

  7. Just because you CAN shoot available light doesn’t mean you SHOULD shoot available light.

  8. Christmas lights can contain unsafe amounts of lead. Let’s give them to a baby…cause they never put anything in their mouths.

  9. Oh wow, didn’t take them long to imitate this pose, hey! I never agreed with it when the decent quality photographers did it (they might have looked great but baby + electricity/glass/led should NEVER mix!!) But sheesh! This just looks horrid!

  10. K. Proulx

    I suppose the next shot was of baby being electrocuted when he chomps down on one of the lights? WTF? Hope the fauxtog had liability insurance for negligence causing death …

  11. You know, this concept could have gone somewhere if they knew what the hell they were doing, and no I do not endorse tangling kids up in christmas lights. Come on, folks…THINK.

  12. There was an email about “are we doing unsafe things to kids” on this site recently. The comments above kind of reinforce that bizarre mindset.

    These strings of lights are low voltage, so unless you actually break the skin with some sort of probe, there is no electrocution or dangerous shock hazard. These lights were designed exactly because of shock and fire issues with the older, larger cone-shaped lights. They don’t catch on fire, they’re difficult to break, and they don’t shock.

    The only real danger is choking on cords or bulbs, but obviously there’s an adult present and that’s not going to happen either. The bulbs are difficult to remove by a child. It’s no more dangerous than a photo of a kid playing with a plastic bag (maybe we can find a shot of that!). But the point is, he’s not unattended and there is no danger. It’s not like this is an image of a child in the lap of Brittney driving on a public road. Rather, it’s highly controlled and monitored, kind of like all those “Closed course, do not attempt” commercials.

    Anyone who’s worked with kids knows how difficult they are to pose. This shot was done with the tiny amount of light from the string. There could easily be issues with motion blur. Considering the difficulties (kids, low light, inability to direct the light from a string, kids, the parents ruining your shot, and kids), should this shot have even been attempted? Probably not, since it’s just a kid with a bunch of lights plopped in his lap causing the face to be eerily lit from below. But I don’t think the result quite crosses the threshold to worthy of ridicule. It’s close, but I give the faux/pho-tog a pass due to the extreme difficulties.

    IMHO, the end result is not so bad when you think about it, and especially when you consider what the parents obviously wanted: their kid playing with lights for a card. Amirite?

    • Stephanie

      I tend to agree. I like the idea they had…coulda been done better. Coulda been done a lot worse, too.

Leave a Reply