# People covered in honey



## Forkie

This is such a cool project!

Another one of those times in life where I thought, "Why the hell didn't I think of that?!"

Preview Blake Little s Preservation at Kopeikin Gallery Hi-Fructose Magazine

A couple of the images in the series are a little bit NSFW.  The video is fascinating.


----------



## runnah

I can't get past thinking how much of a pain it would to be clean up.


----------



## Braineack

Just wait, his second gallery will be titled: people covered in goo gone.


----------



## Forkie

runnah said:


> I can't get past thinking how much of a pain it would to be clean up.


Awwww, if everyone thought like that, no one would ever make anything!  There's nothing quite as much fun as making a mess!  Especially when we're supposed to be grown ups


----------



## mmaria

oh so much fun!!!


----------



## runnah

Forkie said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't get past thinking how much of a pain it would to be clean up.
> 
> 
> 
> Awwww, if everyone thought like that, no one would ever make anything!  There's nothing quite as much fun as making a mess!  Especially when we're supposed to be grown ups
Click to expand...


But it's so sticky!


----------



## Designer

I disagree with using children and pets in that way.


----------



## Braineack

why? they taste so good that way.


----------



## Forkie

Designer said:


> I disagree with using children and pets in that way.




It's only a bit of honey.  They probably had a good ol' lick  

If it was something like oil, I'd probably agree.


----------



## photoguy99

Babies basically spend all their time trying to kill their parents. A little honey is just tit for tat.


----------



## Forkie

photoguy99 said:


> Babies basically spend all their time trying to kill their parents. A little honey is just tit for tat.


----------



## Rick50

Awesome!


----------



## limr

I think it's a cool project and some of the pictures were quite amazing.

However, I have to agree with Designer. Not fair to do that to pets and babies, and especially because it can cause health problems. You can't just let the dog lick himself clean. A little bit of honey won't hurt, but that much could make him sick. For babies, it's much much worse because it can be fatal to children less than 1 year old: When can my baby eat honey BabyCenter


----------



## photoguy99

The baby was back to the camera for, I suspect, an excellent reason.


----------



## limr

photoguy99 said:


> The baby was back to the camera for, I suspect, an excellent reason.



What reason? The way he's facing wouldn't change whether or not honey got into his mouth. It only makes a difference if there was some kind of mask over the baby's face to prevent any honey from being ingested, and the back is to the camera so the mask is not in the image. But even so, the baby could easily take the mask off and stick a honeyed finger into his mouth. But really, why take a chance? It doesn't take much to make the baby sick; who's going to risk a baby's life just for a picture?

Granted - I'm not good at gauging ages so maybe that's a baby old enough for honey not to be a threat. Or maybe, just for the sake of the imagery, it wasn't honey but colored corn syrup or something.


----------



## photoguy99

Back to the camera means that the kid's face is not covered which makes for a lot less sadness.

As for the issue of eating the honey? I'd guess that the kid is a year old, sure. Could be, anyways.

Could be corn syrup, too. Honey is expensive.

It also could be honey and an eight month old baby and a parent rolling the dice. Infant botulism is one of those things we get told about and worry about, but if we really want to protect our children from risk: drive less.

The honey thing is seen as a very tiny risk that is easily managed, whereas driving is a much much larger risk which is seen as impossible to manage.


----------



## Forkie

limr said:


> I think it's a cool project and some of the pictures were quite amazing.
> 
> However, I have to agree with Designer. Not fair to do that to pets and babies, and especially because it can cause health problems. You can't just let the dog lick himself clean. A little bit of honey won't hurt, but that much could make him sick. For babies, it's much much worse because it can be fatal to children less than 1 year old: When can my baby eat honey BabyCenter




The baby was 18 months old and the reason it was a photo from behind was clearly because they didn't cover its face with the honey.  And they wouldn't have just let the dog lick itself clean - they would have bathed it afterwards.


----------



## JoeW

First, thanks for sharing.

Second, this is good work.  I say from experience.  It's VERY hard to shoot this concept without it looking like some kind of porn outtake, especially if the fluid is clear (i.e.: not chocolate fudge or red or blue).  FWIW, there are also some amazing examples out there of "milk dresses".


----------



## Forkie

JoeW said:


> First, thanks for sharing.
> 
> Second, this is good work.  I say from experience.  It's VERY hard to shoot this concept without it looking like some kind of porn outtake, especially if the fluid is clear (i.e.: not chocolate fudge or red or blue).  FWIW, there are also some amazing examples out there of "milk dresses".



Yes, the milk dresses by Jaroslav Wieczorkiewicz are amazing, but made in a very different way.  The dresses in those were shot separately and composited together with the shots of the models whereas, in this series, Blake Little actually poured the honey over his models.  

I just love the sheen and highlights it gives and the way it looks like the models are, as the website and video explain, like they have been frozen in amber.  I find it a really unique and fascinating effect.


----------



## Inga the Rottie

I agree that I do not like the dog or baby used in this way but the adults are amazing.   From the very large to the super fit they all look awesome.  That is a LOT of honey.   Honey is easy to clean up if they can just take a big hose the place, it will just wash down the drain.   I wouldn't do it in my house though. ha ha   Very Very Cool idea


----------



## runnah

I had a similar idea but with Tobasco sauce.

Did not end as well...


----------



## Overread

Forkie said:


> And they wouldn't have just let the dog lick itself clean - they would have bathed it afterwards.



I thought that was the cruelty! Putting a dog through a bath! 

Though honestly we do all kinds of things to our pets without permissions and so long as you do things sensibly no one comes to harm. Must admit the dog one did surprise me at first; it has a tiny shock value because you don't expect it; but once you think about it is being covered in honey that much different to mud, dead things, that horrible thing that had maggots in it and that actually I don't even want to THINK what that last thing the dog rolled in could have once been! 


It's very interesting and very good lighting on the shots. It adds a new dimension to many of the "characters" that you see in the people and animal shown. I've seen them do similar things in fantasy (The 300 second film had one guy emerging from gold and goopy slim has been used in the past in films). Neat idea for a project and honestly something one could do a lot of work with as a creative tool. Though yes you might want to look for some kind of honey substitute since pure honey would be expensive to use in this manner.


----------



## vintagesnaps

The photos are kind of cool but seems a little gimmicky to me, just not my type thing I guess.

You don't do that to a young child. It's one thing If you're playing in something messy having fun and take some pictures, but subjecting a young child to this??

If it's something that in the type work I've done with young children and famiies would have me thinking that it's heading in the direction of - would I need to intervene if I was there? then it seems questionable.

Don't think it's such a great idea with a pet ether.


----------



## Designer

Besides being a great waste of honey.


----------



## Forkie

vintagesnaps said:


> The photos are kind of cool but seems a little gimmicky to me, just not my type thing I guess.
> 
> You don't do that to a young child. It's one thing If you're playing in something messy having fun and take some pictures, but subjecting a young child to this??
> 
> If it's something that in the type work I've done with young children and famiies would have me thinking that it's heading in the direction of - would I need to intervene if I was there? then it seems questionable.
> 
> Don't think it's such a great idea with a pet ether.



I would imagine that as far as the baby was concerned it _was_ having fun playing in something messy and having some pictures taken...


----------



## Derrel

Well, I just gotta ask: *Where is the doggone cornbread and butter to go along with these?* This is an outrage!


----------



## photoguy99

Somewhere off screen there's a Honey Warmer of pretty epic proportions.


----------



## unpopular

Botulism aside, don't cover babies in honey.

It's just mean.


----------



## photoguy99

Don't put warm water on them either. That too is mean!


----------



## unpopular

My daughter likes baths ok. But socks, Why do they even make baby socks? After thousands of years Youd think we'd learn BABIES DONT LIKE SOCKS.


----------



## JTPhotography

1. I don't get it, I don't see it as creative nor do I think there is anything special about the photography. Take away the honey and you have mediocre portraiture.

2. I also think that all of the people responsible for pouring honey, real or not, on that baby should be arrested and prosecuted for abuse.

3. Honey is incredibly expensive, must've been a huge budget for this silly shoot.


----------



## Overread

Lets try and remain respectful to models in photography shall we - even if they are not members of the site.


----------



## Overread

JTPhotography said:


> 1. I don't get it, I don't see it as creative nor do I think there is anything special about the photography. Take away the honey and you have mediocre portraiture.
> 
> 2. I also think that all of the people responsible for pouring honey, real or not, on that baby should be arrested and prosecuted for abuse.



How is warm honey (as I suspect it was warm to make it flow and for a comfort aspect) any much different to oils or mud or flour or the 100001 other things that babies manage to coat themselves in head to toe? Heck the use of baby oils is widespread and very common. 
I fail to see how it is cruel to use honey and yet not cruel to use oils - especially considering that the honey is likely washed off moments later with warm water anyway. 



Also now I'm reminded of oils the use of Honey is very much like the use of body oils that we see often in photography to define muscles and body shape; however here it adds that "melted" effect.


----------



## JTPhotography

Overread said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I don't get it, I don't see it as creative nor do I think there is anything special about the photography. Take away the honey and you have mediocre portraiture.
> 
> 2. I also think that all of the people responsible for pouring honey, real or not, on that baby should be arrested and prosecuted for abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is warm honey (as I suspect it was warm to make it flow and for a comfort aspect) any much different to oils or mud or flour or the 100001 other things that babies manage to coat themselves in head to toe? Heck the use of baby oils is widespread and very common.
> I fail to see how it is cruel to use honey and yet not cruel to use oils - especially considering that the honey is likely washed off moments later with warm water anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Also now I'm reminded of oils the use of Honey is very much like the use of body oils that we see often in photography to define muscles and body shape; however here it adds that "melted" effect.
Click to expand...


First, as someone else said, it can kill them if ingested. Second, there is a difference between a babies getting stuff on their bodies during the course of their daily activities and a parent allowing a photographer to dump stuff on the kid for their own financial benefit.


----------



## weepete

As with a lot of foods honey can contain bacteria. If it has been heat treated it's fine as that will kill the spores making it perfectly safe.


----------



## unpopular

Overread said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I don't get it, I don't see it as creative nor do I think there is anything special about the photography. Take away the honey and you have mediocre portraiture.
> 
> 2. I also think that all of the people responsible for pouring honey, real or not, on that baby should be arrested and prosecuted for abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is warm honey (as I suspect it was warm to make it flow and for a comfort aspect) any much different to oils or mud or flour or the 100001 other things that babies manage to coat themselves in head to toe?
Click to expand...


It is not the physical properties of honey that is the issue. Honey specifically *can* contain a form of botulism spore that affects babies. I don't know why infant botulism happens, and why it only affects babies. (ETA - wikipedia has information on this)

I think that infant botulism from honey is rare, if for one thing all parents after the 1970s have been advised to avoid honey. Even before that I don't think infant botulism is common, and wasn't even discovered until the mid 70s. Pasteurization I don't think would help, since it is the spore and not the toxin that is the issue - and I think that this is why it only affects babies - the bacteria is allowed to grow inside their immature intestine. (again, see wiki)

Someone said that the effects of infant botulism are "well managed". According to wikipedia the fatality rate is 1%.

While it is true that your baby is "more likely to be killed in a car accident", feeding (or covering) your baby in honey seems like an unnecessary risk, no matter how small. Babies under 1 don't need honey, it's like feeding them ice cream (but with a CHANCE OF DEATH - caps added for melodrama).

So yeah... citations and stuff. That way Buckster doesn't complain.

Botulism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Clostridium botulinum Pathogens and Protocols PulseNet CDC


----------



## pixmedic

wasnt it mentioned somewhere in a post that the baby was 18 months?
im pretty sure in real time that makes the baby over 1 year.


----------



## Forkie

JTPhotography said:


> 1. I don't get it, I don't see it as creative nor do I think there is anything special about the photography. Take away the honey and you have mediocre portraiture.
> 
> 2. I also think that all of the people responsible for pouring honey, real or not, on that baby should be arrested and prosecuted for abuse.
> 
> 3. Honey is incredibly expensive, must've been a huge budget for this silly shoot.



1.  You make a valid point.  It _would_ be mediocre portraiture *without* the honey.  It's ok that you don't get it.  There are people in the world who do things without a point to make. 

If you watch the video, he explains that he originally wanted to shoot a guy who reminded him of a bear and wanted to photograph him eating honey, like a bear does.  He had the model dip his hand in the honey and was interested in the way it reflected light, they way it dripped off of the hand and how it reminded him of prehistoric organisms trapped and fossilized in amber.  He then decided that instead of his original idea, he would cover the model entirely in honey to see what would happen. 

Artistic expression and exploration are surely what we're all here in this forum for, right?  We want to improve, learn new things and discover our own creative potential.  I personally find it fascinating, the amount of ways different artists and photographers show the human body; covered in powder; body paint; make up; hair styles; fashion.  I just think the honey project was a particularly interesting project because of the affect the honey has on the appearance of the body. Or is that we are we all really in this forum to perpetuate the "young girl sitting in a field/on a railway line/" portraits?

2. That's mental.  And again, if you read the article and watch the video, the baby is well over the age limit everyone seems to think that honey turns from napalm to sugar.  What about photographers who dump babies in the deep end or in the mud (where there might be dog poo!  ) or allow them anywhere near a bred-especially-for-cage-fighting pitbull?

3. The guy is a well established celebrity, fashion and advertising photographer who I'm sure is doing alright for himself.  Not that budget has anything to do with anything.



JTPhotography said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I don't get it, I don't see it as creative nor do I think there is anything special about the photography. Take away the honey and you have mediocre portraiture.
> 
> 2. I also think that all of the people responsible for pouring honey, real or not, on that baby should be arrested and prosecuted for abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is warm honey (as I suspect it was warm to make it flow and for a comfort aspect) any much different to oils or mud or flour or the 100001 other things that babies manage to coat themselves in head to toe? Heck the use of baby oils is widespread and very common.
> I fail to see how it is cruel to use honey and yet not cruel to use oils - especially considering that the honey is likely washed off moments later with warm water anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Also now I'm reminded of oils the use of Honey is very much like the use of body oils that we see often in photography to define muscles and body shape; however here it adds that "melted" effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, as someone else said, it can kill them if ingested. Second, there is a difference between a babies getting stuff on their bodies during the course of their daily activities and a parent allowing a photographer to dump stuff on the kid for their own financial benefit.
Click to expand...


What, exactly, *is* the difference between a baby getting stuff (dog poo, mud, dust, puddle water, chocolate) on itself in everyday activities and putting on them intentionally?  If done intentionally it can be done safely, in controlled conditions.  If a baby accidentally gets dog poo on it's hands and it goes un-noticed, that could make the baby ill if it then puts its finger in its mouth.


----------



## photoguy99

Yep. Take away the honey and it's just portraiture. Hence, the honey.


----------



## unpopular

pixmedic said:


> wasnt it mentioned somewhere in a post that the baby was 18 months?
> im pretty sure in real time that makes the baby over 1 year.



I think it was assumed the baby was over a year, but I don't think he was. By the looks of him or her, I'd say closer to 10 months? It's kinda hard to tell.

either way, don't dump honey on babies, mmk?


----------



## Forkie

unpopular said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> wasnt it mentioned somewhere in a post that the baby was 18 months?
> im pretty sure in real time that makes the baby over 1 year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it was assumed the baby was over a year, but I don't think he was. By the looks of him or her, I'd say closer to 10 months? It's kinda hard to tell.
> 
> either way, don't dump honey on babies, mmk?
Click to expand...

It says in the video the baby was 18 months.


----------



## paigew

I saw this on fb earlier. First it doesn't look like an 18 month baby to me...but I guess who am I to argue. I think its wrong to put it on animals and babies.  
Also kinda a waste of natural resources...he used 900 buckets of honey. #savethebees


----------



## pixmedic

we could go on all day about stuff people do with their kids that i think is wrong...
the point is, a lot of those things are personal parenting decisions, and while some may seem extreme or even crazy to us, if there were any legal issues with what was going on there i am pretty sure something would have been done about it considering the pictures and video were published in a _*very*_ open medium.


----------



## JTPhotography

Forkie said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I don't get it, I don't see it as creative nor do I think there is anything special about the photography. Take away the honey and you have mediocre portraiture.
> 
> 2. I also think that all of the people responsible for pouring honey, real or not, on that baby should be arrested and prosecuted for abuse.
> 
> 3. Honey is incredibly expensive, must've been a huge budget for this silly shoot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  You make a valid point.  It _would_ be mediocre portraiture *without* the honey.  It's ok that you don't get it.  There are people in the world who do things without a point to make.
> 
> If you watch the video, he explains that he originally wanted to shoot a guy who reminded him of a bear and wanted to photograph him eating honey, like a bear does.  He had the model dip his hand in the honey and was interested in the way it reflected light, they way it dripped off of the hand and how it reminded him of prehistoric organisms trapped and fossilized in amber.  He then decided that instead of his original idea, he would cover the model entirely in honey to see what would happen.
> 
> Artistic expression and exploration are surely what we're all here in this forum for, right?  We want to improve, learn new things and discover our own creative potential.  I personally find it fascinating, the amount of ways different artists and photographers show the human body; covered in powder; body paint; make up; hair styles; fashion.  I just think the honey project was a particularly interesting project because of the affect the honey has on the appearance of the body. Or is that we are we all really in this forum to perpetuate the "young girl sitting in a field/on a railway line/" portraits?
> 
> 2. That's mental.  And again, if you read the article and watch the video, the baby is well over the age limit everyone seems to think that honey turns from napalm to sugar.  What about photographers who dump babies in the deep end or in the mud (where there might be dog poo!  ) or allow them anywhere near a bred-especially-for-cage-fighting pitbull?
> 
> 3. The guy is a well established celebrity, fashion and advertising photographer who I'm sure is doing alright for himself.  Not that budget has anything to do with anything.
> 
> 
> 
> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I don't get it, I don't see it as creative nor do I think there is anything special about the photography. Take away the honey and you have mediocre portraiture.
> 
> 2. I also think that all of the people responsible for pouring honey, real or not, on that baby should be arrested and prosecuted for abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is warm honey (as I suspect it was warm to make it flow and for a comfort aspect) any much different to oils or mud or flour or the 100001 other things that babies manage to coat themselves in head to toe? Heck the use of baby oils is widespread and very common.
> I fail to see how it is cruel to use honey and yet not cruel to use oils - especially considering that the honey is likely washed off moments later with warm water anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Also now I'm reminded of oils the use of Honey is very much like the use of body oils that we see often in photography to define muscles and body shape; however here it adds that "melted" effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, as someone else said, it can kill them if ingested. Second, there is a difference between a babies getting stuff on their bodies during the course of their daily activities and a parent allowing a photographer to dump stuff on the kid for their own financial benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What, exactly, *is* the difference between a baby getting stuff (dog poo, mud, dust, puddle water, chocolate) on itself in everyday activities and putting on them intentionally?  If done intentionally it can be done safely, in controlled conditions.  If a baby accidentally gets dog poo on it's hands and it goes un-noticed, that could make the baby ill if it then puts its finger in its mouth.
Click to expand...


Dumping honey on a baby on purpose is effed up. If you don't think it is effed up, there is nothing I will be able to say to change your mind. I won't argue it.


----------



## photoguy99

Do you have any babies?

If I were asked to do this with my 19 month old I know how I'd do it. She'd watch some other people get doused. She'd taste the honey and feel it.

She's not dumb. She would either ask to get in on the dumping action by pointing excitedly, or she would not.

If, and only if, she asked, we'd shoot.

Just because you're 18 months old doesn't mean you're not a person capable of giving consent.


----------



## pixmedic

photoguy99 said:


> Do you have any babies?
> 
> If I were asked to do this with my 19 month old I know how I'd do it. She'd watch some other people get doused. She'd taste the honey and feel it.
> 
> She's not dumb. She would either ask to get in on the dumping action by pointing excitedly, or she would not.
> 
> If, and only if, she asked, we'd shoot.
> 
> Just because you're 18 months old doesn't mean you're not a person capable of giving consent.





Yes, i have  babies so i guess im allowed to comment on this?
you could take that exact same argument and put a whole lot of other things under it...would you still agree?
try it with...oh, i dunno...
Religion. 
Nutrition. 
Bathing. 
stupid baby outfits. 

If your kid liked the honey and wasn't scared by people covered in it, would you let them do this shoot with your kid?

I just think this is pretty much a circular argument where what is going on is not a legal concern, but a parenting one. 
you can disagree with a parenting issue, but in the end, it is the parents decision.
I can disagree with a parenting issue but still respect their rights as parents to make the decisions for their children.


----------



## photoguy99

Oh anyone can comment and have an opinion. But if you have babies you're likely to be a lot more familiar with how and what they can communicate.

No I don't let her drive just because she wants to and oh does she.

Would I let her play in honey if she wanted and there was both honey and a bath available? Sure. Just because I let her choose some things doesn't mean I abdicate my parenting responsibilities.

The point is that it is at last possible to do a shoot like this without being irresponsible or mean. How was it actually done? No idea.

(ETA: Wow my phone makes some awesome word salad sometimes)


----------



## paigew

I have watched many movies where I was disturbed by the obvious distress a baby was under for the sake of a film or tv show.

Circumcision? Ear piercing as an infant?...who gives consent here? Not the baby...is it abuse?

There are plenty of parenting choices I don't agree with. I don't know if I would label this honey thing as abusive. But yeah, I think morally it is wrong to subject a young subject to distress for the sake of making art.


----------



## pixmedic

paigew said:


> I have watched many movies where I was disturbed by the obvious distress a baby was under for the sake of a film or tv show.
> 
> Circumcision? Ear piercing as an infant?...who gives consent here?
> 
> There are plenty of parenting choices I don't agree with. I don't know if I would label this honey thing as abusive. But yeah, I think morally it is wrong to subject a young subject to distress for the sake of making art.




I think pushing religion on a child is abusive. 
or a vegetarian/vegan diet. 
and especially 

crap...
we all better stop here before this thread spirals out of control and we all crash and burn. 
I think we should just focus on the images as an art form and keep it there.


----------



## photoguy99

BANZAIIIIIIII

ART IS CRAP CANON IS BEST PLEASE EXPLAIN DOF!


----------



## unpopular

Personally I think the guy is just kinky. That's what I thought from the start. I was like, yep, this guy's kinky. Then I saw the couple doing the nasty all covered in honey, and I was like YEP definitely kinky.

Then I saw the dog, and was like, uhm, ok ... look but don't touch, I guess.

Drew the line at the baby though.


----------



## kdthomas

As far as the infant is concerned, I would be *extremely* anxious about safety issues, e.g. the child rubbing it in his/her eyes, the honey getting in the ear canal or nasal passages, probably even getting a pediatrician sign-off or even supervision of the shoot, and having some pretty strong procedures in place with parents/assistants/etc about safety. I didn't see the video, but I would hope the photographer in charge had all those ducks in a row ...

I have a hard time agreeing with the person who said that 18-month-olds are not incapable of giving consent. I would have to say that they mostly are incapable of consent, at least to things that require any kind of consideration of consequences. I think a person at that age is, to a large degree, helpless, and almost entirely dependent on adults to make the right decisions for them.

That said ... I found the images very creative and visually arresting.


----------



## photoguy99

I meant consent, not informed consent. The informed part would be on me. Honey is not poison, for crying out loud. Do you have any experience with the crap children make inside their noses all by themselves? It's a lot nastier than honey.


----------



## kdthomas

photoguy99 said:


> I meant consent, not informed consent. The informed part would be on me. Honey is not poison, for crying out loud. Do you have any experience with the crap children make inside their noses all by themselves? It's a lot nastier than honey.



Oh yeah! I had a son, he would get into all kinds of stuff  And to be fair, there were a lot of things our folks let us do as kids, that would strike terror in my heart nowadays ... and myself and all my childhood friends turned out just fine.

And, no, of course honey isn't poison ... I would just be worried about safety ... but then again I'm a very risk-averse type of person, probably more than I need to be, much of the time.

I didn't mean to say I thought you were wrong, necessarily, just that I came to a different conclusion. Maybe I'm not looking at all the angles.


----------



## photoguy99

They DID pose the kid back to the camera, and I assume it's because they were a lot less liberal with the honey.

Neither I nor my kids would let anyone cover their faces with honey. So, yeah, we all got limits as to what we consider reasonable.


----------



## vintagesnaps

The age for children to be able to safely eat honey is 1 year old. This info. from NIH states under 'Prevention' to NEVER give even a little taste to a child younger than that. It also says there are about 100 cases of infant botulism a year.

Botulism MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia 

Even if the child in the photo is older than 1 year of age, this to me seems like an excessive amount to pour over a toddler.


----------



## unpopular

I find the images gimmicky and sophomoric.

To each his own, I suppose.


----------



## Maxim Photo Studio

We need to combine this honey shoting concept to the photographer who shoots in the nude. Photographer Takes Nude Photos - PLOT TWIST - He s the Nude One Photography Forum Now that would be epic.


----------



## 123rfanna

All I could think of was the mess they would make in the shower! LOL, very creative, daring almost


----------

