A pregnant woman letting it all hang out hasn’t turned heads, really, since Demi Moore was still going out with men her own age. But news that Japanese women are getting their gear off for a mama-to-be shot is getting plenty of press.

Why?

Just three years ago, a pregnant Britney Spears, nude and on an American magazine cover, caused an uproar when it was slated to appear lifesize in the Tokyo subway. Officials said it was “overly stimulating” and called for everything below Spears’ elbows to be masked.

Fast-forward three years, and business is booming for photographers who take tasteful photos of mums-to-be, playing up the big ol’ belly. It’s good money too—mums are paying an average of $US370 a session.

With stretch marks from here to eternity, that was never going to be me. I’m not Demi. Or Britney (my kid rides in a car seat, thank you very much).

But with the trend growing and going worldwide, do you see the average stretch-marked Aussie mum lining up anytime soon?

Image: Reuters

President Obama has inflamed White House photographers yet again over his on-again, off-again rules for photographing the first kids.

After asking for respect for young Sasha and Malia’s privacy during the campaign, the president has allowed certain scripted moments to be sent out over the wires. But when an unscripted moment comes up – even with photographers allowed onto the premises and in plain view of said photographers, the Obama administration has been quick to advise the press they’d better not see that picture out in the public.

According to an article in the AP yesterday, Sasha Obama was standing on the Truman balcony of the White House when the president happened to look up and see her. Sending a wave in her direction, he was answered with a wave back… which photographers caught (see the two together over at Jezebel). Photographers, I’ll remind you, who were already invited in to take photographs.

So when the White House told them they couldn’t print that particular pic, is it any wonder the press got pissed?

Freedom of the press is not nearly as straightforward as the general public would believe. And yet, it affords us powers that many in the public don’t understand. Standing at a street fair, taking pictures for my local newspaper, I’ve been informed by parents that they’ll take my camera after I take their child’s picture. Sure, if they want to see the other side of a set of bars.

If your child is in public, a photographer can take their picture. It’s that simple. Which explains why there are myriad pictures of celebrities’ kids out there, why the paparazzi are still in business.

And yet, there are rules. We can’t, for example, trespass. There are restrictions in private settings, and although my photojournalism jobs have never taken me quite this far, I would assume the White House falls under most of those private settings and more. The White House is a national museum, but it is also a home, not to mention home of the leader of the free world. Much of the place falls under the exclusionary rules to freedome of the press dealing with matters of national security.

But is it fair to say the kids fall under that too? Because as many have pointed out, the Obama girls are seen in public. Remember the ice cream shot? The Parade photos?

Of course, those all fell under the “approved” photos by the Obama White House, as do the photos on the Obama Flickr page, which news organisations can ask to use (although that is sometimes rejected). The point being, the Obamas have not made this a “no photos of our girls” White House. They’ve made it a “no photos of our girls… unless we feel like it” White House, and one many critics say is more of a “no photos of our girls… unless it can win the president points or make him look good” White House. Not to mention the complaints that the Obama White House is hurting the money-making abilities of certain members of the press corps by disseminating its own photos and saying no to the professional photos.

As a parent, I’m willing to give him a certain benefit of the doubt. He wants to protect his kids. But as a reporter, I must say that protecting your kids means keeping them out of the limelight, period. If you don’t want the press taking photos of your daughter on the balcony, tell her to stay off the balcony.

If they’ve taken the picture, as a man who swore to protect the Constitution, you sigh and move on. Especially as there was nothing untoward happening, no paparazzi sneaking around the back of the White House lawn or slipping in to their playroom.

You don’t have to like paparazzi or even more legitimate news photographers, Mr. President. But they’re just doing their jobs, jobs protected by their Constitution. Let them do it.

Image: AP

And, no, they aren’t a family of models.

The picture, which Extraordinary Mommy writer Danielle says was used on her family’s Christmas card, her private Facebook, her site and a few Ning sites, where she’d posted it in high resolution because, as she says, “Clearly, I am not a professional photographer and should have made the resolution smaller and/or watermarked the picture.”

The ad is for a door-to-door food service – it directs you to a Website, and the words underneath have been translated by her friend who spotted the shot as “We will prepare and deliver your requests in two business days.”

Danielle blames herself for the mistake, and she’s not angry so much as creeped out by the matter. She’s not even planning to stop using family photos – although she will be reducing the resolution and/or watermarking the pictures. And while she puts all the blame on herself, let’s face it – it’s easy to see how this happened. As a professional photographer, I try to ensure my own photos are relatively small when I upload them, but back in the early days of blogging, I didn’t. I was equally clueless.

I read a lot of people who freak out about the use of kids’ images on blog sites because they’re afraid some pervert is going to get their kids. While it’s true they might be looking at your kids to get their jollies, let’s face it – they’d have the same reaction seeing your kids out on the street somewhere.

In this instance, the picture isn’t put out to any more people than the mom blogger already potentially opened her family up to. Their faces aren’t defaced, the photo is virtually the same. But I can’t blame her for being a little creeped.

What do you think? Will this change the way you blog? Check out her site for the original and more on the story and come back to comment.

Image: Extraordinary Mommy

My daughter’s new favorite thing is to draw a picture and then scotch tape it to the wall – any wall she can find. Her room and playroom are covered with her creations. Although she’s not printing out her own photos yet, I’m guessing that in the future her obsession with displaying her work will continue. Which is why these re-stickable photo frames are so cool. When you get bored with your picture, you just pull it down, replace it and put it back up on the wall.

An 8 pack of Wall Decals costs $US20.00 (or two for $US36.00) and are made of “pliable, premium vinyl”. I’m doubting I’ll be able to get my daughter to use them now, but it looks like the sort of thing that she’ll really be into when she’s older.

Re-Stickable Decal Photo Frames, $US20 from Photojojo.com

Yet, nowhere in the picture, is the little boy’s mother. Not even Joan Miller’s legs are seen in the most famous photo of her life – the moment she gave birth to son David.

The defining shot in Wayne Miller’s Family of Man exhibition of 1955 has gained new attention of late thanks to the publication of a book, Wayne F. Miller: Photographs 1942-1958, published late last year, and an article next month’s Smithsonian Magazine.

Shot on September 19, 1946 (the baby in the picture is now sixty-two), it’s no surprise Mrs. Miller was hidden from view. It’s surprising that she allowed her husband to be in the room at all, not to mention with a camera in hand. Although most fathers have cameras and sometimes videocameras at the ready for today’s labour and delivery (and we expect photos of our friends’ newborn, fresh from the womb, to be sent to our phones immediately . . . if not sooner), ours were the first dads to be allowed – or ask to be – into the delivery rooms as common practice.

Making this photo – which was chosen to be sent into space aboard the two Voyager spacecraft – all the more special is the man seen holding newborn David Miller by the leg. It’s his grandfather – Wayne Miller’s father, and Joan’s father-in-law. I can’t imagine allowing my father-in-law to be my OB/GYN (eeek), but then, to know the person helping bring your child into the world has almost as much concern for his wellbeing as you do . . . that could do wonders in putting a new mother at ease!

For a shutterbug like me, the piece was an interesting read; but for a Mum, it was even better. Check it out – and see more photos – here.

Images: Wayne Miller, via Smithsonian Magazine

There’s still a week or two left of school holidays and I imagine many families are feeling pretty bored about now. So here’s a couple of little photo projects to keep you busy.

The first is a homemade photo booth, as featured on Brooke Reynold’s inchmark blog. You can create a delightful black and white image like the one above, by rigging up a little booth out of a curtain and chair, then having some fun in an image editor like Photoshop.

Another project older kids may enjoy is making their photos in to Polaroids using the free Poladroid software. The program doesn’t just add the Polaroid frame, it applies random and realistic Polaroid-like colors variation for that retro-look.

[Both links via Ohdeedoh]

French photographer Thierry Bouët has photgraphed newborns in their first hour for a Paris exhibition, Première heure.

Baby humans are curious-looking creatures. Their features are too big for ther faces, many are wrinkled, some are peaceful, some are already exhibiting a signs of a strong personality.

Although we may have hundres of pictures of our own newborns and tink they are adorable, no matter how funny-looking, seeing 50 little faces side-by-side only enhances their freakiness.

You can see the full set of images at Lifelounge.

[Via Daddytypes]

For me, the hardest part of any war/conflict/disaster is the human side. Now that I'm a parent, if that human face belongs to a child, it's that much harder to see.

This photo was on the front page of the New York Times today. Here's the caption: "A Palestinian boy with Russian citizenship was among the foreigners whom Israel allowed to leave Gaza on Friday." (source)

Here's another shot of kids leaving Gaza. (source)

MSNBC is reporting that Israeli ground troops are crossing the Gaza border (source, breaking news). Regardless of how you feel about the situation, seeing these photos of kids caught up in the whole thing should make you wish for a speedy resolution to it all. Or at least one that lets the kids get out while they still can. I never really understood the idea of "women and children first", something that I remember hearing a lot on old cartoons and disaster movies (and cartoons that were parodies of disaster movies). These pictures definitely drive that point home.

Photos: New York Times

Expert: Jim Miotke, founder of BetterPhoto.com and author of The Better Photo Guide to Photographing Children.

1. Being Your Own Wrangler

The number one mistake is trying to fly solo. There are just so many more great photos, so many more opportunities, you’re going to get if you partner with someone. It’s definitely the "it takes a village" idea. It takes at least two people to get great photos. When I’m trying to get photos, I’ll ask my wife to take on the role of kid wrangler and that’s her whole job. She’s just trying to keep their attention and keep them occupied. She’ll use noise makers or toys above my head and do all sorts of playful stuff just to keep them focused.

2. Sticking to Your Schedule (And Not Your Child’s)

One of the most important things that many parents and photographers forget is to put their own ego aside, to put their own schedule aside. You really have to be extremely flexible and go with the child’s schedule and moods. We don’t want to face that as adults, because we have a busy schedule ourselves, but if you have a two-year-old and you’re getting him at the wrong time, no amount of skill is going to make good photos happen. It also helps if you have your camera with you at all times in case a great moment occurs or your child is suddenly in the mood for picture-taking.

3. Taking Only One Shot

Here’s another really big one: only taking one or two shots. It’s a very common problem. You have to work with the law of averages. You’ve got a moving entity on your hands and it sounds very basic, but you just have to shoot a lot. Pulling out the camera and doing one snapshot, it’s not going to work. If you just take one shot, you’re going to likely miss the moment and be disappointed later.

And make sure that you’re shooting with a fast shutter speed if your camera allows you to control it. When I bought my point-and-shoot camera, I went into the camera store and I asked the guy to line them all up. I pressed down each button to see which one was the fastest. The faster the camera, the better the chance of getting the shot you want!

Interview by Lindsay Armstrong

I can verify that one of the first things you do when you decide to get divorced is to take down the wedding pictures and put them away. (Some folks probably rip or burn them, but I'm guessing that depends on the nature of the split.) It's a sad moment, when you remove the evidence of a time when you were a happy, optimistic couple just starting out on married life together.

Well hell, why not just replace them with some pictures that commemorate your new, love-has-torn-us-apart divorced life? At least that was the brainstorm of one photographer, who says divorcing couples all over Italy are lining up to get a wedding-style album of their breakup. Because it's a milestone, you know. Um, what exactly do you wear though? 

The photographer says, "…I started to offer photo sessions for freshly divorced couples—them smiling or shaking hands or in some cases even kissing." Good lord, shaking hands? "Thanks for the good times, champ, and too bad it didn't work out." Do you come up with a divorce song too, and maybe get some sort of cake that you split 50-50? Somehow I have exactly zero desire to do this. But hey, tell me what you think…