For some of you, Meg Bitton is the greatest photographer to live. For others, she is a controversial photographer who uses provocation for attention.

(DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this post can or should be construed as an accusation. These are opinions, with photos used to back up any conclusion made. I am just a photographer, who doesn’t like her method of promotion, or how people turn a blind eye to her work because they’re fans)

A couple of years ago, Meg Bitton came to fame with a photo of hers that went viral, about a child who was born male, but chose to present as female in public. And in the heat of the Bathroom Wars of 2015, Bitton posted that photo and it went viral, and boom, lots of attention. In it, she talks about if people would really want to force a little girl into the mens room and if they’d be ok with that. She got praise from LGBT groups, and trans supporters.

Her earliest post on her FB page dating back to February 16, 2010, is of a 4 day old baby.

And from there, most of her photos are typical photos of kids playing, having fun in the woods, laughing, dressed up for portraits.

Normal photos, of normal kids, doing normal things.

In fact, her bread and butter seemed to be infants and toddlers. And a few kid portraits. And in 2011, same thing.

2012 brought some fresh ideas. Like masks.





But there are hints of getting away from the natural candid kids doing kid things, and posing children.

2012.

2013 is more of the same. But we start getting into a little more story telling rather than straight portraits.

She uses intersections a lot.

I feel like these were a very strange thing to add to a Facebook page meant for child, newborn and maternity photos. These were a trip to New York. At one point, they apparently ended up inside the Leica store, “with wine.”

Apparently, her trip inspired her to use fences more.

At this point, there’s nothing really wrong with her work. We’ve gone from school clothes, to hippie skirts with belts, and white tank tops, and a lot of overly dressed up children like they came straight from a pageant. And the make up has progressively gotten heavier.

This is Spring of 2014.

Ok, this LOOKS like she was wearing a body suit, but the lines were shopped out. I don’t know, seems odd.

This caption.

No.

Ok, another personal rant.

This is not natural light. There is natural light in it. But this is not a natural light photo.

There are two light sources, with different color, creating different types of shadows, and on different parts of the subject’s body. The sun can’t come from the top and camera right at the same time.

You could say it was a street lamp, but a street lamp wouldn’t cause soft shadows like that. They would be harsh.

Natural light doesn’t wrap like this, especially if it’s from over head and behind the subject. Also, the light doesn’t match the background and foreground light.

Also, unless there’s a gobo, the fall off is insane. There’s no light in the grass around him. But it is a big light source. That’s not possible unless you’re shooting with a blank plate. Which even if it was all natural light, would be a composite, which she allegedly doesn’t do.

This is not natural light. I do natural light. It doesn’t look like this.

Unrelated to the point of this post, but still just a pet peeve of mine when people try tp pretend their work is something it isn’t. It’s misleading.







At this point in her timeline, there is starting to be a LOT of repetition with the same models over and over. It feels like at this point it was less about being a photographer, and more about being a brand.

It’s 2015 in the timeline.

Her caption says “backlit beauty.”

But it came from post.



I don’t know why she blurred the background more in a studio.



New favorite

(I bring up her favorites, because they will be relevant in part 2)



Ok, I feel like 2015 is when she starts getting a little “bold” with her fashion choices on young girls. I’m sure girls dress like this at home sometimes. And I’m sure many girls have photos like this in an album somewhere that their parents bring out to embarrass them.

But not on Facebook. Not on a photographer’s business page.



A dead head. Ok.



At this point, it’s becoming clear she doesn’t have actual clients. She’s selling a brand. 90% of her photos are the same kids over and over again.



Is it just me, or does this look like it’s her first time ever carrying that baby?



So, at this point, her page is just a lot of throwbacks and reposts. So I’m not going to post as many. The main purpose of this post was a timeline, to establish context for Part 2.

Her style doesn’t really change much. Lots of model kids who surprisingly know how to pose to the light, and nail the picture perfect smile for each click. These are definitely not clients.

One thing that has become more common is make up. Even the super young 5-6 year olds are starting to have it. Some it’s obvious it’s done in post.

The “I’m kind of a big deal, so I don’t have to answer to you, because you don’t matter” type of response from people who “criticize” her for her content. And then people who complain get blocked.

From what I can tell, this is the first photo where she pushes that boundary.

If you look through Meg’s work, there was a common trend. But at some point, it slowly changed, and people who followed her noticed, and commented on it. And her response basically “Who the fuck are you and why should I give a fuck?”

Which is an odd response from someone who believes “You get from the world what you put into it. So put love and peace out there, and you’ll get it back.”





I think this largely went under the radar. It may have been shared at some point, but got ignored.

And don’t give me the “you’re trying to see something that’s not there and it’s creepy” argument. Photographers do this with adult models. This is an actual look/style. It’s a trope on TV and movies too.

Sweater’s too big for ya kid.

Her transgender post did wonders for her page hit count. Likes on her photos went up fairly dramatically. Also, she starts to dabble in the strangely risque again.

If you say a single unkind word about her, they will gather. If you accuse her of posting questionable content, they will make sure it’s YOU that looks like the inappropriate one.

Remember, these are not client photos. They’re staged shoots.



The problem is, once she went viral for one post, which caused a lot of controversy (the transgendered kid ended up becoming a meme and the face of the Transgender Bathroom argument, at a very young age), Meg slowly shifted her focus on technical photos, to controversial ones. Photos she knew would get attention, in the hopes of getting another viral post.

And she did, eventually.

And it’s not that any one photo is wrong. It’s that her style shifted from dreamy portraits, to photos that many of her followers would question what she was trying to convey, and stop following her, which would usually get them mocked by her devoted flock. And that’s my intent with this post. To show that shift. It didn’t happen over night. It was gradual. And when it worked, she employed it a lot.

The caption here is “Fallen Angel.”

And with that, I will end part one. Because after this, it’s just controversy after controversy with her.

And that will be the topic of Part 2.

If you made it this far, thank you for your patience. But I promise you, it gets more awkward from here on in.

https://boycottmegbitton.wordpress.com/2018/09/01/lets-talk-about-meg-bitton-pt-2-the-controversy/