My name is Chris.

Over the past week, there was a lot of discussion over who wrote this blog, so…

My name is Christopher Pickrell. I am a photographer from Indiana.

I have been doing photography for about 15 years now since I got my first camera before my internship at Disney World. I started actually working as a photographer when I started at my college newspaper. I decided to go on my own shortly after that.

My focus is weddings, editorial modeling and nude art.

I love weddings. Getting to be a part of one of the biggest days of a new couple’s life gives me so much joy. The celebration, the happiness, the energy, the memories. 16 hours of blood, sweat, pain, and exhaustion, and I love every second of it.

I enjoy modeling and nude work, because many people who have come to me to shoot, have gotten out of abusive relationships, or lost weight, or gained weight, or just never felt confident about how they look, and they “just want to feel pretty.” And for me personally when a subject tells you after the shoot that that they gained so much confidence and felt amazing, and has the biggest smile on their face because they didn’t think they would be brave enough to do a shoot, that is the best feeling in the world. I love being able to give that feeling to someone. And to be honest, every single woman deserves to have that feeling, and should.

I want my photography to contribute something, anything, to make the people in the photos smile. My photos are always about the person in them, not me and my ego. If I haven’t done that, I have failed.

And I am sure in my 15 years of photography, I have made mistakes. A lot of them. But I always try to learn from them. And improve myself and do better.

When I started out on my own I took some workshops from a photographer who allegedly was giving booze and drugs to underage models at shoots, sleeping with underage models and photographing underage models nude.

I did not know this. No one warned me about this. No one reached out and said “Hey, you should be aware this photographer is doing inappropriate things.” I wish they had. I wish someone had spoken out at that time.

When I was 4, I was molested. For 2 years.

When I was 13, I was raped. My rapist told my girlfriend I cheated on her. So my girlfriend dumped me and told people I beat her to get back at me. I got death threats for the rest of the school year. After that, I dated the only girl who would give me the time of day, and she was emotionally and mentally abusive for two years. Until I finally built the courage to stand up to her, and get away.

I had to go through these things by myself. Because no one told me the difference between consent and rape. I grew up in a time when “males weren’t raped.” So I didn’t know that it happened to me, because people believed it never happened. Not that anyone would have believed me anyway.

I didn’t have anyone to talk to. And no one took the time to notice any change in my personality and talk to me. I was just labeled a lazy, disruptive kid with focus issues who didn’t pay attention in class. I felt like no one cared about what happened to me. Not my friends, my teachers, or my family. I felt like no one would believe me. I felt alone, ashamed, and scared. For years, I pretended nothing was wrong and that I was ok.

I wish someone had spoken out for me, or talked to me, about this issue. It would have made all the difference.

Which brings me to WHY I wrote this blog.

I have followed Meg’s actions for years. I have seen the pattern. I have seen her photos, her comments, her threats, and her cover up. I have seen the photos she swears up and down are innocent, be deleted by her. To anyone paying attention it’s obvious. I’ve seen this pattern before.

Many of her fans claim the parents approved it so therefore there’s nothing wrong. But how does that make it ok?

Many parents of the models say they talk to their kids about the issues. They tell them “Don’t start smoking or drinking.” as if that’s good enough. But then proceed to give a child a cigarette or booze or drug paraphernalia, or dress them up as prostitutes, because “art.”. And they romanticize the thing they told them not to do. And praise the model for doing the very thing they just told them to never do. That is absolutely damaging for children.

You just told a child to not do something that you totally made look super cool and hip. And the photographer will get lots of attention for it, and make money from it. That is a bad example for children.

And then they claim “Oh the parents were ok with it, and the photographer was ok with it, and the people at the workshop didn’t say anything, and we had an officer there and a film crew there who didn’t say anything. If it was wrong, don’t you think someone would have spoken out?”

You mean all the people who were getting paid a lot of money by Meg to be there, or make money off the sales of the videos, didn’t say anything? You mean the alleged officer hired by Meg? Or the workshop attendees who couldn’t see because they were a block away with a film crew and lights and Meg obstructing their vision?

WHO would speak out in that scenario? Many attendees have come out and stated that if they even knew this was going on, they would have spoken out. So you can’t interpret their silence as approval. Their silence was by design. It was manufactured. Their silence was the result of them having absolutely no idea this was going on.

Or was the result of threat of legal repercussions by Meg, who loves her Non Disclosure Agreements.

Just because someone doesn’t say no, does NOT mean they’re saying yes.

The reason I wrote this blog, is because what Meg does, is wrong. That’s not an opinion. That’s not subjective. That’s a fact.

Using children for monetary gain, is not ok. Putting children in provocative scenarios for publicity and marketing, is not ok. And that’s what she is doing. They are not art. Art has a meaning, a purpose, a message. Her “art” is nothing more than self promotion. Mixed with sales and products for purchase. The intent is to showcase her “skills.” The theme is meant to drum up attention through the viral nature of the content.

More followers = more sales.

There is no artistic merit to what she does. It’s just a prepared excuse for when she gets called out.

I wrote this blog, because someone needed to speak out. Meg hides all negative comments and criticism. She uses intimidation, coercion, and harassment to silence critics. She uses gaslighting and abuse tactics to silence fans. She uses shame to silence them for thinking she’s anything but a pure artist trying to tell a story. She uses shame to silence anyone who portrays her for what she is.

And she wins because it works. Because people are afraid to speak out.

I’m not. Because I know what it’s like for someone to remain silent. And so I will not. I will speak out.

Right now, she’s already trying to silence me and shut down this blog, because it makes her look bad. Because I pulled the curtain open. And this worries her, because without the controversy she can’t sell her product. Without the controversy, she has to rely on her skill. And she doesn’t have enough skill to bring the attention that the controversy does.

I have been accused of being jealous and bitter because she’s more famous/successful.

I’m not. Because that is not how I want to be known. That is not how I want my photography to be seen. That is not how I want to achieve success.

I have been accused of have serious rage issues.

I don’t. Tenacity, stubbornness and speaking bluntly, are not rage. Nor is my aggressive approach a reflection of rage. It’s a reflection of being angry that this is allowed to continue. That this is what the industry I love has become. That social media sites allow it to happen while silencing anyone who speaks against it.

I wrote this blog, because Facebook censored anyone who spoke out while passively allowing Meg to continue. I was silenced for sharing the same photos Meg did. She was allowed to continue, while anyone else was accused of uploading child porn.

I wrote this blog, so it wouldn’t be hidden anymore.

And I will keep writing it. If not here, then I will contact the news media again. I will keep contacting them. Until they finally listen. I will not back down from her threats. And I ask that everyone else who feels the same, do the same.

When I set out to write this blog, I did not expect it to get the attention it did. I was actually surprised. But as the days went on, I received more and more messages from people thanking me for speaking out and apologizing they that they never did because they were afraid. I have received more than one message from someone telling me that their business was ruined by Meg and her followers for criticizing her in her secret group once. They had to change their business name, or remove themselves from social media, or they were fired from jobs, or they quit photography altogether. These are not the actions of someone who claims their photos are completely innocent and nothing is wrong with them. These are the actions of a petty, vain, petulant narcissist throwing a massive temper tantrum. She knows what she’s doing is wrong, and wants to keep that hidden from the world. A real artist would let their art speak for itself, not delete posts and photos and comments, and hide behind terrorizing critics, or menacing intimidation.

I have not made any money from this blog. Nor have I gained any attention from it, as it has been anonymous.

And if you are one of those people who is afraid to speak out because she and her followers have threatened or will threaten you, then reach out to one of those people who is speaking out. It is not your fault. And I, and many others, will absolutely stand up for you. And your stories will only help.

So there it is. I am no one special. I am not benefitting from this. I am not capitalizing off her. I am just someone who has been on the other side of this issue as a child.

And I will not be silent. Because a change needs to happen in this industry so that children, and women, and men aren’t exploited, or otherwise damaged from unethical photographers who lack morals. And that change has to start somewhere.

Thank you.


Part 3: Meg Follows Her Script

Currently, I am fighting a DMCA notice for the photos. Apparently, someone doesn’t think people have the right to offer commentary on her actions.


Right now, WordPress is standing by fair use. We’ll see how it turns out.

This is the issue I was talking about in part 2. She controls the narrative by making sure anything and everything negative about her is removed. She can’t have anything exposing her pattern.

If she wins and the photos are removed, she can claim people were trying to defame her, and ruin her name. She can claim they hurt her business (even though she brags about how much business the attention gets her). She can play the victim. And the cycle will start over.

To clarify, no money is being made from this blog. The purpose of this blog is to inform readers, and provide commentary. The photos used came from the photographer’s website and facebook page, which were used to promote and advertise for the photographer. And the photographer has stated publicly that when people share her photos, she gets money from it.

Every photo on this blog is a screen shot from the photographer’s website or facebook page.

A correction

I would like to clarify a portion of my previous entry.

It was brought to my attention that these two quotes were taken out of context.


This quote, was in reference to responses to a photo that were apparently largely homophobic in their tone. Apparently, some people had a problem with the image of two girls kissing.

Regardless of age, it shouldn’t be about lesbianism, homosexuality, LGBT, etc. None of those are relevant to the topic at hand.


Also, I want to clarify some comments. At the time these were posted, they were sent to me as comments on a photo. Originally this comment was presented as misrepresenting the issue making it just about the clothes. While the choice of clothing for the photos was a big factor, it was not the main issue. Nor was the LGBT topic. It was never an actual LGBT thing. No one had a problem with two girls kissing. People had a problem with two very young underage children kissing, in a series that romanticized under age sex, underage drug use, and underage drinking. Meg just went out of her way to steer it as a homophobic thing, to deflect from the actual issue.

It has been brought to my attention that Ms. Thompson’s comments were in reference to the first photo at the top of this post, and before the rest of the photos were uploaded. So her comments were out of context.

I would like to apologize for that oversight.

For the record, any comments equating homosexuality to pedophilia, or claiming homosexuality leads to pedophilia, or claiming the LGBT groups want to normalize pedophilia, or any anti LGT comments as a whole, will be removed.

Thank you.

Death threats

I would like to officially state that no one working for this blog encourages, tolerates, suggests, or otherwise endorses death threats.

They are not funny. And they do not help at all. In fact, they escalate the situation. Like Harvey Dent said “You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain!” If anyone is making them, you are guilty of doing what you criticize Meg Bitton for doing; harassment and bullying. And that fits into her narrative of just being a bold artist persecuted for her vision.

If they are real, stop that shit.

While I have not seen any evidence that these death threats are real, real or not, any suggestion or reference to them will be deleted from the comments.

Thank you.

Let’s talk about Meg Bitton Pt 2: The Controversy

DISCLAIMER: This blog has been edited since it’s initial publication. It has been edited for spelling errors, grammar, clarity, tone, updates, corrections, and overall saltiness. Thank you. 

So, if you’re joining me for part 2, thank you.

If you haven’t read the first part, it’s not necessary for context, but it will put a lot of this post into perspective. You can read it here

Quick recap. Meg Bitton is a child photographer who shoots with very young models. She got internet famous after a post of hers went viral. And from there, she adopted a  “controversy leads to sales” approach to marketing. She stopped taking clients, and focused on shooting agency models, and convinced a lot of photographers to buy her “educational” materials.

(As I write this, it has been brought to my attention that Meg was well known before her transgender viral post. But I can only write from my perspective, and she was unknown to me before that. She was well known in her newborn/toddler/maternity/kids circles. So for the purposes of this post, I will consider her transgender post when she got really famous to people outside those circles).

So, last I spoke, I was talking about a change in Meg Bitton’s “creativity.” She beagn using a “Controversy breeds following/sales” approach to advertising and marketing.



Also, this caption.

Untitled 3.jpeg
“Go naked” is in reference to the photo being “naked of photoshop.”

But that’s not a thing. SOOC is already a thing. Saying “Go naked” was unnecessary. (SOOC for those who don’t know means Straight Out Of Camera, IE; no photoshop).

DISCLAIMER: PHOTO HAS BEEN REMOVED: At the suggestion of people with more expertise in the legal matters of this topic, this photo was removed because it could cross the line of child porn. Whether it actually was child porn was irrelevant, just that it could be, and could cause people who viewed and shared this blog to run afoul with the law. And censoring it wouldn’t be enough. As such, the photo has been removed. I have zero desire to get anyone in trouble, whether intentionally or inadvertently. The purpose of this post is awareness. Nothing more. I will leave my comments referencing the photo intact, because they are somewhat relevant still. 

This is on her website. For professional, promotion purposes.

Now, many argue, and have argued, that her work isn’t inappropriate or illegal.

This isn’t a client. This wasn’t a candid photo. This was a model, who she works with many, many, many times.

This is a photo where the photographer told a model what to wear. This is a shot where the photographer directed the model to do this. And if she’s like any other photographer, took multiple bursts, but still somehow thought this was appropriate.

This photo was approved by a parent. And an agent. And a photographer.

This is not an accident.

And to anyone who argues “But you’re seeing what you want in this photo. You’re making it sexual. You’re objectifying the model” then why is the photo no longer on her FB?  It was good enough for her website. Where a photographer puts only the best work they’re most proud of, for everyone to see, to sell her products, but is apparently not on her Facebook page where it would get maximum exposure because her FB page is where she has the most followers.

If it’s good enough for a website and her IG, why is it not on her FB page?

And that’s where Meg is calculating and aware of what she does. And where it started. Because this photo was on her FB page at some point. And was intentionally removed.


And this is the pattern in her behavior. She posts photos she knows will attract mass attention, and then when it hits a fever pitch, she removes it. And when people see the photo, they will go to her page or website, and claim they don’t see anything wrong with the photos on her page, BECAUSE THE CLICK BAIT PHOTOS ARE GONE.

This is how she attracts followers. That and paying for followers (There is only one reason someone would have almost 400K followers, now 330K, but only average no more than 6k likes on her most popular photos).

And this is the problem with photographers like her, and Holloway, and Olson; they only care about the attention and the money it can bring in. It’s about sales, not clients. More likes = more money and fame. And for them, infamy is just as good as fame.

She plays the victim so well, her zealous fans are committed to defending her, that they will shame and censor anyone who questions her.

And this is partly why she’s been able to fly under the radar for so long. Because her followers will defend her.

For example…


This is an “admin” for her page. A 2 decade veteran of the police. Whose day job is working sex traffic cases, and abuse cases. But she totally sees nothing wrong with Meg Bitton’s photos.

I assume being an admin for Meg is a full time job in and of itself. But good on you Officer. You are a totally helping. What cop works a 9 to 5? I have never met an officer of any kind who works 9-5. And every officer, municipal, state or federal, that I’ve mentioned this too laughs. For them, it’s a 24/7 job. Not a “day job.”

UPDATE: The officer requested I remove her name. Allegedly, they are being accused of pedophilia. No where in this blog is the word “pedophile”used in reference to people in this blog (other than ACTUAL pedophile sites).

For the record Meg’s photos are shared on pedophile forums in foreign countries. Where members can request girls by age.

And no, even I won’t go to that site and take screen grabs. Nor will I even reference the name of it. But I can assure you, Meg Bitton is a featured photographer on that forum. She has threads dedicated to her work.

At this point, her portrayal of the bold, creative artist is taking shape. She pushes boundaries, she creates art. It’s not about the images, it’s about the artist.

This was the first post I really saw of hers. It made the rounds in a few photography groups because it got a lot of attention in newborn/children groups.

Her fans loved it. They shared stories of their childhood looking just like this.

Others didn’t.

This is the same girl from earlier.

In less than a year, she is now modeling this for Meg.

Untitled 12.jpeg
Rollergirl. Knee high socks, skates, small bikini, a pulled up small tank top with what appears to be nothing underneath it, and a cigarette.

And Meg was very proud of this photo. She shared it to Facebook groups.


Just a small town girl.

This must be how big city people view children from the Midwest, or the Plains, or anything not in New York.

I grew up in a city that had about 30,000 when I was a kid. I lived in a suburb outside the city limits, surrounded by cornfields and surrounded by small towns, and even smaller towns past those. I am a little familiar with small towns.

“Small town girls” did not dress like this.

This photo got talked about. And was probably the first big controversy Meg caused. And she defended it by saying the model was 12.

There is nothing about this photo that is magically justified by being 12. Smoking? Not legal. Driving? Not legal. Driving with skates on? Not legal. Dressing in a manner that makes you look like a Lolita? Probably not illegal, but for a photographer to book a model for this, and intentionally do this, probably not legalish.

But her fans leapt to her defense. Stories of “This is exactly what my childhood looked like!” and “I see kids like this all the time where I live!”

Maybe at a beach, or a park. But no, this is not how “kids were.

I went to Disney World one time, and visited the Water Parks. And even the foreign children who didn’t give a fuck, because they grow up in countries that aren’t as prudish as America, dressed more conservatively than this.

When I was 12 (which would have been 6th and 7th grade), kids didn’t dress like this.

Especially not with lipstick, blush, eye liner, mascara.

40640853_894430987427186_8990910750184701952_n copyedit.png

UPDATE: Person’s name was removed upon request.

This person was at Meg’s shoot.

I do appreciate the last line. Because when handing a child a lit cigarette, second hand smoke is the thing to be concerned with.

You had a very long talk with her and told her never to smoke. You made sure she didn’t get second hand smoke. And then proceeded to shoot a staged photo romanticizing underage smoking, with a very young child, in order to sell a workshop.

(Didn’t the cigarette companies get in trouble for making smoking look cool in their PSAs?)

And of course, the aftermath of this was Meg laughing at people who saw this as ANYTHING other than just a young, innocent girl. And anyone who questioned her “art” was obviously a pervert who sees children as sexual objects. Of course, her fans jumped on that band wagon.

And the pattern started all over again:

1. Photo gets posted, and she’s proud of herself.
2. It gets attention.
3. People question her, complain.
4. She laughs at them, mocks them, and tries to shame them into silence by accusing them of being the perverts. She blocks them.
5. Her fans do the same.
6. Photo gets more attention.
7. Repeat steps 3-5
8. Photo hits critical mass, and BAM, she deletes it from her Facebook page.
9. People come to her page to see what the fuss is, don’t see the photo, and claim all the haters are just jealous, her work isn’t illegal.
10. Meg then proceeds to whine about bullies and being the real victim.
11. Fans feed her narcissistic ego and incessant need for attention and validation.

Yes, every time she pulls these stunts, she conveniently has a sale. Because new followers mean new sales. And she knows this. She even admits it and brags about how the controversy makes her money.

For the record, as of the writing of this blog, this photo is still on her website.
UPDATE: The photo has been removed. Interesting.

I should mention at this point, that Meg is a pseudo fan of both Sally Mann and Mary Ellen Mark. She never posts anything about them, except for these two posts, as far as I can tell

Untitled 5.jpeg
Sally Mann was a photographer who gained notoriety for photographing her children nude. I’m rusty on the case (been ten years since I took my history pf photography class), but she was taken to court for the photos of her children, accused of child porn. But they had no real definition of child porn at that point, And her case brought about changes in the legal aspects of child porn, namely they finally defined what constituted child porn.

The definitions were a little vague. But they still finally defined it.

Mann won her case, even though people still hated her.

But Meg I’m sure envisions herself as a brave artist, challenging what’s acceptable. And sees Mann as a personal hero (even though she’s never really mentioned her). The difference is, Mann took pictures of her children, doing what they did. They were nudists, and grew up nudists. Her children weren’t directed to get naked. They weren’t paid models. And the photos weren’t produced by a photographer trying to sell workshops and videos and classes and presets.

They were real photos of her children.

Mary Ellen Mark is someone I’m not familiar with. But from what I can gather, she did a lot of street photography, and documented people, candidly as well. But she photographed a lot of kids, being kids.

UPDATE: It’s been brought to my attention in the comments that since I’m a “real” photographer, I should know other “real” photographers before I speak about other “real” photographers. 

Mary Ellen Mark documented a child prostitute. So, photojournalism. Not staged “art” to sell workshops. 

But again, it’s the candid part that is the issue here. Maybe these kids wore make up, but they weren’t directed to. Maybe they did illegal things, but they weren’t directed to.

This is the flaw of photographers who became famous through controversy on social media. They think they’re the next big artist, but they never worked like the greats. They can name drop a few, but they never took hundreds of photos, to find the peak moment of action like Bresson. They never hiked mountains to find that one perfect shot in the 20 second moment of dawn like Adams. They never followed their subjects for months, to tell a poignant story. They never documented life.

And the fact that her idols were celebrated for candid photos gets twisted into somehow being validation for what she’s doing.

Her new concepts have become common at this point.


And a lot of the “that sweater’s too big for you kid!”


And remember the Rollergirl smoker that was “12 years old?” she does not look 12 here.

Maybe 10? 11?

At this point in her FB page, the photos are tame. Normal kid and baby photos, some family portraits with families that look way too pretty to be normal, nude maternity photos in the middle of a busy intersection. Same old same old. Flying under the radar, just promoting her work. Some throwbacks. A post asking what languages her fans want her videos translated to.

Photographer rant
(this has nothing to do with her specifically, I just really personally hate this “technique.” It’s weird)

Stop with the Neon white eyes.

We get it, you want people to connect with the eyes. But for the love of all that’s holy, stop lightening them so much that they no longer look round, and become so white they are no longer considered white on the visible spectrum.

Stop turning eyeballs into specular highlights.

And stop over sharpening them. It’s weird.


Seriously, how much does she spend on agencies fees at this point?  Because she shoots these girls all the time. Like, ALL the time. I mean, one of them has an IMDB page. You know she isn’t cheap. She’s gotta have iCarly rates.

Also, if your subject is about 2-3 years old, there is no need to add “make up” in post. It’s creepy.

At this point, it should be noted that her likes on her photos are steadily dropping. We’ve gone from about 1.5k before her trans bathroom post, to higher than 6k after, to about averaging 300 per post, even for her popular models.

There has been some question about why her likes are mentioned and whether this author is “jealous.”

No, this author isn’t jealous. I don’t envy someone who uses controversy and exploitation for their own fame and benefit. It’s mentioned to show a pattern.

By now you’re asking yourself where is this going? What is this writer’s point? I don’t see anything wrong. It’s art!

At this point, Meg dove right in, and started trying to do some sort of Hawaiian Tropics baby theme, where she portrays kids how she thinks kids are. Out of the blue themes, props, and outfits choices start to go in a direction they never seemed to before.

Captions like “Gritty city,” and “slow down, you move too fast,” and “run-in’ wild and looking pretty” become common.

She also puts these children, dressed up like chic orphans, with strange props. Like lighters.

And knives.

And of course, her fans LOVE them. Everything about them.

(this was a public street, with traffic)

But still, less than 500 likes per photo, when she was getting thousands.

Which means it’s time for something controversial.

A week or two ago, Meg uploaded a new series she created. And for a while, it went under the radar, as usual. Until it started being talked about.

At this point, most of the photos have been deleted, so all that remains are screen shots.

And remember, these aren’t clients who paid her for her “creative art.” These are young models, paid with photos, to model her concept. Her idea, her “art,” and directed to pose by her.


Starts off normal enough. Nothing really outrageous about this.

Ok, not my thing, but nothing outrageous.

Wait, what?

Is that a $100 bill?

Untitled 5 100.jpg

Oh, yeah, it is. Ok, why does a 10ish year old child orphan living on the streets have a $100 bill (or whatever large bill it is)? Did she get paid for something?

And of course, her fans had plenty of theories behind the meaning of the photo, so we all knew it was safe.

Untitled 4.jpeg
Untitled 2EDIT.jpg

Sure, they’re totally sisters, with a rolled up bill.


Oh, THAT’S what the rolled up bill is for.

And from the same workshop (different photographer)


Also, another from her “workshop” on how to shoot street urchins in pretty clothes (different photographer)

Untitled 51.jpeg

Jee. I’ve never seen a juice drink with a bottle shape like that.

And more, from that series

Untitled 41.jpegUntitled 121.jpeg
Wait, are they orphans? What’s going on here? Is this some sort of glamorous street urchins in a gang?

Oh, “Daddy” is here.

Untitled 71.jpeg

This is the series that started this whole post, specifically this photo.

They’re wearing knee high boots and platforms. I’m pretty sure that’s a reflection of water in the background. And that man is older than them. And has a walkie talkie in his back pocket.

That’s a pimp.

These girls ware working a dock.

Look. I was molested as a child, and raped as a teenager, I am the last person who would want to look at children and see anything other than children. But there is no way these photos can be seen as anything other than intentionally, ambiguously sexual.

Children don’t hang out at docks in those clothes hanging on guys with walkie talkies. They don’t hang out in alleys with a tooter made from a hundred dollar bill, drinking booze.

Unless they’re working.

And this dear reader, is the problem. Meg Bitton thrives on this.

Let me repeat.


And she knows this, and she enjoys it. This is how she makes her money now. Selling presets, tutorials, webinars, workshops, videos, and even PRINTS by producing content that at best is ridiculously stupid, and at worst, meant to provoke a response because of how inappropriate it is and get people to have a visceral reaction and then give her their money to learn how to do this.

Her content has slowly evolved from pretty portraits to contrived themes of sexuality, drug use, alcohol, orphans needing to make money, and exploitation. With no explanation of why.

Two days ago, when her photos started getting attention, people spoke out. And she defended her “concept.” Her claim was they were a “social commentary on children growing up too fast and making bad decisions.”

Hopefully this wasn’t from a workshop Meg got paid to host…

Screen Shot 2018-09-03 at 5.13.06 PM.pngScreen Shot 2018-09-03 at 5.13.25 PM.png
Screen Shot 2018-09-03 at 5.13.35 PM.png
Derp. This was from a workshop she got paid to host.

You can’t claim it’s social commentary if it was something unrelated that you got paid to host. That’s like saying when you hit on your secretary, you’re teaching her how to handle sexual harassment in the work place.

This is just poor teaching. Encouraging young models to crawl under a fence, on government property, because as long as you were willing to accept the consequences, Art. And it was trespassing. Government property isn’t “publicly owned” property. It is “OPEN to the public.” You do not own a brick of City Hall. And that was a Dept. of Transportation facility. With a no parking sign because it’s an active driveway, with a fence, that the models had to roll under.

The fence wasn’t even open a bit. She can’t even claim implied consent. She encouraged a mother/her assistant, and two under age children, to break the law. Because even if there weren’t any “No Trespassing” signs, that doesn’t make it ok. That is just irresponsible teaching. That’s how children die on train tracks for photoshoots. Because they’re trespassing (and yes, railroad tracks are private property).

So, let’s recap: We’ve encouraged underage drinking, underage smoking, underage drug use, underage prostitution, and trespassing. All for art. And make no mistake, romanticizing those things is encouraging it.

She sold entries to this workshop, staged the photos, and let other people shoot them. And these photos had been uploaded one at a time, over the past few months, with captions like “#anglesonfire” and “Love.” This is not a long form social commentary project. It was a workshop she was paid to put on. Nothing more. If it HAD been social commentary, she would have said that, BEFORE the criticism for her photos happened. But she used it as a crutch, just in case people complained.

Social commentary would use models of age, who possibly just look really young. Or they would have done what Sally Mann and Mary Ellen Mark did, follow people and take candids. They wouldn’t stage an elaborate shoot that requires whole crews, and make up, and hair, and styling, and lighting, and a guy to pretend to be a pimp.

But that explanation didn’t last.

It didn’t take long for her fans to climb on board the SS Shitshow though.

At first, they stuck to the tried and true arguments of “There is nothing inappropriate or illegal about this.”

That evolved into turning it into some political statement about not sexualizing children.

Everyone else is the problem for seeing anything inappropriate.

Meg of course piggy backed this. And tried to turn the narrative around from inappropriate content, to something about LGBT awareness and speaking out about it.

And in typical fashion, she cuts off anyone who doesn’t see things the way she told them they were.

Untitled 8.jpeg
Yes. The photographer who not only built her brand on controversy and provocation, doesn’t want any of your shit on her page. Either blow smoke up her ass, or she will ban you. Because she has to maintain that illusion. She needs people to believe she’s not using children to further her business and for financial gain. She needs you to only view her as a pure artist, creating stories.

And she knows this. She knowingly embraces the viral nature of her posts.

From redoing old concepts that upset people, minus the things that upset people.

Untitled 9.jpeg

To admitting she’s thankful for the publicity.


She’s a hero in her fans’ eyes. A lot of her fans saw their own story of being a 10 year old street walker doing drugs and drinking in back alleys, while working the docks.

She tried to romanticize her images and the response they got.

Untitled 5k.jpeg40610529_10212538943003712_4499328591632269312_n.jpg

And STILL riding that story that they’re just kids standing around.

On a dock. Or an alley. Or around a trashcan fire.

Doing nothing.

Totally not drinking. Or holding a tooter. Or payment for services rendered.

Or talking to their pimp.

All the people who followed her, yes, she is grateful that you bought her products. Because she isn’t an actual working photographer. She’s a salesperson. She has a brand to sell to you. Also, while Meg was trying to remind us there was nothing sexual going on in her photo series, this mother of a model came in and educated us on adolescent psychosexual development.

These girls are willful participants in their own sexual development.

On the docks.

At night.

With an older gentleman with a walkie talkie.

Popping their hips.

In clothes that are definitely not typical adolescent clothes.

With a cocaine straw. And booze.

So, these photos are both totally not sexual in anyway, and totally a commentary on adolescent development and exploration of sexual identity and sexual desire.

At 10. Or 12.

OH, and the typical “You are nobody therefore your opinion doesn’t matter because I say it doesn’t” argument. Also, you can’t read gud.

Don’t believe her fans, and her delusions of being an important figure?

Just remember, 15 year sago, she created child photography as we know it. No one did it before her.

Yes, her flock of followers will not falter in their fealty.

They will proceed to report people’s profiles for saying bad things about Meg. They will leave bad reviews on facebook pages.

Meg will call people’s employers and threaten legal action if that person isn’t terminated. She has done this to many people.

But remember, they’re just kids standing around. Doing kid things.

And she really does crack that whip.

Excited that she’s a “trending topic” again.

It doesn’t matter what they say, just as long as they’re saying it. Because for her, it will lead to sales. And that’s all that matters.

Because remember, Meg is the victim here. She’s just an artist with a vision. Everyone else is wrong for seeing something in her photos that she didn’t put in there. Also, go fuck yourself.

Yes. She created a sale specifically to honor the “hate” and “bullying” she was receiving.

I think starting a bully sale, in response to someone calling you a bully, which you followed up with “go fuck yourself,” is kind of proving their point. And wish they could teach like you? You trespassed on government property, encouraged your students and models to do it in the future, gave minors lit cigarettes, hooch, and drug paraphernalia, recorded it on a video and then sold it. That’s not good teaching.

Even though she ultimately ended up deleting the photos.

But of course, she still needed a more believable story. Something that would really pull the heartstrings so no one would question why she did this series.

Untitled 3m.jpeg
Untitled 4n.jpeg
Yes, it wasn’t a social commentary on growing up too fast. It wasn’t the academic interpretation of a preteen’s blossoming sexual eruption, at a dock, at night, with her pimp. And drug money. And booze.

It was nostalgia for the time she grew up on the streets of New York.

Now, Meg is 46 years old.

Which would put her birth year approximately at 1972.

How does she remember this? She would have been 8 when the ’70s ended. And even the pictures she showed don’t reflect what she shoots, because the people in the photos are easily 17 or older. Except for a few young boys running in the streets.

Does she expect us to believe she was roller skating at midnight on a dock with a pimp and other 5 to 8 year olds?

My guess is this was her inspiration for the shoot. This is where she got her ideas for styling and feel. And she used her mood board as her “story.”

Currently, her fans are working overtime making sure any negative reviews she gets on google, yelp, or other places, are countered with positive reviews (from people who have never actually worked with her, but are just fans). Also, any negative press about her is just a “hate campaign.”

And that is the problem.

It’s not a hate campaign. It’s the fact that people do not like that she exploits pre teen children to make a quick buck. It’s the fact that she, as a “leading” photographer, is giving a false representation of what photography is.

She makes other photographers look bad, through her content, and the way she treats anyone who doesn’t praise her on high, and the way she markets herself.

She is a poor reflection of what the photography industry really is.

She will pretend to be receptive to the criticism…

But the reality is, she’s going to twist it to her advantage. Because at this point, she is starting to play the victim role.

Yesterday, she was not only thankful for all the new fans she was getting, she was bragging about how the attention was improving her sales. And thanked everyone, including the people “hating” her.

But today is a different story. Today, she has to shut it down, or people might see behind the curtain.

Today we get to see Meg the victim.

Today, she blocks anyone saying negative things about her on facebook. Today, she whines about how people are treating her (even though she has zero problem treating people rudely when it suits her). Today we get to see that all this publicity and negative press is too much for her. Even though it made her money.

Phone’s shut off, but…


Lawyer? She has a layer now? For what? People hurting her business? She literally acknowledged the publicity got her MORE business.

UPDATE: The lawyer has since publicly stated she is not representing Meg Bitton.

Also, the dynamic duo of Jake Olson and Lisa Holloway have her back. Jake even praised her for finally becoming infamous.

And somehow made it about him. Probably because he got jealous people were talking about Meg and not him.

(For the record, Jake got in trouble of his own for some homophobic comments, and misogynistic one too. But I may be wrong. That story was a few years ago. And is all over the internet. Or you could ask him. He apparently has the links. He wears them like a badge of honor. Also, for those of you who know your internet photographer shit shows, Lisa is Lisa J Holloway. You can google her too)

He is congratulating her, for pissing people off. Because it will only improve her business.

These people advertise themselves as leaders. As mentors. As educators. As true artists. But they treat anyone who doesn’t worship the ground they walk on, like shit. Because in the end, all that matters to them is LIKES. And money.

Jake Olson has deals with Canon and Publishing companies. I wonder how they would feel if they saw this.


Jake Olson makes his perspective clear. All that matters is money, no matter what.


Remember folks, Jake Olson has photos on books. And he even gave you the link where you can buy them.

Pro tip: whenever Jake puts out a new workshop video for $300 to $500, just wait a few weeks, he eventually drops the price to about $2 to $3, to maximize volume.

Also, the videos are just recordings of a phone conversation he had while trying to teach someone to add a cool backdrop in an image.

You can’t understand what’s being said really, and there’s no structure. So they’re really not worth buying. You can get better help from YouTube.

Also, unless you have VLC, they do not come in a format compatible with Macs software.

You’re welcome for the plug Jake 😉

Seriously, if you like shit shows, Jake is Grade A.

And Lisa Holloway is busy making her rounds trying to leech off the attention this story is bringing, so she can gain a few followers as well. Trying to argue that there is nothing wrong with this because other people do it. And if you’re not going after everyone, then you’re just being a “mindless internet mob.”

Also, you’re a useless nobody, because she has lots of money from treating people like shit on the internet.

Why do they always say they don’t care if people outside of the industry know them, when people outside the industry are the ones who buy their workshops and tutorials? Wouldn’t a business model where you try to appeal to as many customers as possible be a better business model?


So what is my point?

Meg thrives on the attention, the controversy, pushing that boundary a little more each time. And she knows this. And she twists the narrative so no matter what, she comes out on top.

She badgers anyone who questions her photos. If that doesn’t shut them up, she shames them and accuses them of being the problem. If that doesn’t work, she tries old school stalking and harassment.

And unfortunately, it’s worked for far too long. People were too afraid to speak out, because she deleted her photos, so no one could prove anything. Meg always made sure no matter what, SHE looked like the victim.

She intimidated and coerced people into silence, because she had the numbers to do it. Her fans will do anything and everything they can, so Meg can remain untouched.

But this time, people spoke out. And she was unable to control that narrative. In the past two days, she and her minions have been on a crusade to do their best to make sure the narrative goes a certain way.

But that’s the point of this post, to paint a more accurate picture, with photos she hides from the general public. With comments that get deleted after they’re made. She can’t control the narrative anymore.

And she knows it. Which is why she’s still trying to repeat the same narrative, over and over. Because she thinks no one can contradict her.

Yes, if you dislike her, it’s because you’re a loser. Implying if you support her, you’re obviously a winner. Also, insulting the people you sell your brand to. Marketing at its best.

And it doesn’t matter if what she did cost her loyal followers, because she gained more as a result. She knows what’s she’s doing is upsetting long time followers, but it doesn’t matter, as long as it brings in more NEW followers who are unaware of her history.

They will see her as the valiant hero, fighting stigma, and inappropriate thoughts. I think it’s hilarious that her fans recognize jumping on a bandwagon and doing anything to get attention, but are oblivious to it when it actually happens, because they’re ok with it, because Meg has taught them so much already.

They think people’s minds went to sex when that wasn’t there, despite the photos being of children embracing with money, and drugs, and booze, on the streets, and young girls dressed on clothes that are obviously meant to imply one thing.

No, millions of people are wrong. Just the few people who support Meg are right, because Meg told them she didn’t make a photo series inspired by adolescent prostitutes.

They even acknowledge that everything in our society is sexualized now. Just not Meg. Meg is just an artist.


Which brings us to the biggest problem behind this; Social media.

People have reported her photos on Facebook and Instagram, to no avail. Facebook, doesn’t care. Facebook will claim her photos don’t violate their community standards. But it will remove any photo of hers that people share on their wall.

So facebook is being hypocritical. Facebook allows her to post what she does, because she makes them money, and and she pays them money (for ads and followers).

This photo, is just an innocent “small town girl,” Facebook took it down from anyone who posted it with a criticism of Meg.

Yes. The photo that Meg swore up and down had nothing wrong with it because “she was 12,” is considered “an offer of sexual services, solicitation of sexual material, threats or depictions of sexual violence, or threats to share intimate images or any sexual content involving minors.”

Facebook took down photos of Meg Bitton’s, for being child porn.

The same photos her fans claim are neither inappropriate or illegal. They’re just young kids being kids.

IG of course has been way more lenient. They don’t think the photos violate their terms.

But Meg still took them down anyway (also, as of this writing, her IG profile is locked and private).

And it’s not just one photo.

For two days, people have reported about facebook having their posts removed, if they’ve been critical of Meg Bitton.

This is a post on facebook that was deleted, and then the poster reposted it with the “offending” photo replaced with a screen grab of their claim that it was child porn. Not only were three photos removed for child porn (that weren’t labeled in the first post), but they even reported screen grabs of comments. I can only assume Meg went into damage control and had her followers report it.

The post had 151 shares after 30 minutes, at the time of it’s removal. Facebook banned the poster for 30 days for making the post. (Facebook has since claimed they were mistaken and the original post didn’t violate their terms, and restored it. But it’s still hidden, with the photo of the girl in the truck still removed. The poster also still is on a 30 day ban, even though their post didn’t violate Facebook’s TOS).

But Meg bitten can post those same photos, and profit from them no problem. And when people report them, facebook says they don’t violate their TOS.

So, which is it Facebook? Are they porn or not?

Because they can’t be both.

As I stated before, Pedophile accounts on social media, and forums in foreign countries, collect Meg Bitton’s photos and celebrate her work. But she claims she doesn’t care about that, it’s not her problem, and laughs about it. Who cares, more attention, and they’ll probably buy prints.

So this is a direct question for the operators at Facebook; Why are they porn when they’re critical, but ok when they make you money?

Because that’s the only real difference here, one person is making a sociopolitical commentary on a topic that is very important to a lot of people, the other is an infamous photographer who pays you a lot of money. I would hate to think the only reason you as a company had such differing reactions to the same photos, is because of money.

And when we get down to it, that’s what this is, people at the top making money.

Meg has deleted offending photos en masse this weekend. She has locked her profiles. She has blocked and banned people, and deleted negative comments. Even though her photos are “appropriate.” If her photos are just a social commentary on growing up too fast, why remove them? If they ‘re just nostalgia for a childhood she probably barely remembers, why hide them?

Oh, good job IG.

These workshops used to go for thousands. Now they’re going for $29.

She lowers her prices dramatically, in order to fill seats. Maximizing profit. Like Jake Olson.

But Facebook is more worried about people making posts on their walls, stating their displeasure with a photographer who exploits children for personal gain and wealth, and with Facebook’s lack of proper efforts of limiting the photographer’s ability to continue doing what she does. Facebook is targeting the people speaking out and claiming they’re bullies, but it gives a pass to the actual bully.

And on this particular topic of underage exploitation, facebook has a bad track record.


It’s amazing that in the time of SESTA and FOSTA, this is still happening.

These models will be teenagers soon. They will be in school with boys who have access to Google. And young boys are terrible. These young girls will have to navigate a world where their male peers will only know them from these photos.

Puberty is hard enough on its own without that kind of mind fuck.

So, in conclusion, there it is. You can interpret it however you want, and I’m sure many of her followers will.

Untitled 111.jpeg
But there’s only one way to interpret a barefoot child in boys underwear, in an alley, with a legalize it T shirt and a pack of rolling papers.

Untitled 101.jpeg
Or a child hanging out at a bench on the streets, in front of people smoking “hookah.”

Untitled 13.jpeg
Or whatever this is

Or this fan who is WAY too excited to shoot a 10 year old girl with the same legalize it T-shirt, a middle finger, and a questionable crease in the crotch of her shorts, that would be edited out of ANY portrait other than skin mags.

Or whatever this… wait, what the fuck? Seriously Meg? What the fuck??!?!?!

And before anyone tries to argue about how “she could totally be wearing a bra/tube top/thing underneath the gloves. It doesn’t matter. This is called an “implied nude.” It is named as such, because it gives the implication of being nude. And there’s no reason for that.


No matter what, social media and the internet needs to do better. Stop trying to shame people and accuse THEM of being the problem, just because you don’t want to admit your hero is questionable, and has done suspicious things for years, and hidden behind “It’s art, you just don’t get it, cause you’re creepy.”

Stop claiming “Freedom of Speech.” This is not just Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech is not a blanket protection. It also doesn’t protect you from people speaking out about what you’re saying.

Stop claiming “Well the parents were obviously ok with it, and they’re the ones who have a say in it.” There are parents who will do anything to get their kid famous. Even at the expense of common sense.

Which is how she flies under the radar. People are afraid to speak out because they don’t want to be labeled as objectifying or sexualizing children. And Meg knows this, and her fans know this. It’s why she’s so controlling about what images show up on social media, and when.

And it’s time for that to change.

If nothing I have said has convinced you that all of this is inappropriate, then let me ask you two questions:

1. If a middle aged man was shooting photos like this for years straight, would you be ok with that?

2. If your boyfriend/husband/older brother/uncle/boss/best friend/cousin/grandfather or any other male in your life, had photos like this on his phone or computer even though he was not connected to them, would you be ok with that?

If you answered yes to EITHER of those questions, then I have some news for you. WE are not the problem.

Because when it comes down to it, Meg Bitton does this because it makes her money. And she knows it.

And that’s not right. Society needs to do better than that. We can no longer give a pass to exploitation, because “art.” And we can no longer let internet famous photographers with hordes of fans shame their critics into silence, so they can continue to build their business off exploitation.

Because where will she go next? What brave new concept will she try next?

Even now, Meg is painting an ornate picture that she’s the victim. That she’s just a misunderstood artist. That she is suffering from this. And quoting inspirational people to validate her woe is me crying wolf crocodile tear act. And her fans will eat it up.

I’m pretty sure Elizabeth Gilbert wasn’t thinking about creepy people who exploit children for financial gain, Meg.

It’s simply about money for her. So much so that even though she bragged about how much money she was making from the publicity…

…She is now brow beating her followers for how cheap they are and how terrible they are for thinking she charges too much.

Yes. Her customers are horrible because they won’t pay her her rates. She dropped her workshops from hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars to $29 for the recent one (it covers four different workshops actually) and you are all just making excuses. And it’s your fault she had to lower her prices.

Even though this is the same person who won’t tolerate any complaints in her page or group.

It’s all about the money.

Because you just wish you were as good as her.

And as long as she blocks these people and deletes their comments, no one will ever see how she treats them. So she will always be able to maintain that illusion of being the poor victim, who is bullied for her art. Like Sally Mann.

Then there’s this. A random 15 year old, commenting on her post in response to homophobic comments. Which Meg took, put a glitter background on it(that I believe she sells on her website), and put her logo on it.

Meg’s trying to make it an LGBT thing. She wants make it seem like people are hating her because she’s pro LGBT. But no one had an issue with “two girls kissing.” They have an issue with Meg posting two 10-12 year olds looking like they’re going to kiss, after doing drugs, and drinking, and making $100 on the street. And then talking to their pimp. To sell workshops.

It was never an LGBT issue in the first place. But that’s how she molded it. Because she is a master at controlling the narrative so she always comes out on top. She needs you to think she’s the victim.

The above photo originally was portrayed incorrectly. I apologize for this oversight. A correction has been written and can be viewed here…


Her words are obvious, but her actions say more.

Here are some photos from a Meg Bitton Workshop.

Untitled 5.jpegUntitled 6.jpeg
But Meg “Hold my Beer” Bitton was having none of that.

40460092_242193326492076_3614951729684021248_n.jpgwhip.jpegunderwearin thestreet.jpegpublicstreetedit.jpg

Yes, that’s a MAYBE 7-9 year old girl, in the middle of a New York street, with a sex toy. And in her underwear. While a group of mothers stand off to the side and watch. And a random dude on a bike rides by.

Totally a normal thing to do.

Where do kids even buy those? Sex Toys R Us?

If a middle aged man shot these photos, we would be having a very different discussion.



Let’s talk about Meg Bitton Pt 1: A timeline

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.

No automatic alt text available.No automatic alt text available.Image may contain: one or more people and closeupNo automatic alt text available.No automatic alt text available.

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

No automatic alt text available.No automatic alt text available.Image may contain: one or more people, baby and text

2012 brought some fresh ideas. Like masks.

Image may contain: one or more people, child and closeupNo automatic alt text available.No automatic alt text available.No automatic alt text available.No automatic alt text available.
No automatic alt text available.No automatic alt text available.

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

Image may contain: one or more people and babyNo automatic alt text available.

2012.No automatic alt text available.Image may contain: one or more people, people sitting and outdoorNo automatic alt text available.

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

Image may contain: 1 personNo automatic alt text available.Image may contain: 2 peopleNo automatic alt text available.Image may contain: 1 person, sitting, outdoor and nature

She uses intersections a lot.

Image may contain: 2 peopleImage may contain: 2 peopleImage may contain: 5 people, people standing and outdoorImage may contain: 1 person

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.”

Image may contain: 2 peopleImage may contain: 2 people, people sitting and indoorImage may contain: 2 people, outdoorImage may contain: 1 person, night and outdoor

Apparently, her trip inspired her to use fences more.

Image may contain: 1 person

Image may contain: 2 people, people standing and outdoor

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.

Image may contain: 1 person, standing, child and outdoorImage may contain: 1 person, standing, outdoor and nature

Image may contain: 1 person

No automatic alt text available.

Image may contain: 1 person

Image may contain: 1 person

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

Image may contain: 1 person

This caption.



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.

Image may contain: 1 person, playing a musical instrument, sitting, guitar and outdoorUntitledcomments.jpeg


Image may contain: 1 person, standing and outdoor
Image may contain: 1 person

Image may contain: 2 people, people sitting, child and text

Image may contain: 1 person, plant, outdoor and nature
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.

Image may contain: 1 person, closeup

Image may contain: 1 person

Image may contain: 1 person

It’s 2015 in the timeline.

Image may contain: 1 person, closeup

Image may contain: 1 person, outdoor and closeup

Image may contain: 1 person, outdoor

Image may contain: 1 person, standing

Image may contain: 1 person, closeupImage may contain: 1 person, closeup

Image may contain: 1 person, closeup

Her caption says “backlit beauty.”

But it came from post.

Image may contain: 1 person, closeup and text
I don’t know why she blurred the background more in a studio.

Image may contain: 1 person, standing and textFeet.jpeg
New favorite

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

Image may contain: 1 person, selfie and closeup

Image may contain: 1 person, closeup

Image may contain: 1 person, standing
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.

Image may contain: 1 person, closeup

Image may contain: 1 person
A dead head. Ok.

Image may contain: 1 person

Image may contain: 1 person, closeup, outdoor and text
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.

Image may contain: 1 person, text

Image may contain: 1 person
Is it just me, or does this look like it’s her first time ever carrying that baby?

Image may contain: 1 person, flower, outdoor and nature

Image may contain: 1 person, bird

Image may contain: 1 person, sitting, shoes, child, flower and outdoor

Image may contain: 5 people, people smiling, wedding and outdoor
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.”

Image may contain: 1 personImage may contain: 1 person, standing and shoes

Image may contain: 1 person, closeup

Image may contain: 1 person, ocean, sky, water, nature and outdoor
Image may contain: one or more people, people standing and outdoorImage may contain: 1 person, outdoor

Image may contain: 1 personImage may contain: 1 person, standing, child and outdoor

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.

Image may contain: 1 personImage may contain: 1 personImage may contain: 1 person, outdoor

Sweater’s too big for ya kid.

Image may contain: 1 person

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.

Image may contain: 1 person, car

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.

Untitled 3c.jpeg

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

Image may contain: one or more people, grass, plant, outdoor, nature and text
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.”

Image may contain: 1 personImage may contain: 1 person, shoesImage may contain: 2 people, shoes and textImage may contain: 1 person, shoes and outdoorImage may contain: 1 person, shoes

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.