Victorian Post mortem Photography

Fascinating. You can see why, today we have thousands of pictures, in those days there would be very few.
 
It's hard not to get drawn in to the photos, especially with multiple subjects and it's not always obvious who's dead.
 
I guess people did this due to the high cost of photography in those days. Too freaky for me
 
Fascinating. You can see why, today we have thousands of pictures...

Yet when the person goes missing or dies there is no single decent image to show... I have really noticed this trend on the media.
 
One thing has always struck me about photographs from that era. No one ever seems to be smiling. The man with the 2 dogs (pic 4) is the nearest have seen to a smile.
 
One thing has always struck me about photographs from that era. No one ever seems to be smiling. The man with the 2 dogs (pic 4) is the nearest have seen to a smile.
Maybe back then there was a victorian form of a forum and they'd been on there reading ST4's OOF posts beforehand? ;)
 
Photography was possibly too important for smiling (long exposures would fail to capture spontaneity). Life was also hard, and smiling & frivoloity may have even been frowned upon.
 
The Victorians certainly enjoyed the high life much more then we sometimes give them credit for, probably based mainly around the limited teaching about the era in the school curriculums, but much of what was acceptable to them is considered repulsive or downright illegal now [freak shows anyone] Certainly photography was a much more difficult process, almost never spontaneous. History of art and photography is not something I have ever studied well enough to know why they always seemed so serious in photographs anyway, even when there isn't a dead relative in the room with them. Some of those photos are certainly freaky and several feature the 'device' for propping up the corpse, you can see it behind them, a tri-based thing. They are though a fascinating glimpse of life then and what was acceptable, even if the article doesn't really explain how wide spread the practice was.
 
One thing has always struck me about photographs from that era. No one ever seems to be smiling. The man with the 2 dogs (pic 4) is the nearest have seen to a smile.

I understood that it was often due to the dreadful state of their teeth
 
I would imagine in some cases these would be the only photographs they had of their loved ones. I find them interesting. Some of them i'd never have known their was a deceased person in them had I not have known from the attached story. I'm sure in colour it would be more obvious who had died.

I know of a lady through a facebook who had a photo of her stillborn daughter removed from facebook a few days ago. I must admit it was a shock to see the photo as I knew the baby had died but it wasn't an offensive photo. It was tastefully done and you could only see the back of the baby's head and her cheek.
 
I think the lack of smiles is due to a number of factors.

Before photography, people if they could afford it, were immortalised in paintings. Having your portrait painted was a serious affair, people were expected to be quite serious and the subjects themselves also wanted to appear dignified; so no smiling. I think this carried over into the early days of photography. Even early photography was cheaper than having a picture painted and therefore it was available to many more. and although the middle class began to be able to afford a photograph, it was still an important event so had to be treated seriously.
There might also have been a bit of deference to those seen to be of a higher status - we'll get dressed up in all our best and appear like the toffs.
When exposure times were in seconds it is easier to be still with a straight face than holding a smile.

Dave
 
I know of a lady through a facebook who had a photo of her stillborn daughter removed from facebook a few days ago. I must admit it was a shock to see the photo as I knew the baby had died but it wasn't an offensive photo. It was tastefully done and you could only see the back of the baby's head and her cheek.

Why on earth would they remove it?
I have mixed feelings about those photos personally . . . but if it's tasteful and if it's something that helps the parents through the grieving process I really can't see anything to get offended about.
 
Why on earth would they remove it?
I have mixed feelings about those photos personally . . . but if it's tasteful and if it's something that helps the parents through the grieving process I really can't see anything to get offended about.

Apologies for the thread drift...Facebook never ceases to amaze me. I saw a video 2 year's ago of a women getting kicked to death. Reported it and received a reply that stated it did not break any rules!

I've only just started to post, albeit infrequently, again.

Cheers.
 
Why on earth would they remove it?
I have mixed feelings about those photos personally . . . but if it's tasteful and if it's something that helps the parents through the grieving process I really can't see anything to get offended about.
Someone complained apparently. Just adds to the agony i'm sure. It was so tastefully done that if you didn't see the post about the baby dying then you would congratulate her.

It's a similar situation to these Victorian photos. Potentially the only photos they will have of that person.
 
Back
Top