snopes.com  


Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Fauxtography

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 22 May 2013, 05:50 AM
LadyMcBain
 
Posts: n/a
Default Standing Dead Victorian Photographs

Hello,

I am new to this forum, so please excuse me if the subject I’m about to describe has been discussed in the past. This is about the “standing dead” Victorian photographs being sold on-line. Collectors have apparently created a name for these—“post-mortem photography.”

I’ve read of pictures of dead infants and photographs of corpses at wakes, but the individuals in these photographs are standing bolt upright with their eyes open. There is a weird set of rules that “establish” if a person in a photograph is dead. These are:

• The photo is retouched, especially around the eyes
• The person is slumped or the pose is unnatural
• The person is standing inside a posing stand, or in front of one
• Retouching only occurs with one person
• A “hidden” mother is holding her child
• A visible mother is holding a slumping child
• The person’s coloring looks “unnatural”
• The person looks bloated
• The person has light blue eyes
• The person appears to be “clamped” or “tied” to something

Here are some examples of “standing dead” Victorians:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Civil-War-Er...item3a80b08230

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/ph...31319925_3.htm

http://ken_ashford.typepad.com/blog/...orian-age.html

http://www.ebay.com/itm/CABINET-CARD...item3a7bc860ff

I know for a fact that many photographers retouched photographs of living persons during this period. The only legitimate pictures I’ve seen of dead adults show the adults in coffins or propped up on something (usually partially covered with a blanket).

Can anyone provide any evidence of a single, legitimate standing “post mortem” Victorian picture of an adult? Just a reference to the fact that it was taken and how it was done, preferable a newspaper article from the period, is fine.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 22 May 2013, 10:06 AM
damian's Avatar
damian damian is offline
 
Join Date: 14 April 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,504
Default

Welcome.

I've seen the old West photos of dead outlaws. I've never seen photos of kids posing with dead people. That's just creepy.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 22 May 2013, 12:38 PM
mags's Avatar
mags mags is offline
 
Join Date: 23 February 2006
Location: Springboro, OH
Posts: 5,104
Default

I have only looked into this a little myself, but one website done by a collector of old photographs dismisses many of the supposedly post-mortem photos. Apparently it was fairly common to use a brace to keep a standing living person steady during the long exposure time needed. Which only makes sense, when you consider it. Even then, photographs of the living were much more common than of the dead, why would a photographer buy or keep around a big heavy piece of equipment capable of supporting dead adults in a natural standing position? For that (at most) once a year job of photographing a dead adult? The stands I've seen in the pictures don't look likely to be able to support over 100 lbs, either, their bases are like hat racks.

I think it is just a matter of (fraudulently or at least toeing that line) causing supply to meet demand. People are alternately creeped out and fascinated by the idea of photographing the dead (especially in "living" type poses) and it causes demand for these photographs. We know some Victorian post mortem photos exist, which piques people's interest. Some people will claim their photos are of dead people to increase their price, others will because they just really want their pictures to be.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 22 May 2013, 01:21 PM
Morrigan's Avatar
Morrigan Morrigan is offline
 
Join Date: 26 March 2001
Location: Vassar, MI
Posts: 5,449
Default

There are several books of photographs of PM photographs. Some with the standing adults/children.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 22 May 2013, 02:09 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 21,451
Default

I did some searching on the exposure time. I had long heard that the reason for lack of smiling was the 'very long' exposure time needed - I had been told it was over an hour. Not so. The first commercial process, daguerreotype, required up to fifteen minutes exposure at first but was reduced to about a minute.

Quote:
Exposure times for the earliest daguerreotypes ranged from three to fifteen minutes, making the process nearly impractical for portraiture. Modifications to the sensitization process coupled with the improvement of photographic lenses soon reduced the exposure time to less than a minute.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/daghtml/dagdag.html
In 1850 a much faster and more detailed process known as Ambrotype was patented and soon displaced daguerreotype, and in turn, before the Civil War (1861-65 for our non-US readers), tintype was developed. According to the link below, even modern versions of tintypes require 5-10 seconds exposure in bright daylight. We can expect the exposure time would be substantially more with less-intense fire-based light available for 1800s indoor photography (candles, oil lamps, gas lights, etc). As noted in the link, even the 5-10 seconds is too long for someone to hold a smile perfectly still for an unblurred photograph (unless of course, they have trained as a flight attendant).
http://nondo.net/blog/?p=486
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 22 May 2013, 05:15 PM
Ali Infree's Avatar
Ali Infree Ali Infree is offline
 
Join Date: 02 February 2007
Location: Wheeling, WV
Posts: 2,576
Default

My understanding of the reason why people didn't smile was in part cultural. The photo was meant to be a record of that person and that called for a serious expression. It may have been that holding a smile for even a minute was more difficult and expensive for tintype and early materials used. Or that people believed a serious look was required. How many painted portraits show the subject with a big old smile on their face?

Ali
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 22 May 2013, 07:40 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,161
Default

The "creepy eyes" thing is often explained by the long exposure times. If a person blinked a couple of times or was looking around, their eyes could look all white, or otherwise odd. And the photographer could also have done an odd or poor job of retouching them.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 22 May 2013, 11:47 PM
Horse Chestnut's Avatar
Horse Chestnut Horse Chestnut is offline
 
Join Date: 11 August 2004
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 5,307
Default

I'm at work so I can't research it, but I swear I have seen the photo of the fireman before in documentaries or books, and it was not labeled as a post-mortem photo.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 23 May 2013, 12:02 AM
Little Pink Pill's Avatar
Little Pink Pill Little Pink Pill is offline
 
Join Date: 03 September 2005
Location: California
Posts: 7,055
Icon22

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali Infree View Post
How many painted portraits show the subject with a big old smile on their face?
Don't forget poor about poor dental hygiene. People with crooked, decayed, or missing teeth probably didn't want that image preserved for posterity.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 23 May 2013, 11:10 PM
Blatherskite's Avatar
Blatherskite Blatherskite is offline
 
Join Date: 06 February 2006
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 4,012
Default

Here is what seems to be a legitimate post-mortem funeral photograph (don't worry, it's tacky but it's not gory), however it's from the 1940s rather than the 19th Century and the dead guy is seated rather than standing. I say it's legitimate because the subject definitely seems to be presented for a funeral and because he looks pretty, well, dead.

I suspect that of your links, only the photo of the little girl and little boy actually depicts a corpse (the boy, obviously). In the ebay links, it's likely the sellers thought they would get more interest and money by appealing to morbid curiosity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Pink Pill View Post
Don't forget poor about poor dental hygiene. People with crooked, decayed, or missing teeth probably didn't want that image preserved for posterity.
You can smile without showing any teeth, though.

Here's a gallery of smiling Victorians if anybody's as interested as I am (scroll down to see all of them). My favourite is the little boy in the top hat!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 23 May 2013, 11:40 PM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 26,205
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blatherskite View Post
Here's a gallery of smiling Victorians if anybody's as interested as I am (scroll down to see all of them). My favourite is the little boy in the top hat!
OMG - some of them are dead and smiling! Look at the women on the beach - they're lying down and they have their eyes shut and everything! In the strip of four "photo booth" style pictures at the bottom, the woman is alive for the first two, then she dies abruptly and the man poses her differently in each of the last two, to make it appear that she's still alive!

I agree, though - there seems very little reason to think that any of the people in the original links are dead. Did the photos have an original caption claiming that the person in them was dead? If so, then perhaps - but if it's based on the extremely tenuous notion that the pose is a bit awkward or the eyes look funny, then no.

In the "ken_ashford" link, in the last picture, claimed to be "particularly disturbing", I couldn't even work out which of the three people was meant to be dead. All of them? Then I realised the clue was that the writer claimed that the pupils had been painted on the closed eyelids (what? Victorians weren't stupid or incapable of seeing things - as an idea for making somebody look like their eyes were open, that would have made no more sense then than it does now) and the girl's pupils appear to have been retouched on the plate itself, not by painting them on her closed eyelids. Seriously, do these people have any evidence for their claims? Some of them even put "post mortem?" with a question mark - obviously just to make them more interesting. I've never read of this practice elsewhere, although I've heard of it on-line a few times.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 24 May 2013, 12:17 AM
marrya's Avatar
marrya marrya is offline
 
Join Date: 11 January 2003
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 10,300
Default

Actually, that would be the easier way to make the photos look real, Richard! [painting onto the eyelids rather than onto the plates after the photos were taken]

Which makes [in my mind, anyway, and that's all that matters] it even less plausible that the painted on eyes is a pointer to post-mortem photos. Why do things the more difficult way?!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 24 May 2013, 02:52 AM
Little Pink Pill's Avatar
Little Pink Pill Little Pink Pill is offline
 
Join Date: 03 September 2005
Location: California
Posts: 7,055
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blatherskite View Post
Here's a gallery of smiling Victorians if anybody's as interested as I am (scroll down to see all of them). My favourite is the little boy in the top hat!
I loved those, thanks for that link. It's good to see life wasn't always as severe as their portraits.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 29 May 2013, 12:40 AM
Jim18655 Jim18655 is offline
 
 
Join Date: 15 March 2010
Location: Shickshinny, PA
Posts: 19
Default

My wife had a picture of a dead Uncle. He was in a casket leaning up in the corner of a room. He died in 1917 at an army camp in Texas from the flue. I think the picture was taken before the body was shipped home.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 22 June 2013, 01:16 AM
Jefuemon's Avatar
Jefuemon Jefuemon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 November 2005
Location: Sapporo, Japan
Posts: 51
Skull

This book has a section on postmortem photography.

They kind of do a similar thing in Japan, where all of the immediate family gather around the coffin for a group photo.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 22 June 2013, 02:19 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,603
Japan

I've never heard or seen that. Are you sure it wasn't just a particular family?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 24 June 2013, 01:46 PM
overyonder overyonder is offline
 
Join Date: 03 March 2010
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,114
Default

I think that there's something generally viewed as taboo to take pictures of a dead person.

My uncle passed away last year, while my mom was in the hospital after having had surgery for cancer. We all gathered at my uncle's bedside for a final prayer (post-mortem). I asked my aunts (mom's sisters) if I should take a picture for mom, since she was bed-ridden at the time. They all agreed NOT to take a picture. I certainly didn't see anything wrong with it myself, seeing that mom couldn't have been there and she still would have have the choice to see the picture or not later on.

OY
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 24 June 2013, 04:08 PM
Hero_Mike's Avatar
Hero_Mike Hero_Mike is offline
 
 
Join Date: 06 April 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ & Hamilton, ON
Posts: 7,267
Default

I was always surprised at how my mother's relatives would send her photos from funerals back in the 70's and early 80's, from behind the Iron Curtain. Then again, there were photos taken at my grandfather's funeral back in 1980 - I don't know who took them (because everyone from the family is in the photos) but the whole collection seemed to in our photo album, and the photos weren't "posed" but taken from a respectful distance, showing the pallbearers carrying the casket out of the church and at the cemetery.

Back in the mid 80's, my great aunt passed away and her grieving sister insisted that we take pictures of all the flowers at the funeral home. The casket lid was closed for that - but she wanted the photos because she was deeply touched by the number and quality of flowers sent by her friends and acquaintances, and wanted some remembrance of that.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 29 June 2013, 03:05 AM
Jefuemon's Avatar
Jefuemon Jefuemon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 November 2005
Location: Sapporo, Japan
Posts: 51
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
I've never heard or seen that. Are you sure it wasn't just a particular family?
Been to 2 funerals on my wife's side of the family, and they've taken a group photo. One was a father's side relative, the other was a mother's side.

You don't actually see inside the coffin. Everyone just stands, with the coffin in the center. Kind of like the group wedding photo, but naturally no one is smiling.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 29 June 2013, 07:29 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,603
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jefuemon View Post
You don't actually see inside the coffin.
Ah, I guess I thought by "similar" you meant similar.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bronte brother died standing up? Jahungo History 4 03 January 2012 06:19 AM
Standing cat Jenn Fauxtography 5 31 December 2010 01:58 PM
Faked Photographs: Look, and Then Look Again snopes Fauxtography 7 25 August 2009 08:31 PM
USPS photographs everyone who buys stamps snopes Spook Central 35 23 February 2009 06:15 PM
Revealed: Chubby Victorian footballer who inspired 'who ate all the pies' chant Stoneage Dinosaur Language 4 13 November 2007 07:05 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.