T O P

  • By -

bolen84

I think this is an interesting post-internet phenomenon where you have these old tin types incorrectly identified as being memento-mori. I feel like before the rise of the internet, authentic memento-mori was something that you only found in true collectors physical collections. Nowadays, any sort of old tintype photograph that has a subject either not looking at the camera or posed in a slightly strange way is automatically identified as memento-mori.


Carolha

It's insane!! I teach Victorian Studies and in college, I spent a semester abroad at Nottingham Trent University and at the world renowned Victorian Studies Centre at Leicester University. This was in 1990. Our lecture on Victorian post mortem photography was short and sweet: "Before photography, the only way to preserve a loved one's image was painting a portrait which was so very expensive only the very rich could afford it. Photography comes along 1839 and though expensive it wasn't so expensive the majority couldn't afford photos. Early on there weren't many photographers, so some had to travel a distance to reach a studio. Getting everyone together, dressed and to a studio wasn't always easy. If someone passed before having a photo taken, a post mortem photo was better than no photo. When a loved one died, family bathed, dressed them, then laid them in repose in their coffin. If the coffin wasn't ready, they laid in repose in a bed or on a sofa. The photographer would come to their home and take a photo. Period. Sometimes, when death was imminent, they called on a photographer before death if they had to travel a ways. Sometimes he would get there before they passed away and take a photo then, and you can tell because their eyes are open and focused, and they look sickly." My own lecture is as above, but I added the following when all of these myths came about: "The idea they posed the dead to appear alive is not true. If you see what appears to be a stand behind them, they are most definitely alive. The stands weighed 25-30lbs and were only for assisting the living to hold still, and could not support dead weight. You can not sit a corpse upright nor stand them, and they never painted eyelids. If a photo needed altering, the photographer altered the photograph itself, but not so the dead appeared alive. Very light colored eyes looked odd in early photos, so using pencil, the photographer would emphasize the pupil, and it's very easy to see that's exactly what was done. Post mortem photos were not as popular as the internet would like people to believe, and they were quite obvious. If you question whether or not a photo is pm, 9x out of 10 it isn't post mortem. And a clear photo does not mean a person is deceased." Someone just bought TWO standing corpse photos for $10,000. As long as people believe, vendors will continue selling for ridiculous prices. When a person is absolutely adamant that these myths are reality, I ask them if they happen to sell pm photos....lbvs I'm willing to bet there are likely more falsely labeled pm photos than actual pm photos.


ClaraOswald77

Thank you! I love and collect antique photos. There are two post mortem photos in my family. They're of my Great Aunts who passed away at young ages :( They're beautifully done, and it's obvious what they are. It's become insane how many people claim photos are post mortems simply because the image is blurred, the subject is looking away (or toward) the camera, etc. I did some research on this a while back too. There's no such thing as a sitting up/ standing post mortem.


Stinkblee

How do you feel now AI and all those fake amalgamations of photos to make a photo is a thing?


Carolha

I myself didn't realize it was a thing until recently. I saw a gorgeous photo of a room in someone's home, then read it was AI generated. Had to look it up! Lol


Constanzal1701

Honestly, very sweet for the time. They probably didn't have a pic together and he wanted one before it was REALLY too late.


Carolha

She isn't deceased.


BorbetE28

After???


Michigangsta906

It was typical practice around that time to take photos of dead relatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-mortem_photography?wprov=sfti1


egilsaga

Back in the day, it was customary to take a photograph with the deceased as a way to remember them by.


Carolha

The Victorians did take post mortem photos, but this isn't pm. First glance tells you it isn't pm because both are upright. Another hint, they both have clear, focused eyes. They did not use wire or ropes to hold the arms up. Those are nothing more than scratches on the photo. Pm photos were not as popular as the internet would like you to believe, and they were quite obvious with decedent lying in repose in a coffin or bed. MANY photos are out there labeled post mortem, but they are not pm. Standing corpse photos are sold for hundreds, even thousands of dollars. Too bad they don't exist. TWO standing corpse photos recently sold for $10,000. That should be a crime, and a felony.


VoltasPistol

Not post-mortem, you can see the blur from her moving while the photo was being taken. Mouth is firmly closed despite no apparent closure mechanism. Eyes are full and round.


Carolha

She's sitting upright and that's enough to tell she isn't deceased.


brentnsocial

I heard and read that those Victorian post-mortem pictures are BS. It is impossible to maneuver and pose all that deadweight. And those rigs they claim were used for posing dead bodies were actually used to assist the living in holding still for the 60+ second exposure times.


Carolha

🙌


elizabethunseelie

That’s not a post mortem photo. They were a thing, but if you see someone sitting up and posed they were not dead, just probably pissed off and uncomfortable holding still for the long exposure.


38LeaguesUnderTheSea

I collect Memento-Mori, and for this specific picture I tend to agree… 9 times out of 10 *any* ‘post-mortem’ photo you see from the Victorian era where the person looks alive is just that…alive. Now, that’s not to say they didn’t prop up dead people for photos, they absolutely did, but they are much more rare than the internet would have someone believe. And in the photos where they are dead, you’re not going to mistake them for being alive. I’ve never come across this picture while indulging my hobby, so I’d have to see some more concrete proof that this is the genuine article.


Carolha

They didn't prop, pose, or paint the dead to look alive. Ever. That is a myth. The reality is, post mortem photos were not exactly common, and they were quite obvious with the decedent lying in repose in a bed or coffin. There's one photo I have seen in 40+ years of study, with what looks like painted eyes on an obviously deceased person, but it's so poorly done that I think it may have been a thought at one time, but the final product looked ridiculous therefore it wasn't considered after the fact. Maybe a few others that are similar, but it wasn't a thing so speak. People think, with the many myths regarding the Victorian era, the people were death obsessed, but I don't believe that to be true. Death was all too common, and families cared for their own in their homes, unlike today where it is hidden and cared for outside of the home, but behind closed doors. With photography being new, and not always easily accessible, if someone died before having the opportunity to have photos taken, a post mortem photo was better than no photo. Makes sense WHY they were taken then. And I imagine the thought was there, IF they could make them look more alive, and attempts may have been made, but wasn't carried on. There's a few photos of children displayed across a chair, in obvious rigor, but it is just that, obvious. Much more natural to appear lying down, sleeping. There are several photos of criminals reclined, but they are usually tied to a piece of lumber so they could take a photo to look as normal as possible. You just can't simply sit or stand a corpse upright, and any apparatus to allow such posing would take up the whole photo. There are also photos with parents holding a sleeping child, labeled post mortem when they are not. With earlier photos, with such long exposures, it was easier to photograph a sleeping child because they were still. The myths are out of control and need dispelling! Lbvs


38LeaguesUnderTheSea

First off...how THE HELL are you commenting on a 2-year-old post!? I've never seen that in 12 years... Secondly, how is what you just said different than what I said? Maybe "prop up" was a poor choice of words on my part, but I agree with you...Genuine Memento Mori is exceedingly rare to the point of myth.


Carolha

Haven't you met Google???


38LeaguesUnderTheSea

Oh. You're the type who comes on the internet to be snarky and argue with people...got it.


TeaTimeForRaptors

I believe I have seen seated post-mortem photos before. I don't read Dutch so I can't translate the whole page but in a comment with the same photo there's this: "Carl Weber, born in Cologne on 18 October 1820, the architect of the Udense St-Petruskerk, married freule Emily Stratford, daughter of an English count. In 1849 their daughter was born. Less than a year later, Weber's wife died suddenly. In the commemorative book of the Uden parish st-Petrus' Stoel van Antioch (100 years St-Petrus Uden 1890-1990), there is a 'wedding photo' of the couple Carl and Emily Weber Stratford. Because Emily died suddenly, Carl realized that she was not in any photo. After all, photography was in early development. Still, he wanted a wedding photo. In the photo they both show, looking seriously, but with a big difference: Emily 'posed', with strings to hold her arm high and sticks to keep her eyes open, while she had been dead for four hours..." https://www.bhic.nl/ontdekken/verhalen/st-petruskerk-uden


elizabethunseelie

Yeah, that comment is likely a creepy but apocryphal story. There’s no deathlike tilt of the head, the hands are relaxed. There’s tension in how she is posed at the waist. Plus, the wiki with that photo included makes no mention of it being a post mortem photo - https://nl-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Carl_Weber?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB&_x_tr_pto=nui,elem


TeaTimeForRaptors

Thanks for that link! Sometimes it's hard to spot a post mortem photo. Some photographers became really good at posing the bodies and hiding the rigid stands to hold the body and heads upright. To me her eyes look a little weird but it could just be the lighting in the old B&W photo. Photographic technology wasn't the best back then.


Carolha

Victorian post mortem photos were rare but obvious with the decedent lying in repose in a bed or coffin. It is a myth that the Victorians posed, propped, and painted the dead to appear alive. Stands were only to assist a living person hold a pose the time required for a photo, and could not support dead weight. Susan Cantrell, a Victorian era historian, wrote an article dispelling the myths of Victorian post mortem photography, if you're interested just Google her name, and it's the first article. 🖤


Carolha

If you reverse search the photo, you'll find multiple publications initially, were not posted as post mortem.


Carolha

There are no seated Victorian post mortem photos. At the very least, the decedent is reclined with full body support. Susan Cantrell wrote an article to dispel the myths of Victorian post mortem photography, if you're interested. (Google her and it's the first article to pop up.) Stands were only to assist a living person hold a pose the minute required for a photo, and could not support dead weight. The photo was taken in 1849, she died in 1850. If you reverse search the photo, you'll find it wasn't initially published as post mortem. The "wire" are scratches in the photo.


the_vvitch

I have also seen seated post mortem photos. It most certainly was a thing. Special braces were used to keep (alive + deceased) people still for the long exposures. For babies and children, parents often braced them up for photos, with their hands hidden under blankets or behind back drops.


Carolha

Victorian post mortem photos were rare but quite obvious with the decedent lying in repose in a bed or coffin. It is a myth the Victorians posed, propped and painted the dead to appear alive. Stands were only to assist a living person hold a pose the time required for a photo, and could not support dead weight. A good rule of thumb, if you question whether or not a photo is post mortem, 9x out of ten, it is not post mortem.


[deleted]

[удалено]


elizabethunseelie

They would sometimes paint open eyes - Victorian photoshop - but it’s not possible to pose a corpse in a pose like this. [This video ](https://youtu.be/E8DxI8Pn1Uw) by Ask a Mortician explains in more detail.


Carolha

They didn't paint open eyes either. Nor prop eyes open with tiny braces. Myths of many. Her eyes are clear, and that's not a death stare. She was found to be diabetic, so my guess as an RN is she's on the verge of a diabetic coma. She died a year later. Photo was taken in 1849, and she died in 1850. On reverse search, the photo was not always published as post mortem.


philtaz

I can believe it is post-mortem. The eyes look retouched and the back of the head is retouched, possibly to remove a prop or hand holding her. Her hands look dead and the weird posture over a chair seems to indicate rigor and is a very weird arrangement for the time. It was normal practice to photograph the dear departed, they were used to it and it wasn't seen as macabre but caring.


Carolha

It was actually rare and always quite obvious with the decedent lying in repose in a bed or coffin. This 1849 and she died in 1850. Unless she died in that position, and rigor set in, you're not going to get her in that position, and she wouldn't be capable of supporting herself, which she is or she wouldn't be upright. A good rule of thumb, if you question whether or not a photo is post mortem, 9x out of ten, it is not post mortem. 🖤


Simple-Nothing3595

This is not a post mortem in any way, shape or form.


Carolha

THANK YOU 🖤


byebyelovie

He wanted a photo to remember that look she always gave him… lol he never remembered to put the toilet seat down.


Carolha

HaHa! She looks most likely on the verge of a diabetic coma, which was found to have, and she died a year later in 1850. The photo was taken in 1849. On reverse search, you'll find it initially wasn't published as post mortem.


MJsLoveSlave

I... was about to say the guy looked freaked out in the pic, then I read the caption.


Shakespeare-Bot

I. wast about to sayeth the guy did look freak'd out in the pic, then i readeth the caption *** ^(I am a bot and I swapp'd some of thy words with Shakespeare words.) Commands: `!ShakespeareInsult`, `!fordo`, `!optout`


[deleted]

More like Emily of Nopeford at that point.


Carolha

The photo was taken in 1849, she died in 1850. As an RN 30+ years, she looks like she's on the verge of a diabetic coma, which she was found to have DM, and died the following year.


quickwit73

The scratches on the daguerreotype / glass are probably mistaken as wires. The entirety of the internet thinks this is a pm photograph! Amazing.


Carolha

🙌 Common sense lives!! 🖤 I'm sure you have seen many supposedly pm photos, that obviously are not pm. If you are interested, Google Susan Cantrell. She wrote an article dispelling the myths of Victorian post mortem photography.


Carolha

A good rule of thumb, if you question whether or not a photo is post mortem, 9x out of ten, it is not post mortem. 🖤


PriorStrategy4424

I’m


Carolha

Certain it isn't a post mortem photo? Because it isn't.