Submitted 3 weeks ago by Mickey7@lemmy.world to [deleted]
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/060e55d9-a63a-4967-8e6d-5dd25d497ace.png
Post Mortem photography during the Victorian Era - In a time where premature death was common, people would take pictures following the death of family members to commemorate them and ease the grieving process.
At this point, all three of them are dead. :)
Your comment reminded me of my habit of watching old movies and always thinking about how EVERYONE in the movie is dead
It’s sad if you think about it too much…
I have a copy of Young Frankenstein with commentary from Mel Brooks. It’s basically how everyone involved in the film, except him, is dead.
“So this scene, lighting director was absolutely amazing, he’s dead.”
Prove it
I didn’t even know she was sick.
She looks pretty good for someone who’s dead. Wonder what her cause of death was
Tuberculosis, cholera, scarlet fever, or dying from childbirth were all pretty common.
Ok, why not? Why in the “shitpost”?
She was already dead when the picture was taken.
Yes, I have read the description. So?
From what I’ve been seeing in this sub lately, I’m not even sure I know what the fuck a shitpost is. Am I wrong or are they wrong?
If you have to think about what a shitpost is, you are definitely wrong about what a shitpost is.
Technically, wiki/Shitposting:
In Internet culture, shitposting or trashposting is the act of using an online forum or social media page to post content that is of “aggressively, ironically, and trollishly poor quality”. Shitposts are generally intentionally designed to derail discussions or cause the biggest reaction with the least effort. It may even sometimes be orchestrated as part of a co-ordinated flame war to render a website unusable by its regular visitors.
But in my experience (especially in smol communities) shitposting is basically spamposting, you can post anything imho/afaik, as long as people find it funny & engage, it’s all good …
I’m confident that all 3 of them are dead by now.
This is mostly a myth propagated by the idea of “posing stands” which were actually meant to keep living people still for portraits that took a long exposure time. Victorians loved some goth shit like hair jewelry tho.
yeah I’m gonna need some sources for that claim. I’ve seen plenty of evidence that death photography was a real thing including speaking to actual family members that own said photographs with stories handed down about the incident.
not just that but you can clearly see the person in the middle crystal clear. this means their eyes didn’t move. they never blinked, and their body never moved.
Here’s a great Atlas Obscura article about it.
billwashere@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You’ll notice these people are usually less fuzzy in the death pics because the shutter speed was pretty long and they aren’t moving.
JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Yes, and also it was hard to hold a smile throughout the process, so people in photos from that age tend to look weary, because they did not smile.
El_Scapacabra@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
I imagine it’s also hard to hold a smile while you’re holding a corpse. That sounds like a “one or the other” type of thing tbh.
Mickey7@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
excellent point
Evil_Shrubbery@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Yeah, they were prompted up with separate purpose-made devices to make them seem as natural as possible (ie the other people aren’t holding her up) + they prob had some paint/makeup on (whiter, better contrast).