Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Victorian after death images


peterjones 13 4.1k 1 United Kingdom
30 Jan 2013 7:41AM
I found an interesting article in the Daily Wail how the Victorians used to photograph their dead here ; undoubtedly the hilarious joke about still life photography will be mentioned so I will get it over with now.

Nowadays we live in rarified, sanitised times where we are insulated against death, people either die in hospitals or if at home are whisked away by undertakers to be laid out by undertakers; if relatives and friends want to pay their last respects they do so at the undertaker's premises, and are disposed of from there and hence to a burial plot or crematorium, not so yesterday and today in many parts of the world and remoter parts of the UK, people died at home but still remained part of the family, the body was washed and laid out by the family, the deceased stayed with the family to be visited by friends and family and were buried by the same.

No wonder people wanted photographs of their departed loved ones for memory.

In years to come the pictures that will really matter are not the fine works of art so fawned over by our contemporaries, peers and camera club judges and the like it will be images of friends and family past we really will love.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

GlennH 9 1.9k 1 France
30 Jan 2013 8:00AM
I think in Victorian times a lot of these rather macabre photos were 'panic-commissioned', because photography was prohibitively expensive. You only have to visit a Victorian cemetery to see that our ancestors of 150 years ago had a different relationship with mortality—encountering it more frequently than most of us from an earlier age, and living in a society where atheism wasn't so deeply rooted or informed.
keithh Plus
11 23.5k 33 Wallis And Futuna
30 Jan 2013 8:35AM
You want an article about what

It's OK just paraphrase Wikipedia.

Sorted. Lazy Mail.
mikehit Plus
5 7.3k 11 United Kingdom
30 Jan 2013 8:55AM
Am I missing something, Keith?
peterjones 13 4.1k 1 United Kingdom
30 Jan 2013 10:01AM
your point being ??
GlennH 9 1.9k 1 France
30 Jan 2013 10:04AM
Keith's referring to the Daily Mail knocking together easy articles I think.
mikehit Plus
5 7.3k 11 United Kingdom
30 Jan 2013 11:00AM
I think it ironic he posts about 'lazy mail' yet can't be bothered to express himself properly Smile
keithh Plus
11 23.5k 33 Wallis And Futuna
30 Jan 2013 11:08AM
I expressed myself perfectly well. The Lazy Daily Mail did their usual web article of dragging something up from the Internet and then paraphrasing the first paragraph of Wikipedia to accompanie some photos they 'found'.

I preferred my first ironic version.
30 Jan 2013 11:55AM
I think even lazier than the Daily Mail are it's readers, they apply their modern thinking to what was the norm in those times and comment about how weird it is, even worse in my mind, one of them says too many mothers have photographs take of their stillborn children these days, surely that's a parent decision, and why shouldn't they?

It does seem as I grow older and attend more funerals, more people are taking photographs of the flowers, family groups, coffin etc, though I suppose with us all being photographed through out our lives, we're not likely to return to post mortem photo's.

As Keithh says, it's a valuable historic record.
peterjones 13 4.1k 1 United Kingdom
30 Jan 2013 11:58AM
Some people read Wikipedia and some read the Daily Wail; some people may not have read either ; the Wail won't be the first or the last to paraphrase material from other sources in fact most of us to do it as information is rarely original but gleaned from somewhere.

Perhaps I shouldn't have bothered to place the post in the first place in case somebody may have found it of interest?

It is this kind of "clever" remark which does nothing whatsoever to enrich ourselves with photography knowledge that has made me a rare visitor to Ephotozine; I rest my case.

Peter.
keithh Plus
11 23.5k 33 Wallis And Futuna
30 Jan 2013 12:06PM
Nothing wrong with knowledge of any sort but lazy journalism will always be that and will always be worth pulling up for just falling short of plagiarism.
lemmy 7 2.1k United Kingdom
30 Jan 2013 12:25PM

Quote:I think even lazier than the Daily Mail are it's readers,


Wow! That's 4,248,000 lazy people then. Not to mention the Mail Online's daily readership which rose 19.57% month-on-month in January to 5,784,946.

I expect the Sun readers are just as lazy...and the Express....and what about that Star? Newspapers write to entertain their readers. Most people just don't take them as seriously as all that. But to brand millions of people lazy - and millions more of them becoming so each month is a bit extreme, isn't it? The Mail Online is the most read site in the world. If that's what lazy people making entertainment for lazy people can do, I'd like shares in laziness, please.

Reminds me of that old Stanley Holloway thing, 'all the world's a bit queer except thee and me - and even thee's a bit queer' Wink
Paul Morgan 13 16.3k 6 England
30 Jan 2013 5:55PM

Quote:I think in Victorian times a lot of these rather macabre photos were 'panic-commissioned', because photography was prohibitively expensive


True, but I wouldn`t call it macabre, take a look at Sally Man or Walter Schels, I think even Keith will find the Sally Mann interview interesting Smile

Sally Mann

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13sr1-7Yl7s

Or Walter Schels

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8aloTrUF-4

And his interviewed here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_F50UVa6ZI&feature=relmfu
31 Jan 2013 12:00PM

Quote:I think even lazier than the Daily Mail are it's readers,

Wow! That's 4,248,000 lazy people then. Not to mention the Mail Online's daily readership which rose 19.57% month-on-month in January to 5,784,946.

I expect the Sun readers are just as lazy...and the Express....and what about that Star? Newspapers write to entertain their readers. Most people just don't take them as seriously as all that. But to brand millions of people lazy - and millions more of them becoming so each month is a bit extreme, isn't it? The Mail Online is the most read site in the world. If that's what lazy people making entertainment for lazy people can do, I'd like shares in laziness, please.

Reminds me of that old Stanley Holloway thing, 'all the world's a bit queer except thee and me - and even thee's a bit queer' Wink



Yup too lazy to seek out factual, quality reporting, which generally takes effort to read and digest, much like dumbed down TV made my lazy producers.

Figures just prove how many people settle for comic reporting.

Can't disagree with me queer in the old fashioned sense though Wink

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.