I don't know how to phrase the subject line... ..

There's a wonderful site that i find incredible.

http://www.earlyphotography.nl/scree...14390-A-00.jpg

This image was taken between 1845 and 1850. That's over ~160 years
ago. Which means the pretty little girl would've aged and possibly
died even before reaching 1900, considering the relatively short
lifespans they had back then.

Strikes me with an eerie feeling. I'm acutely aware of my mortality
now. I'm acutely that not long ago I didn't even exist! which is not a
thought that is unsettling and difficult to comprehend. I'm also
acutely aware that I will die too.

http://www.earlyphotography.nl/scree...-F14497-00.jpg

This image (~1850, above link) completely unsettled a friend. She said
they "ghostly". They "spooked" her intensely. It was the first she
saw, and she decided she didn't wanna see any more. I contintued
though, and found these.

http://www.earlyphotography.nl/scree...-F14380-00.jpg

Wow. Above link is a post-mortem portrait of an unknown man by an
unknown photographer. Taken between 1841 and 1849.

The following is even more unselttling

http://www.earlyphotography.nl/scree...-F14376-00.jpg

Post mortem portrait of an unknown baby. 1850 - 1859. What's with the
little painted flowers.

This one makes me feel almost tearful. It's almost impossible to
describe. Again, it's a postmortem portrait of an unknown child.

http://www.earlyphotography.nl/screens/S-MM.13-00.jpg

This following one is interesting because she seems quite old, and
it's likely she lived during the 1700s, and maybe was even born in the
mid 1700s. The image was taken 1845 - 1855. And again it's a
postmortem portrait.

http://www.earlyphotography.nl/scree...-F14379-00.jpg


I hope a curse doesn't fall upon me for posting these links, but i
find them very valuable. The idea that those people have died long,
long ago is baffling.

http://www.earlyphotography.nl/scree...-F14679-00.jpg

Those children are likely (likely? what am i saying!) to have died
long ago. When the photograph was taken their life was ahead of them,
but it's all in the past now, the distant past, the (relatively) very
distant past.

I feel seeing these images has already had an effect on how i think of
photography. And also how i think of life, especially mine, and
myself.


P.S. If i disappear, it's the curse! I don't see a way to browse the
site, so i suggest you just search for the word "portrait" or other
keywords. If people start vanishing from this group, then you know
what to do; head to the site and look at some pictures till the curse
eventually gets you, in which case you'll join us.

Argh, forgive the typos please.

(Mike Henley) wrote in
om:

There's a wonderful site that i find incredible.

http://www.earlyphotography.nl/scree...14390-A-00.jpg

This image was taken between 1845 and 1850. That's over ~160 years
ago. Which means the pretty little girl would've aged and possibly
died even before reaching 1900, considering the relatively short
lifespans they had back then.

Strikes me with an eerie feeling. I'm acutely aware of my mortality
now. I'm acutely that not long ago I didn't even exist! which is not a
thought that is unsettling and difficult to comprehend. I'm also
acutely aware that I will die too.

apologies for snipping the rest - this is the point where jumping in seems
most direct

Having looked at the images and not found anything particularly
compelling/striking/disturbing about them, I am more inclined to think that
you have stumbled onto the discovery of your own mortality in a unique way.

For many people, this comes from the sudden death of a friend or
family member. It shatters the assumption that there will be plenty more
time to do things, to say things, whatever. I could go on, but it's all
routine anyway. In your case, it appears to have been triggered by the
photos.

I was slightly surprised at the number of post-mortem portraits,
something that would be considered unsavory by today's standards (unless,
of course, it involved a car crash or shooting), but I was also surprised
that the practice of casting a plaster impression of deceased people's
faces for a 'death mask' was as common as indicated, further back in
history. In periods where portrait painters were expensive and/or scarce
and household cameras unheard of, it follows that some method of preserving
the image of a loved one be used. So post-mortem photos from photography's
early days isn't too surprising on reflection. People often didn't have
anything else.

"No flash powder in the delivery room, please!" runs through my mind
right now... ;-)

Around the same era, give or take, came Matthew Brady's photos of the
Civil War in America. It could arguably be said that this was the birth of
photojournalism, and his photos of dead soldiers scattered on the
battlefields were (and still are) striking, to say the least. In an age
when there was little visual news or communication of any kind, photos of
an actual battlefield were not only haunting, they communicated the grim
realities in a way no written or oral description possibly could. They also
served to show us, as later images still continue to, that we take our
natural grace and control for granted, and find it very disturbing when a
photo subject displays its fatal status with a distinct lack of this grace.
Bodies often fall in awkward positions, and this seems to trigger something
in our minds.

[Brady, of course, continues to be a heated topic to this day because
he actually posed some of his dead subjects, including switching uniforms.
By today's standards of photojournalism this is a no-no, but you still have
to ask yourself what aspect of the photo has the impact - the 'pose', the
'side', or the fact that these guys died on the battlefield].

As a sideline, it should be noted that photography in those days,
Brady's and the above links, was on very insensitive plates, ISO about
..0005 or thereabouts (I exaggerate). There was no 'candid' photography -
people had to hold freaking STILL! This explains the routine poses for
portraits (examples abound where someone failed to avoid fidgeting), and
why Brady did post-battle images and not 'thick of the action' shots - he
also did officers' portraits.

But getting back to the more-or-less subject, yeah, we all gonna die
someday. Can't help it, shouldn't fight it or fear it. Aspects of ancient
Rome had this down pat - check out Bacchus and the religion thereof
sometime.


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

Thanks for posting the links and your thoughts. This is one of the special
things about photography. It potentially can reach out beyond our
lifetimes,--quite easily. Interestingly, the people who may have known who
those subjects were died, themselves, a long time ago. You have to wonder if
anyone is alive who was told who these people were to them,--to their families.

thanks.

dan

Al Denelsbeck wrote in message .6...
(Mike Henley) wrote in
om:

There's a wonderful site that i find incredible.

http://www.earlyphotography.nl/scree...14390-A-00.jpg

This image was taken between 1845 and 1850. That's over ~160 years
ago. Which means the pretty little girl would've aged and possibly
died even before reaching 1900, considering the relatively short
lifespans they had back then.

Strikes me with an eerie feeling. I'm acutely aware of my mortality
now. I'm acutely that not long ago I didn't even exist! which is not a
thought that is unsettling and difficult to comprehend. I'm also
acutely aware that I will die too.

apologies for snipping the rest - this is the point where jumping in seems
most direct

Having looked at the images and not found anything particularly
compelling/striking/disturbing about them, I am more inclined to think that
you have stumbled onto the discovery of your own mortality in a unique way.

For many people, this comes from the sudden death of a friend or
family member. It shatters the assumption that there will be plenty more
time to do things, to say things, whatever. I could go on, but it's all
routine anyway. In your case, it appears to have been triggered by the
photos.


Hi Al.

I had these early on in life actually; two of my highschool close
buddies died in biking accidents and etc. I even worked with terminal
cancer patient many years ago and witnessed many of them die. Those
images are different though. It's the fact that they are from a very
distant past. Life has totally moved on on those people, and the fact
that many are "unknown" adds to it. It's also the fact that the camera
records a moment of time that's really a distant past, a very distant
past, even the children in these images are likely to have died over a
century ago.

I wish i could see photos from an even more distant past.

I was slightly surprised at the number of post-mortem portraits,
something that would be considered unsavory by today's standards (unless,
of course, it involved a car crash or shooting), but I was also surprised
that the practice of casting a plaster impression of deceased people's
faces for a 'death mask' was as common as indicated, further back in
history. In periods where portrait painters were expensive and/or scarce
and household cameras unheard of, it follows that some method of preserving
the image of a loved one be used. So post-mortem photos from photography's
early days isn't too surprising on reflection. People often didn't have
anything else.


A strange thing about some of those post-mortem portraits like this
one...

http://www.earlyphotography.nl/scree...-F14380-00.jpg

is the style of the frame. I wonder if it was pocketable and if people
carried it with them. That'd be a little freaky.

"Mike Henley" wrote in message
om...
Al Denelsbeck wrote in message
.6...
(Mike Henley) wrote in
om:

There's a wonderful site that i find incredible.

http://www.earlyphotography.nl/scree...14390-A-00.jpg

This image was taken between 1845 and 1850. That's over ~160 years
ago. Which means the pretty little girl would've aged and possibly
died even before reaching 1900, considering the relatively short
lifespans they had back then.

This, to me, is the interesting thing about photography. Not the person, but
the dress style. Only old paintings, and photography can show us the way
things really were back then. That's why I take relatively mundane scenes,
and don't go in for "artsy" stuff. I know that future generations will be
interested in the everyday things that they see in the, "old photographs".

"William Graham" wrote in message news:eNtDc.99424$2i5.34567@attbi_s52...



This, to me, is the interesting thing about photography. Not the person, but
the dress style. Only old paintings, and photography can show us the way
things really were back then. That's why I take relatively mundane scenes,
and don't go in for "artsy" stuff. I know that future generations will be
interested in the everyday things that they see in the, "old photographs".

I'm really interested in photographing for posterity now.

I guess i could practice photography as a "mere" recreational activity
without thinking much about the results, this is one possibility. But
then there is the nagging feeling that there are more worthwhile
things to do in life then an anjoyable distraction. Or i could
practice it as an artistic pursuit, in which case I would try to "go
in for artsy stuff" like you put it, but i really doubt any of the
"artsy" stuff would be of any enduring significance later on, even to
me in my own lifetime. I'm there there are a countless iterations
already of a photograph of a flower or sunset. Or i could photograph
for "posterity" but then i'm sure they'll have a glut of photographs
or video footage from previous generations to choose from and whatever
i photograph within the limitations of my activities or daily life may
be of little use or interest to them.

But still the feeling of futility is acute. Do any of you guys
photograph to as an expressive outlet for feelings?

I still find the idea of having my own shoebox-timecapsule appealing,
even if only sentimentally. Maybe i can just photograph "the
ordinary". I'm sure there must be a school of art already that finds
merit in entirely ordinarty things.

Hmmmm...

"Mike Henley" wrote in message
m...
"William Graham" wrote in message
news:eNtDc.99424$2i5.34567@attbi_s52...



This, to me, is the interesting thing about photography. Not the person,
but
the dress style. Only old paintings, and photography can show us the way
things really were back then. That's why I take relatively mundane
scenes,
and don't go in for "artsy" stuff. I know that future generations will
be
interested in the everyday things that they see in the, "old
photographs".

I'm really interested in photographing for posterity now.

I guess i could practice photography as a "mere" recreational activity
without thinking much about the results, this is one possibility. But
then there is the nagging feeling that there are more worthwhile
things to do in life then an anjoyable distraction. Or i could
practice it as an artistic pursuit, in which case I would try to "go
in for artsy stuff" like you put it, but i really doubt any of the
"artsy" stuff would be of any enduring significance later on, even to
me in my own lifetime. I'm there there are a countless iterations
already of a photograph of a flower or sunset. Or i could photograph
for "posterity" but then i'm sure they'll have a glut of photographs
or video footage from previous generations to choose from and whatever
i photograph within the limitations of my activities or daily life may
be of little use or interest to them.

But still the feeling of futility is acute. Do any of you guys
photograph to as an expressive outlet for feelings?

I still find the idea of having my own shoebox-timecapsule appealing,
even if only sentimentally. Maybe i can just photograph "the
ordinary". I'm sure there must be a school of art already that finds
merit in entirely ordinarty things.

Hmmmm...

Yes. Go downtown and take scenes that you wish you had that were taken 100
years ago......And know that someone 100 years from now will be looking with
interest at those pictures........ I particularly like to take buildings
that are scheduled to be torn down in a few weeks and replaced by some
soul-less glass block.....

(Mike Henley) wrote in
om:

Al Denelsbeck wrote in message
.6...

Having looked at the images and not found anything
particularly
compelling/striking/disturbing about them, I am more inclined to
think that you have stumbled onto the discovery of your own mortality
in a unique way.

For many people, this comes from the sudden death of a
friend or
family member. It shatters the assumption that there will be plenty
more time to do things, to say things, whatever. I could go on, but
it's all routine anyway. In your case, it appears to have been
triggered by the photos.


Hi Al.

I had these early on in life actually; two of my highschool close
buddies died in biking accidents and etc. I even worked with terminal
cancer patient many years ago and witnessed many of them die. Those
images are different though. It's the fact that they are from a very
distant past. Life has totally moved on on those people, and the fact
that many are "unknown" adds to it. It's also the fact that the camera
records a moment of time that's really a distant past, a very distant
past, even the children in these images are likely to have died over a
century ago.

I wish i could see photos from an even more distant past.

Okay, misinterpreted it then, sorry about that.

But we definitely had different reactions. I suppose I get feelings
more along those lines when I look at tools or artwork of ancient mankind,
for much the same reasons. These were representative of the lives, the
skills, the approach to things, and not dictated by whoever was recording
them.

Portraiture of that time, to me, was incredibly sterile. Not sure of
the exact reasons, but I suspect it was partially because of the necessity
of a maintainable, very motionless pose and expression, partially because
it was considered a recording medium and not yet art or expression. It
fails to generate any idea of their lives in this respect, because nobody
usually dressed that way, or sat/stood that way, and expressions were often
as flat as possible. And I feel much the same way about the typical cookie-
cutter portraiture from the bulk outlets today, though they do sometimes
manage convincing smiles. I don't do much portraiture, but when I do, it's
at least an attempt to retain the humanity of my subject, some idea of what
they're like, while still producing a flattering image. Fun! I'll stick to
animals, they're not vain...


I was slightly surprised at the number of post-mortem
portraits,
something that would be considered unsavory by today's standards
(unless, of course, it involved a car crash or shooting), but I was
also surprised that the practice of casting a plaster impression of
deceased people's faces for a 'death mask' was as common as
indicated, further back in history. In periods where portrait
painters were expensive and/or scarce and household cameras unheard
of, it follows that some method of preserving the image of a loved
one be used. So post-mortem photos from photography's early days
isn't too surprising on reflection. People often didn't have anything
else.


A strange thing about some of those post-mortem portraits like this
one...

http://www.earlyphotography.nl/scree...-F14380-00.jpg

is the style of the frame. I wonder if it was pocketable and if people
carried it with them. That'd be a little freaky.

In some cases I'm sure they did - people were real big on physical
mementoes in those times, not really sure why. My mother, in her seventies
now, has a locket of her grandmother's hair in an ornate little case (which
could probably do double duty as a photographic frame) that could be worn
around the neck. I always found this odd - isn't that, like, voodoo? ;-)

In the case you link to, it's hard to tell scale of the image and
frame. There's still a carryover today for photo frames that have a 'book'
style to them, and I'm not sure the original reasoning for this, but off
the top of my head, I'd have to say they traveled better. The glass and
images would be folded inwards, protected, and simply opening them most of
the way provided their own stands. It now makes me wonder if the practice
is/was more prevalent in the States, populated almost entirely by
immigrants, or if I'm way off base...


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

Originally Posted by Al Denelsbeck

(Mike Henley) wrote in
om:

Al Denelsbeck wrote in message
. 6...

Having looked at the images and not found anything
particularly
compelling/striking/disturbing about them, I am more inclined to
think that you have stumbled onto the discovery of your own mortality
in a unique way.

For many people, this comes from the sudden death of a
friend or
family member. It shatters the assumption that there will be plenty
more time to do things, to say things, whatever. I could go on, but
it's all routine anyway. In your case, it appears to have been
triggered by the photos.


Hi Al.

I had these early on in life actually; two of my highschool close
buddies died in biking accidents and etc. I even worked with terminal
cancer patient many years ago and witnessed many of them die. Those
images are different though. It's the fact that they are from a very
distant past. Life has totally moved on on those people, and the fact
that many are "unknown" adds to it. It's also the fact that the camera
records a moment of time that's really a distant past, a very distant
past, even the children in these images are likely to have died over a
century ago.

I wish i could see photos from an even more distant past.

Okay, misinterpreted it then, sorry about that.

But we definitely had different reactions. I suppose I get feelings
more along those lines when I look at tools or artwork of ancient mankind,
for much the same reasons. These were representative of the lives, the
skills, the approach to things, and not dictated by whoever was recording
them.

Portraiture of that time, to me, was incredibly sterile. Not sure of
the exact reasons, but I suspect it was partially because of the necessity
of a maintainable, very motionless pose and expression, partially because
it was considered a recording medium and not yet art or expression. It
fails to generate any idea of their lives in this respect, because nobody
usually dressed that way, or sat/stood that way, and expressions were often
as flat as possible. And I feel much the same way about the typical cookie-
cutter portraiture from the bulk outlets today, though they do sometimes
manage convincing smiles. I don't do much portraiture, but when I do, it's
at least an attempt to retain the humanity of my subject, some idea of what
they're like, while still producing a flattering image. Fun! I'll stick to
animals, they're not vain...


I was slightly surprised at the number of post-mortem
portraits,
something that would be considered unsavory by today's standards
(unless, of course, it involved a car crash or shooting), but I was
also surprised that the practice of casting a plaster impression of
deceased people's faces for a 'death mask' was as common as
indicated, further back in history. In periods where portrait
painters were expensive and/or scarce and household cameras unheard
of, it follows that some method of preserving the image of a loved
one be used. So post-mortem photos from photography's early days
isn't too surprising on reflection. People often didn't have anything
else.


A strange thing about some of those post-mortem portraits like this
one...

http://www.earlyphotography.nl/scree...-F14380-00.jpg

is the style of the frame. I wonder if it was pocketable and if people
carried it with them. That'd be a little freaky.

In some cases I'm sure they did - people were real big on physical
mementoes in those times, not really sure why. My mother, in her seventies
now, has a locket of her grandmother's hair in an ornate little case (which
could probably do double duty as a photographic frame) that could be worn
around the neck. I always found this odd - isn't that, like, voodoo? ;-)

In the case you link to, it's hard to tell scale of the image and
frame. There's still a carryover today for photo frames that have a 'book'
style to them, and I'm not sure the original reasoning for this, but off
the top of my head, I'd have to say they traveled better. The glass and
images would be folded inwards, protected, and simply opening them most of
the way provided their own stands. It now makes me wonder if the practice
is/was more prevalent in the States, populated almost entirely by
immigrants, or if I'm way off base...


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

I found a site last night that is amazing for post mortem photographs. Some of the images are hauntingly beautiful. You might want to check them out. You'll have to register to view the pictures, but registration was free. The site is http://thanatos.net/galleries/register.php

Just view the first picture and click NEXT IMAGE under each photo.