If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I don't know how to phrase the subject line... ..
Argh, forgive the typos please. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I don't know how to phrase the subject line... ..
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I don't know how to phrase the subject line... ..
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I don't know how to phrase the subject line... ..
"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". |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I don't know how to phrase the subject line... ..
"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... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I don't know how to phrase the subject line... ..
"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..... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I don't know how to phrase the subject line... ..
(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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Just view the first picture and click NEXT IMAGE under each photo. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Scanning 35mm Slides | MATT WILLIAMS | Film & Labs | 16 | July 2nd 04 08:41 AM |
subject induced refraction? | Alan Browne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 3 | June 18th 04 01:06 AM |
difficulty drum scanning negatives | Jytzel | Film & Labs | 51 | April 10th 04 08:56 PM |