A few years ago I became interested in postmortem photography, and momento mori (remembrances of the dead). It was a genre I was bound to discover. I found it very interesting and did some research. I learned a lot about photography (something I do know a bit about since many times we have to determine if a photo is paranormal or not). There are a TON of fake photos and videos on the internet of "ghosts", " spirits" , and "paranormal events". I would easily say they are WAY more fakes or misunderstood events that people think are paranormal or say are paranormal. Photographic and video evidence of the paranormal is the most difficult evidence to capture and generally requires cameras that can see in IR or ultraviolet light (after all if spirits were easily see in regular light we would see them every day).
This led me to the (mostly) Victorian practice of taking photos of the dead. They do exist and there are quite a few out there , as they were not as expensive as people would have you think, but they sure weren't cheap either. Let's start with that fact. Many will state that this was only done when people died as it was expensive, and others will say that people could afford it ,it wasn't that expensive. They are both right and both wrong. The portraits were expensive for the average person, just like it is expensive for you to go to a photographer today and have a family photo taken. It isn't "buy a new car" expensive, but it sure isn't cheap, and our Victorian and Edwardian ancestors didn't have Master Card. They were working, but not all of them were middle class, those who could easily afford having their picture taken were far outnumbered by those who could not. Generally speaking they were an expensive and added expense, and for the general public, something that would only be done on special occasions, like the death of a loved one.
There are people who will tell you that these pictures didn't cost much at all. They did, in today's money they cost between $90 to $150. The average salary in 1860 was $1.53 per day, that is about $25 in today's world. So , if you made $25 a day, and a photo cost $100, that was four days wages. You were probably feeding a large number of children on that, and most likely no one else in the household worked. So the MYTH that these photographs were easily affordable to the masses is just that , a MYTH. Could they manage to afford a picture of a loved one who passed, yes if it were important to them, but did they take a bunch of family photos, not at all!
The other myth is that there are no real photos of people standing that were deceased. There were, and even though most photos of deceased are not standing photos (difficult to do) they DO exist. They are rare. The people who say that this can't be will tell you a stand cannot hold a man, it has, in at least 3 authenticated photos, but this again is rare. The stands were quite heavy at the base and could hold a child, but a lot of other factors were important, such as how long ago, and how that child died. Sometimes in photos you will notice fabric or even a belt wrapped around the waist or bulging under a jacket or dress that is there to hold up the person, but most usually to a chair. I was actually laughing the other day reading a blog where the author was saying over and over how pictures of the dead standing were impossible, but had three on their blog that even they said were authentic.
The MYTH that dead people cannot stand again, with help of course, is a MYTH. RARE yes, impossible no.
Keep the standing dead in mind a moment and let's move on to those with their eyes closed. You will be told that the ones with their eyes closed are just blinking from the flash. That can happen, but when they are slumped, have decomposition on their hands, and are in a strange position, it isn't the flash that closed their eyes. Since the photos took a few seconds to take, closed eyes are closed eyes, not a "blink" due to a flash. Do you keep your eyes closed for 5 seconds when a flash picture is taken, no you don't and neither did they! You have to take in the whole scene. I will talk more about authenticating later, but just because their eyes are closed doesn't make them alive and "just blinking", actually it is a good indicator of being asleep or permanently asleep.
You will read that they needed stands (back to the standing dead) and they are caught blinking (like we are today even) because these pictures took so long to process. Compared with today, they did, however, they didn't take so long that healthy live humans needed a stand to keep from moving....and a stand would not keep you from moving anything except your torso. It was useless in that regard. How long did it take?A Daguerreotype generally took (depending on the light of course) 60 to 90 seconds. That really isn't long enough for you to need a stand to keep you from moving or falling down (unless you were dead of course). During the Civil War period, a time when many of these photos were taken, most photographers took a whopping 3 seconds to take a photo. I know a lot of kids who can't stand still, but 3 seconds is a bit short in time, don't you think? So the MYTH that these took a long time is a MYTH.
In fact in 1878 Muybridge took a series of quick succession photos to settle a debate of whether a horse, when running , had all four feet (hoofs) off of the ground. They could photograph moving objects in 1878, so it was not a long process to take a picture any longer. When photography was new, only landscapes were photographed because they did take a very long time....but that is why people were not photographed. Have you seen old photographs of a busy street scene, where there are maybe 30 people and only one blurred (maybe jumping on a trolley )? Yes you have , because it didn't take a long time to take a photo. Yes, outside photos (more light) processed quicker, but we are talking a second or two here. To repeat myself....it is a myth that these photos took a long time. (We even had motion pictures by 1888, and people owned cameras themselves by 1900 when the Brownie was introduced).
There are photos where people had eyes painted on the negative. There are people out there who try to debunk postmortem photos saying that photographers never painted eyes on the corpse....that's right , they didn't. They did adjust the negative though, and since they were no Rembrant, it is usually obvious and almost cartoon like. Luckily sometimes you would not notice until you really looked at their eyes, but photographers did paint on the negatives and sometimes it is very obvious. The MYTH that photographers didn't paint on the eyes is really a myth because it was done, just actually on the negative.
Photographs were a bit of a luxury, and it didn't take an hour to have your picture taken. Yes there are photos of the dead standing, so do not discount a picture just because the subject is standing, but certainly check other factors. Children would be photographed standing more than adults would due to size and weight.
When you want to find and collect these photos, you need some clues. Many are easy, they are in Victorian Mourning jewelry (momento mori), and there are many times included locks of hair. People wore them as a broach, a pendant, or had then in metal cases. Finding photos singularly is more difficult.
My first photo that I purchased was a "no brainer", there were 2 separate pictures on the same card , an adult woman and an infant. I have her name, and that she and the baby had died. She is bruised but otherwise looks pretty good. The baby, you wouldn't think anything was wrong except a wide eyed stare, but here is where one of the secrets come in. When you have photo in hand, check out the eyes carefully. The pupils in the eyes are certainly over dilated, also you can see the baby is propped up on pillows. I was lucky to have notes on the photo, but it is what made me examine it more closely so I could maybe find clues for future use.
How do you find authentic postmortem photos? They are not hard to find, they exist, and there are quite a few of them out there. The goal was to try their best to make the loved one appear sleeping, so sometimes you will have to look carefully at the photo and make your best guess!
There are however telltale signs. First, unless it is a battlefield photo, or funeral procession you will rarely see (I haven't see one yet I can authenticate), a postmortem photo taken out doors. You will also not see people who are holding things up, like a book, although a book may be on their lap. They also don't hold up their head, but they may be reclining with their head resting on their arms in a supine position.
The time between death and the photo gives more clues, and of course the longer it took a photo to be taken (some people had to wait for the traveling photographer to get there), the more obvious it will be. The biggest "tell" is the eyes. I have a lighter jeweler's loupe that I use, and have seen some very interesting things (like painted negatives) that make it easy to understand that the eyes are not normal nor alive. Are the pupils even? Are the eyes closed in different positions (one more than the other), is there anything in the eye, dark matter? Are the eyes unfocused? Are the eyes cloudy? Are the eyes sunken? These are signs of death.
Look at the mouth. One corner hanging down? Blood or saliva coming out (exposure time meant sometimes in 3 - 5 seconds, blood or other fluids could leak out of eyes, ears, and nose)? Tongue lolling out or filling the mouth?
Are there sores or brown areas around the mouth and nose, this is usually decomposition. Blisters on the mouth were usually the result of a high fever before death, seen mostly in children.
Look at the hands, are they in unnatural positions, do they seem to be leaning on or holding something, yet not being in a correct position to do so? Are the hands turning blotchy or brownish, again this is decomposition and it will happen first in the face and extremities.
Did the facial muscles slacken and pull down and in (sunken cheeks), is there a rictus grin (also most commonly caused by decomp)? Look for signs of damage from an accident or burns (people who were burned badly in that time period didn't live). Look at the color overall of the subject, does it look right, and if there are others in the photo is it greatly different from the other family members?
The highest death rate for a long period of our history and this type of photography (besides the Civil War), was childbirth. Many mothers and children died during childbirth. You will see many photos of mothers and children in bed. The Victorians would not take such pictures of a live person, it was too risque' for the time.
Look to see if the person is belted to a chair or board (usually draped and hidden). Women frequently had beautiful fabric wrapped around their middle to hold them up. Is one leg going off in a strange direction of the other, or in a position not common in live people? Look at the body overall is it tilted off in a direction that would not be one you would normally see (I have seen women "sitting" on laps that are stiff as a board and pointing off in a strange direction).Look at the whole body, is it stiff looking like a board leaning on a chair?
There are photos in caskets, battlefields, and on autopsy tables, those are simple to detect, but not what I personally want to collect, but they may be a way to help you see what the dead look like.
Look at the back for names, or comments about death. Research the names. Sometimes you can find news articles corresponding with the death. There was a theme for a while of placing the person's photo on what looked like a page or scroll, this is an indication they have passed. Look at the others in the photo, are the looking sad? Some actually have tears on their faces. Be an investigator.
Dead children and children attending funerals, dressed in white. The dead and major mourners were dressed in black (people who went to funerals didn't dress in black as we do today).
My advice is not to be afraid to buy a photo you think is postmortem, however many who sell these photos put huge price tags on them. Only pay what you can afford of course. The thrill is in the hunt, so look through antique shops and find old photos to look at. I bought the notated and authentic mother and baby for 50 cents. Beware of photoshop, look at coloring and placement. Is the proportion off, if it is, the photo is faked.
When I go looking for photos, I bring my trusted lighted jeweler's loupe. Some pictures will jump out at you and you will "know" right away that they are deceased, in others you will need to look at all the things I listed above.
Many old unframed photos are priced from 50 cents to $10 depending on size, clarity and condition. There is no need to spend $50 or more on a postmortem photo, but you will need to do a bit of leg work (and a lot of eye strain).
I personally do this not only because it interests me, as does the whole mourning process of the 1800's, which was elaborate, but because I want to give these people who were once loved so much, a new place to feel wanted. When people make fun of the dead in photos on the internet or call them creepy or zombies, it bothers me. This person was once loved so much that the time and expense went to taking their picture.I always respect the dead in readings, in investigations and in their photography.
I remind our paranormal team that we are not ghost hunters, we are paranormal investigators, meaning we check everything out the best we can, and only when the answer point no where but paranormal, is it paranormal. We go by Grant Wilson's words, "when it doubt throw it out". Apply these same rules to your postmortem photo hunt.
Hunt for photos in shops (you can't investigate carefully enough when they are on line), investigate the photo, also trust your instincts about the people in the photo. Beware of people calling photos postmortem when they are not, but also remember that many times when they aren't blinking, and they are being helped to stand, then yes they are really dead. Use the old adage "buyer beware".
Happy hunting!
