Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: C19fan

I wonder if it might simply be that, due to cost or other factors, many people had never had a photo taken of or with the deceased (certainly in the case of the infants this would be likely), so they took this as their last opportunity to capture an image of the departed.


10 posted on 10/09/2013 6:42:30 AM PDT by william clark (Ecclesiastes 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: william clark

You hit the money right on the head (pun intended) and though the article implies this by saying the practice died out after cameras were built which could take “snapshots,” I wonder why they didn’t mention the obvious. Photos in those days were VERY expensive for the average person.


15 posted on 10/09/2013 6:50:17 AM PDT by apoxonu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: william clark
I wonder if it might simply be that, due to cost or other factors, many people had never had a photo taken of or with the deceased (certainly in the case of the infants this would be likely), so they took this as their last opportunity to capture an image of the departed.
Yes, I think you're probably right. And I don't find the images haunting; most are tastefully/lovingly done.
16 posted on 10/09/2013 6:50:38 AM PDT by mlizzy (If people spent an hour a week in Eucharistic adoration, abortion would be ended. --Mother Teresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: william clark

There are examples of photos of deceased persons with the eyes painted open (on the negative) for remembrance purposes.


42 posted on 10/09/2013 10:29:32 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson