Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Victorian photography question

  1. #1

    Victorian photography question

    Hi All:

    I am doing some forensic research and need some help. If the following is viewed as inapropriate or offensive please understand it is not intention.

    I have some b&w mortuary photographs from 1888. I also have a photograph (of the same person) that is different than the ones existing in the original police files. It was published in a book in 1895. The one in the book looks "touched up" or partially drawn to me.

    Any opinions are welcome as my knowledge of Victorian era photography, and photo reproduction for publication during this time, is limited.

    Thank you very much,

    Robert

  2. #2
    Octogenarian
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Frisco, Texas
    Posts
    3,532

    Victorian photography question

    Hi Robert,

    If you are asking whether Victorian book publishers used artistically re-touched photographs, the answer is "of course they did". Contemporary publishers still continue do it.

    The photo was probably taken of the cadaver and re-touched by hand to make it look like a photo of a person who was still alive. That was common practice in the printing industry. Nowadays, it's done digitally and looks a lot more natural.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    538

    Victorian photography question

    I believe many important photographic skills have not simply been lost, but have sadly also been forgotten.

    In 1970, I worked with a woman who had begun her career in the 30's, hand-printing and ferro-typing deckle-edged b&w snapshots for city drugstores. Later, she followed the generals around Europe with an olive green Crown Graphic during WWII.

    Aggie was also expert at running two fingers (as a squeegee) down a strip of wet 120 film and then making 8x10 glossies from the damp film to get pictures of the horse races into the evening paper before the deadline closed.

    Her best trick was to “open people’s eyes” who had blinked. A little Kodak opaque, some Spotone, just a couple of minutes and a lot of skill and practice.

    But nothing terribly out of the ordinary, fifty years ago...

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    San Joaquin Valley, California
    Posts
    9,599

    Victorian photography question

    Robert,

    As mentioned above touching up photographs is nothing new, but I've noticed that photographing the dead in open coffins at the cemetary was a fairly common practice(for those who could afford the momento) well into the 1920's and 1930's.

    There was also an article in View Camera awhile back about a lost burial ground discovered in San Francisco when a foundation was dug for expanding one of the museums in Golden Gate Park. As I recall daguerrotypes of the dead were found in the caskets with the bodies, perhaps as a form of identification?

    Photographs of loved ones also seem to be a preferred ornament in effrendas(probably misspelled! Sorry!)--- alters erected during Days of The Dead in parts of Mexico, honoring(and greeting) the spirits of loved ones who return to earth one night a year(All Soul's Day)

    I remember when I was working for the County my boss took me up into the dusty attic of a county building where documents were stored and showed me a grisly collection of photographs of crimes scenes from the 1880s---sort of like CSI with cowboy boots and moustaches.

    Interesting subject---thanks for bringing it up!
    "I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    now in Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    3,618

    Victorian photography question

    In those days there was a thriving market for portraits of the recently deceased. Bill Jay has an interesting, if slightly gruesome, essay on the subject in his recent book "sun in the blood of the cat" (Nazraeli Press).

  6. #6

    Victorian photography question

    Another reference in 19th C. Postmortem photography is "Secure the Shadow" by Jay Ruby

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,487

    Victorian photography question

    And don't forget the popular grad student favorite, "Wisconsin Death Trip" by by Michael Lesy, also a motion picure (seriously) - see: http://www.wisconsindeathtrip.com/reviews.html

  8. #8

    Victorian photography question

    Thank you for the responses, I appreciate them.

    I have a follow-up question: The photograph published in the book is very similar to two of the mortuary photographs. It is clear that someone had a mortuary photograph to work from and touch up. What puzzles me is why not just publish the mortuary photograph as is? The book publishes a crime scene photograph in the same chapter that hasn't been altered along with the one that has. The book was published for criminologists and medical men and was not easily available to the general public.

    Perhaps it's as simple as a person wanting to "improve" certain features, not unlike today's magazine covers when wrinkles are removed, busts increased, and thighs reduced. Am I missing something, though, is there another reason why the image might be altered? Quite simply, the touched up version adds nothing that can not be seen in the original mortuary photos.

    Also, is there someone who I could consult who can compare the photographs and give an opinion as to how much alteration has been done (someone here or at another website). Certain things I can see, but I do not have a trained eye for this sort of thing.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    San Joaquin Valley, California
    Posts
    9,599

    Victorian photography question

    Robert,
    This is just a guess---could the retouched photo have been intended for a different use than the unretouched photos? What I mean is, that accuracy of a photo used as evidence or historical record should not have been altered, but a photo that is a remembrance of a loved one would most likely be enhanced if that would be a more esthetically pleasing image. Perhaps the published photo in question was intended as a souvenier rather than evidence, but being the only illustration available to the publisher at the time it was used. his could be a likely scenario if the photo was obtained from say, family archives rather than from police files.

    Another possibility is that the images were taken on glass plates, right? Perhaps the emulsion on one of the glass plates was later damaged and the publisher opted to draw in the missing features which might not have been critical to the "record" but would make for a more desireable photograph?

    Just a thought.
    "I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White

  10. #10

    Victorian photography question

    My apologies for not making it clear what exactly is in the photograph. The photo is not a memorial one. It was taken by the police, apparently to document the injuries of a murdered woman. The photographs were taken after the autopsy had been performed and the victim had been stitched up again. As you can imagine, not a pretty picture.

    Even in the book, where it was touched up, it is meant to be an example of sadistic murder. I should also note that the person who altered the photograph never had access to the original glass plate. The person would have been using a paper/cardboard copy. This is why I'm perplexed.

    John, you bring up an interesting point. Could it have been that the paper/cardboard copy that the person was using was damaged or not properly exposed etc., and that he needed to redraw parts of it to be usable for publication? It may be the best reason so far as to why a medical/police photograph was altered for inclusion in a criminological book. Anything else I may be overlooking.

    Another thing I have been wondering about. How would a person, not using the original glass negative, alter a photograph for publication? What are the different steps he would have to take to make this possible? Is it a complicated process for the 1890's or relatively straight forward?

    Thanks for taking the time to reply. It is a definite help for someone like me who doesn't understand photography that well.

Similar Threads

  1. Legal Question: photography of public art
    By Paul Mongillo in forum Location & Travel
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 27-Feb-2011, 20:21
  2. photography
    By alissa in forum On Photography
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 1-Nov-2006, 08:07
  3. photography
    By raymond morrison in forum On Photography
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-Mar-2006, 16:00
  4. Learning about LF night photography question
    By scott jones in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 17-Dec-2001, 09:33
  5. What Is It? (LF Photography)
    By Angela Taylor in forum On Photography
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 9-Sep-2001, 13:42

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •