Don't laugh. This was considered 'cutting edge, hi-tech' photography...
Pretend I'm not here: Even when photographs were
taken outside of the study, it appears the mother's face was banned as a
blanket covers her face
By
Sara Malm
These late 19th century children’s portraits all have something in common – a creepy cloaked figure in the background.
But
although it looks menacing, it is in fact the children’s mothers
disguised as chairs, curtains or simply rugs to create the perfect
Victorian family snap.
Slow
shutter speeds left photographers with no choice but to have the mothers
hold their children still to ensure that the outcome was not a blurry
mess.
Don't mind me: In this photograph the mother's
head had been covered in a black sheet as she props up her youngest
child, but her feet can still be seen sticking out underneath
In disguise: Some photographers made an effort
make the mother's appear part of the background or even look like a
piece of furniture
Scary snaps: In others the mothers were
scratched or painted out, right, or made to wear a black hood, instead
appearing as grim reaper-like figures hovering over their beloved
children
Camouflaged: One of the better examples of a mother disguised as a chair - although her shoulders and skirt are still in sight
When the daguerreotype was invented in
1837, a part of the camera which made the commercial photo process
possible, it made taking pictures accessible, and most importantly
affordable, even for the middle classes.
Taking photographs of children grew in
popularity, but it was still a cumbersome practice as the slow shutter
speeds meant the subject was forced to sit still for long periods of
time.
The solution was to keep the mother in
the photograph to hold the children still and keep them calm, and disguise
her appearance underneath rugs or blankets, behind a chair or
even, as some of these Victorian photos show, hide her behind the
curtain.
The resulting portraits show eerie
cloaked figures behind the children, making it appear more like the
child is being guarded by the grim reaper than its mother.
As well propping the children up, mothers were on set to keep their children calm and fuss-free
Blending in: A simple solution to cancel out the mother in this photo has been to hide her face behind the wall hanging
Out of the picture: As frames were used to
eliminate the background once the photo was placed on a wall or
mantlepiece photographers would sometimes not bother to cover the
mother's legs or skirt
In this 19th century snap what appears to be a curtain has simply been thrown over the mothers head as she holds her baby
Portrait sessions in the late 1800s
'were challenging for sitters because of the low emulsion sensitivity
and consequently lengthy exposure times,' experts at Sewanee University
of the South told Digg.
'In the case of children, one
stress-reducing device for keeping them still was to cloak mothers and
disguise them as a support on or against which the child rested.'
Parents went to great lengths to make
the portraits appear as natural as possible, but as these examples
show, that was hardly the case.
The
lack of effort in some cases can be explained by the use of frames once
the photograph was developed, which would hide the cloaked head and
skirt of the 'invisible mother'. Some of the images are from studios in
Pillow, Pennsylvania, while others are from Schaller, Iowa.
Swept under the rug: This disapproving looking baby has had some Victorian photoshopping to its cheeks to make it more life-like
http://tinyurl.com/bolzyby
For some reason, this cracked me up!
ReplyDeleteI didn't know about this-
what should I do with this new found info? I will wrap myself in a blanky and have my sis take a pic of me and my baby nephew.
We will call it the aunt B9 Victorian
photo shoot.
This technique should be used to make new First Family photos more palatable.
ReplyDelete