OH! Some of those were rather creepy

*LOL* I have a photo of myself at age two sitting on a pony.....but the pony has five legs....

Some of the behind the children images look like a ghost from A Christmas Carol.

Shirley

Strange! It would have been nicer just to have the mother as a part of the picture.

Funny, but doesn't bother me especially after having to sit through photo shoots with my own kids! I probably would have preferred doing this to what I had to go through with them!

I agree, some of those are very creepy!. I wonder why they thought that was better than having the mother in the picture. Thank goodness for technology and photoshop!
My son wouldn't let any professional photographers take his picture from age 1-4. He had fits. Even when he was with his sister and cousins. He was VERY frustrating. Maybe I should've hid under a blanket to hold him! LOL

In a couple of those pictures, it looks like the baby's being held by Darth Vader! The first one looks like Cousin Itt all dressed up :-)

Very interesting. I used to collect old photos and still can't resist browsing the boxes and baskets of them in antique shops. Now I'll be looking for Mom in the background, which I would probably never have noticed before.

The other photos on that site were equally interesting. I'll have to return and go through them.

So funny! I've seen a lot of old photos of children, but have never seen one like that! I'll be browsing every one I can find looking for hidden figures now!

Very interesting. I remember when I took my children for those dreadful Sears Baby Photos. They fussed and cried so much. We finally found a professional photographer who was good with babies.

That was fascinating!

Hehehe....I wonder if I would have noticed the invisible mom had it not been pointed out to me. Like Schoolhouse, I will from now on!

That is amusing & something that I'd never noticed before. I too will always look for "mom" from now on! (Tho' it would be hard to miss the one with mom's legs quite apparent. LOL)

In many cases the person behind the drape is not the true mother of the child.

We have to remember that those photos were probably taken between about 1880 and 1920. In those days professional photography would have been cost prohibitive to the average family and even among the affluent it was only done to chronicle the family.

It also must be understood that in those days they had an extremely high incidence of women dying in childbirth or succombing to one of the many plagues of cholera, yellow fever, scarlet fever and dozens of other medical epidemics of the day.

Quite often the children were then raised by a stepmother or governess and we not in the direct bloodline of the child, so they placed the primary care giver behind the shroud to keep the child still, but not have the surrogate parent in the photo.

Ding dang, that is weird!

But, it kind of reminds me of Baby Photographer of America, the company that comes out to your home to take portraits of your newborn. They prop the baby up in unnatural poses (chin resting on the hands of up bent arms for example), let go and snap the photo before the baby falls out of pose. You can often see the impressions of the photographer or assistant's fingers on the baby's arms. I always look for that when I see these kind of photos.

Jodi-

I've never noticed the hidden holder before. I'll keep an eye out now. Thanks for teaching me something new.

Somewhere, I have a picture of my oldest sister, sitting on the moon - does anyone remember those? They were taken back in the 40-50's:

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=old+photos+of+people+sitting+on+the+moon&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1152&bih=749&tbm=isch&tbnid=xSODtCA8-DCfmM:&imgrefurl=http://blog.fossil.com/%3Fs%3Dmoon&docid=H4Q0NOzwa9WtlM&imgurl=http://blog.fossil.com/wp-content/themes/whiteboard/uploads/papermoon02.jpg&w=472&h=647&ei=2ZHnTr6fA5Kftwe5h_mjCg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=486&sig=107772915032962339920&page=1&tbnh=126&tbnw=91&start=0amp;ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:0&tx=61&ty=66

Here is a link that might be useful: Posed on the moon

How cute, Kay! I'd forgotten about those.

I'm going to be checking the antique stores for invisible mothers, too. :-)

Interesting. I have some old baby pictures of relatives I'll have to check out. Some of these women look like they're wearing burkas. In the picture of my dogs in antlers I took last night, my husband's hands are in the photo to hold them together. Does this count?

Lily: Yes. :-)

Wow - that is really weird. Now I too want to go check out all the old family photos and see if they're are any like that.

Kay, that is adorable! lol

these are very odd pictures, Susan!

Some of those "creepy" photos are actually recently deceased children being held up for a "last" picture.
In fact older children and adults (dead) are actually propped up on a sort of "stand", many times with the
remaining family too. Check for a "stand" by the feet.
Sorry, gross but that was their way back then...

I've never heard of that, Pekemom, and I'm old!

Oh, how sad! It makes sense, though. Often this was the only picture taken of the child--or adult, for that matter. Suddenly it became important to have a likeness of him or her.

What an interesting post. Great photos too. I have a box of really old photos from my Dad but I didn't notice any invisible Mothers.

That's really interesting! I had no idea they did that.

or the poor donkey in mexico, painted like a zebra, we have...

How clever of you to pique our interest. I enjoyed those so much. Love learning about the past.

Kay I would pose with my family in your picture. I wonder if a photographer would be interested in that.

I think it could be a rage again.

I thought I was looking at the Adams Family. LOL

Looking at those pictures, some are post mortem...

By 1890, shutter speeds for portraits had improved enough so that one could make an acceptable exposure if the subject sat reasonably still. In the early days of the daugerrotype (tin type), exposures were slow in less than bright light. Often, a means of steadying the subject was employed. A steadying rod was placed behind the subject. A head rest could be moved up and down to fit to the subject. The subject rested the back of his head against the support. The photographer had to carefully position everything to hide the apparatus behind the head and neck of the subject. Making a several seconds long exposure affected the expression on people faces. In the first place, there was some timidness associated with "picture taking". Many shots were made with dour expressions. I suppose it was too difficult to hold a steady smile. Try it - Stand before a mirror. You'll see small changes occuring in a smile. When the subject does manage to hold a 'smile', it appears wooden and forced, not natural. A relaxed or somewhat dour expression can be held - strange isn't it?

Another interesting feature in old photos is the pose. For example, a photo of a couple: If the man is seated and the woman stands slightly behind and to the left of the man, it may be a wedding or engagement picture. In this arrangement, the photographer may choose to make a bust shot of the couple or include their entire bodies.

For a daugerrotype, there is no negative. The final image is made on original camera plate. The image is reversed left-to-right. This reversal is one test for identifying originals. A sidelight to this is it was thought that Billy The Kid was left handed. Photos of him wearing his pistol shows it on the left with the gun butt pointed to the rear. This would be the gun placement for a left hand draw. That was until it was realized these photos were reversed and Billy was actully right handed.

Another feature; Look for a wedding ring on the subject's hand in these photos. In a tin-type, it wiil seem to be on the right hand due to the reversal of image.

This also means that if you are trying to identify old houses, building, or other structures, beware of image reversal on certain photo media. Printed materials such as street signs will be reversed as well. For that reason, photographers tended to avoid printed material in their shots.

To make things interesting, sometimes in modern photos made from negatives, the photo-finisher gets the negative upside down and inadvertently reverses the image. This is a common mistake made by hobbyists, and if the finished photo is good, the do not throw it away.

That site was fascinating, I've gone through 3 decades so far and plan to go back. Thanks.

That wasn't MY picture, but one I found on the internet, that is LIKE the one I have, somewhere, of my sister sitting on the moon.

That was interesting....and cool! :0)

I have a photo of my 3 year old self sitting on Santa's lap, screaming, while he holds me tightly around the waist. I was really scared of everybody in those days!

I've seen many post-mortem pictures online and I have to say that none of those on the site the first poster linked to looked deceased to me at first glance. Why would you need to hold a dead child to keep them still?

My statement above was referring to what Pekemon posted.

I doubt anyone alive today commonly saw a posed photograph of a deceased person who had died a natural death, but it was not uncommon years ago.

You wouldn't need to hold a dead child to keep them still,
you'd hold them to keep them from falling over. In most cases
it looks like they prop up or lay the child down.
Check out post mortem photos on Google if you want to see a range
of those photos. Some are easy to spot, some are not.
Most pictures taken back then are of live people though.

I have looked at many old post-mortem pictures online and I know they don't always look dead but I just don't see any in the link above that look deceased to me. All but the smallest babies seem to be holding themselves up to some degree and there isn't anything about the youngest babies that would make me assume they were deceased. Sure, it's possible, but there's nothing there for me to assume such a thing.

paula, it's just a guess since it was so common back then.
In the first photo there seems to be a stand between the child's legs.
Several others appear to be post mortem, to me, I could be wrong, I hope I am.

I just looked at that first photo again and I don't think she looks deceased but why is that person covered? She doesn't seem to be providing any child with physical support.

What I really noticed this time is that the picture is from a town only 10-15 minutes from me. Pillow, PA is just north of me.

They don't look deceased to me, except perhaps the double picture near the middle. Or the baby could simply be asleep. I can't imagine they would attempt to pose a postmortem portrait standing up. Was that ever done?

The fourth from the top--the one with the knees showing--must be an invisible father. Women didn't wear pants in those days, did they?

I've seen many held up by a stand. Very old photos.
Came across them when I was looking at old pictures,
civil war period to the early 1900's.

Learned something new today. Did not realize all that was posted in yours and from others
Thanks
M

Dang Strange! Especially the ones with the shape of the head under the blanket of some sort and then the feet or skirt showing...what were they thinking? It is a wonder those babies weren't screaming their heads off, that is kinda creepy, don't ya think? And I bet they thought they were so dapper back then. NOT!! But what we do today people in the future will be discussing what we have done much like we are doing right now about those people of the past....LOL