listenly:

cactuseeds:

this is
oh my god
didn’t even see it was
moVING

click on it

listenly:

cactuseeds:

this is

oh my god

didn’t even see it was

moVING

click on it

(Source: aztec-jungle, via thesnowqueer)

prettyshake:

dead-people-cant-stand:


Pictures Of The Dead - The Truth About Post Mortem Photography
To some, the very idea of Victorian Post Mortem Photography can be chilling… especially when you see these images where a deceased loved one appears to be alive. Sitting with family, standing and posing… like they did in life. They appear to be alive because… they are! When these images were taken, the people posing were very much alive and kicking.
There is a lot of misunderstanding going on about antique post mortem photos showing the deceased standing upright and the use of the posing stand. The purpose of the posing stand was to stop you from moving, staying in position because the exposure time took anywhere from 10 seconds to 30 minutes. That’s no lie… in 1939 to 1941, it took from 15 to 30 minutes for the camera to process the image. So many times, even with the stand… the eyes may still look funny, possibly from looking around or blinking during the exposure.
I should also note that posing stands weren’t strong enough to ‘hold’ a body up. So if you see an image with a posing stand behind the person, they are most certainly alive. Dead people don’t need help standing still.
Many eBay sellers are jacking prices and pushing images as post mortem because of the stand showing and the odd faces (expressions), or awkward poses. These sellers also like to show a close-up of a “dark” hand… as if that somehow validates their standing post mortem claim. Nonsense.
There are dozens if not 100′s of examples of these post mortem hoaxes on eBay right now. Don’t buy into it. Victorians didn’t pose their loved ones as these sellers would like you to believe. They are clearly trying to trick new collectors into buying them and these photos are worth a fraction of what they are selling them for.
It was customary to pose their dead lying down in beds, cribs, coffins, or even couches in their home surrounded by flowers. Or posed in their coffins with family outside just before burial. Sadly, this was very common because it may have been the only photo ever taken of the person.
On a personal note… to me as a photographer… I find the post mortem photos to bring a life full circle so I’m not freaked out about it. We should photograph from birth to death and document entire lives. It’s not creepy or morbid… it’s life.
Real Antique Post Mortem Photo of Montreal Woman

Some examples of fakes that can be found online…
Mother and child… fake post mortem selling online for over $400. Looks like a sleeping baby to us.

Baby selling online for $245… fake post mortem babies are the most popular it seems.

Fake post mortem woman for sale online for $70.

Fake post mortem child for sale online now. Notice the stand.

Same post mortem child for sale online… obviously a fake.


This is incredible! Love it all :)
However, I should point out that the pictures of the mother holding her child , as well as the “sleeping” baby that you said are fakes, are in fact, actually postmortems. 

I like the sentiment, but it’s weakened by some of the dates - the idea that between 1939 and 1941 (she/he says nineteen, not eighteen thirty nine and forty one, mind) it took between 10 and 30 minutes to process an image is way, way, off. Regarding Daguerrotypes, “After 1840 (that’s EIGHTEEN) the exposure time was reduced to between five and forty SECONDS due to improved lenses and more sensitive plates”*. Lighting conditions and availability of equipment would have caused significant variations in this, but a knowledge of changing exposure times over the decades is critical to offering a reason for posing stands. 5 to 40 seconds is still a long time for a child to hold still, hence the posing stand, but it’s not 10 minutes plus! Ref http://www.nationalcowboymuseum.org/research/exhibits/20th-cent-photo/processes.aspx

I’m glad you said that — this particular blogger has been saying that pictures from 1939-1941 took up to 30 minutes to process in multiple posts, and that’s simply not correct. The oldest known photo of human beings from 1838 is said to have taken only 20 minutes at most.

prettyshake:

dead-people-cant-stand:

Pictures Of The Dead - The Truth About Post Mortem Photography

To some, the very idea of Victorian Post Mortem Photography can be chilling… especially when you see these images where a deceased loved one appears to be alive. Sitting with family, standing and posing… like they did in life. They appear to be alive because… they are! When these images were taken, the people posing were very much alive and kicking.

There is a lot of misunderstanding going on about antique post mortem photos showing the deceased standing upright and the use of the posing stand. The purpose of the posing stand was to stop you from moving, staying in position because the exposure time took anywhere from 10 seconds to 30 minutes. That’s no lie… in 1939 to 1941, it took from 15 to 30 minutes for the camera to process the image. So many times, even with the stand… the eyes may still look funny, possibly from looking around or blinking during the exposure.

I should also note that posing stands weren’t strong enough to ‘hold’ a body up. So if you see an image with a posing stand behind the person, they are most certainly alive. Dead people don’t need help standing still.

Many eBay sellers are jacking prices and pushing images as post mortem because of the stand showing and the odd faces (expressions), or awkward poses. These sellers also like to show a close-up of a “dark” hand… as if that somehow validates their standing post mortem claim. Nonsense.

There are dozens if not 100′s of examples of these post mortem hoaxes on eBay right now. Don’t buy into it. Victorians didn’t pose their loved ones as these sellers would like you to believe. They are clearly trying to trick new collectors into buying them and these photos are worth a fraction of what they are selling them for.

It was customary to pose their dead lying down in beds, cribs, coffins, or even couches in their home surrounded by flowers. Or posed in their coffins with family outside just before burial. Sadly, this was very common because it may have been the only photo ever taken of the person.

On a personal note… to me as a photographer… I find the post mortem photos to bring a life full circle so I’m not freaked out about it. We should photograph from birth to death and document entire lives. It’s not creepy or morbid… it’s life.

Real Post Mortem Photo

Real Antique Post Mortem Photo of Montreal Woman

Some examples of fakes that can be found online…

momma-with-baby

Mother and child… fake post mortem selling online for over $400. Looks like a sleeping baby to us.

fake-post-mortem

Baby selling online for $245… fake post mortem babies are the most popular it seems.

fake-post-mortem-woman

Fake post mortem woman for sale online for $70.

fake-post-mortem-boy1

Fake post mortem child for sale online now. Notice the stand.

fake-post-mortem-boy

Same post mortem child for sale online… obviously a fake.

This is incredible! Love it all :)

However, I should point out that the pictures of the mother holding her child , as well as the “sleeping” baby that you said are fakes, are in fact, actually postmortems. 

I like the sentiment, but it’s weakened by some of the dates - the idea that between 1939 and 1941 (she/he says nineteen, not eighteen thirty nine and forty one, mind) it took between 10 and 30 minutes to process an image is way, way, off. Regarding Daguerrotypes, “After 1840 (that’s EIGHTEEN) the exposure time was reduced to between five and forty SECONDS due to improved lenses and more sensitive plates”*. Lighting conditions and availability of equipment would have caused significant variations in this, but a knowledge of changing exposure times over the decades is critical to offering a reason for posing stands. 5 to 40 seconds is still a long time for a child to hold still, hence the posing stand, but it’s not 10 minutes plus! Ref http://www.nationalcowboymuseum.org/research/exhibits/20th-cent-photo/processes.aspx

I’m glad you said that — this particular blogger has been saying that pictures from 1939-1941 took up to 30 minutes to process in multiple posts, and that’s simply not correct. The oldest known photo of human beings from 1838 is said to have taken only 20 minutes at most.

(Source: cabinetcurious)

theslendeyman:

broken-bones-and-golden-thrones:

dildosoup:

Someone please explain this

No one explain it

Took me a second

SPOILER:
http://youtu.be/lj07rDpYmbY

theslendeyman:

broken-bones-and-golden-thrones:

dildosoup:

Someone please explain this

No one explain it

Took me a second

SPOILER:

http://youtu.be/lj07rDpYmbY

(Source: spicy-vagina-tacos, via thesnowqueer)

jollityfarm:

arsvallis:

rosaluxmemeburg:

fawnflight:

”I hate capitalism.” typed the communist individual on their MacBook Pro, a product that is a result of capitalism.

”I hate feudalism.” wrote the burgher with their printing press, a product that is a result of feudalism.

"there is only one G*d" said the early christians as they traveled through roman roads, a product of a pagan empire.

image

(via thesnowqueer)

"He’s got the boner again. Well at least this time it makes sense."

(Source: bdnw, via disregardthatfrank)

goregirlsdungeon:

A SINGLE MAN (2009) directed by Tom Ford

goregirlsdungeon:

A SINGLE MAN (2009) directed by Tom Ford

rebelliousmom:

manhatingfeminist:

More people are concerned with why women stay in abusive relationships than why men are abusing women

real talk

(Source: manhatinglesbian, via kieslowski)

neenuhbee:

queenaisling:

a-weeping-fangirl:

When the back of a book has a bunch of reviews instead of a summary

Except for Ellen’s book right

image

and tina fey’s
image 

(Source: cosettemartell, via feelsmoor)

(Source: sandandglass, via feelsmoor)

(Source: angelcasimiro, via thorsies)

"You have to remember that Star Trek exists in two contexts, and while race and gender discrimination supposedly doesn’t exist in the Star Trek world, it’s undeniable that it exists in ours and therefore manifests in the other.

When 90% of the captains in the Federation are white dudes, one has to start wondering at what point should we start realizing that we are assigning our contemporary privileges on to a show that is supposed to be about progress.

Furthermore, identity politics are important in television because television doesn’t represent us. I once saw Avery Brooks, and someone asked him what the biggest change in Hollywood has been since he started, and he said that it was nothing. That he was still waiting for the change. That he was still waiting for Hollywood look like the world.

We need identity representation in the media because it doesn’t exist, whether you like it or not.

As such, Brooks’ position has always been interesting to me. In Star Trek, his character isn’t defined by race, as you sort of point out. Yet, the first thing we think about when we think of Sisko is that he was the first black captain. That should let you know how important these two contexts a show lies are. There is what it supposed to be, and then there is what it is.

Let’s face it. The original series of Star Trek was a mess of sexism and neo-colonialism, and TNG has more than a few problems smoothing over cultures to fit Federation standards, and then touting it as a good thing. Star Trek isn’t perfect because the people of today write it, and that’s worth looking at it. That’s why identity in Star Trek is important."

— Alison “Boom” Baumgartner, (Comment on “Who Will Be the Next Star Trek Captain”)

(Source: boomslovingthealien, via winneganfake)

citizenscreen:

Judy Garland performs “The Man That Got Away” in A STAR IS BORN (1954).  

No words!


Blue Velvet (David Lynch, 1986)

Blue Velvet (David Lynch, 1986)

(Source: danieldaylewiswithamoustache, via goregirlsdungeon)

suicidewatch:

Nick Cave and The Bad Seeds “Up Jumped The Devil”

universalmonsterstribute:

On the set of This Island Earth  (1955)

universalmonsterstribute:

On the set of This Island Earth (1955)

(Source: dochermes.livejournal.com, via arcaneimages)