Wiki article here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_headless_portrait"Victorian headless portraits were a fad in Britain in the late 19th century. In the photographs, the model's head appears separated from the body; often the sitter holds it in their own hands. Although this genre is called headless portraiture, it is the head that is always present in the photograph, and the body may be absent.Head of St. John the Baptist in a Charger by Oscar Gustave Rejlander, circa 1858An early example of the genre is photographer Oscar Gustave Rejlander's Head of St. John the Baptist in a Charger, a print made by combining two different negatives.The photograph dates from somewhere between 1855 and 1860. Photographer Henry Peach Robinson described Reilander's insistence on finding a model for John the Baptist saying that "Rejlander saw his head on the shoulders of a gentleman in the town. …The curious thing is, that he did not so much see the modern gentleman as always the picture which the head suggested. It was some months before the artist ventured to ask the model to lend his head … and years before he obtained his consent."Many later photographers created similar images of men and women with severed heads, depicted held in their hands, laid on a platter or held aloft by the hair. Often in the other hand, the sitter carries the weapon of their own murder. The demand for such photographs was so high that many Victorian photographers openly advertised this particular type of photography.The most prolific photographer in this genre was British photographer Samuel Kay Balbirnie, who ran advertisements in the Brighton Daily News offering "HEADLESS PHOTOGRAPHS - Ladies and Gentlemen taken showing their heads floating in the air or in their laps.""My gut is telling me this is straight up bs. I think these images are not authentic, and made more recently and backdated to seem legit.What do you feel about this anons, bs or real?Thanks in advance as always!
bump
>>42838685why
>>42839074It's a mindblowing portrait
>>42839074It seems like something someone in the modern world would show off as a historical oddity, like reverse retrofuturism.
It straight up looks like ai
>>42838685The original image looks weird, but that type of photography was real. Victorians discovered you could manipulate a photo during processing and went apeshit coming up with tricks to proto-photoshop. For example, the tiny waists you often associate with Victorian women in photos is kind of scam. They used corsets and binding to make their waists smaller, resulting in women passing out from lack of oxygen and permanently altering the shape of their ribs (and damaging organs because ribs aren't empty cages), but they found that using a plain or dark background allows the photographer to use a marker or something to physically cover parts of the waist while developing the photo.
>>42840388Yup
.
>>42842394kys (keep yourself safe), fag
>>42842398Uh...thanks.
bs as in how? they were capable of altering photographs during that time and had a huge industry dedicated to it. one of the reasons why people appeared more beautiful in older photographs is because those photographs were retouched.
Le bumpy
