Adding deceased relatives to photos

My mother had a baby just after WW2 who died at a few days old. Sadly the baby was taken away and buried in an unknown grave. She was told to get over it, relatives squabbled over the unneeded baby clothes and crib. Worse still she had to go to her post natal check up with all the mothers who had their babies with them. It didn't stop her being a lovely Mum to me and my brother, but she told me that first baby was often in her thoughts. How much would a photograph have meant to her!
However in regard to deceased relatives being photoshopped in, one of her siblings wanted to do that in a family photograph and she was horrified. If it helps those who are left, fair enough. But on a personal level, I think it quite macabre and would never want to do it.

The photographing of dead people, particularly children, isn't new. The Victorians did it all the time. Personally, I wouldn't want such a photograph when I'm likely to have others of when the person was still alive and the idea of photoshopping a dead relative into a later family gathering is bizarre.

As for babies, if it gives comfort to the parents then why not? And its good that the medical profession have stopped acting as though these tiny ones didn't matter.

I saw the photo on the Daily Mail website and thought it was strange, but that's probably because I've not heard of doing that before. I can see why someone might want to do it and in fact, given how long we've been able to edit photos on home computers, I'm surprised it hasn't been done years ago.

Personally I am not sure if I would want to do something like this, but perhaps that's because I have not had a loss where I would consider the possibility. So I don't think I can say I would never have it done.

Photography was not an everyday thing for the Victorians. Maybe they had no picture of the deceased person, taken when they were alive.
It could have seemed a way to honour a person's memory in an era when untimely death was far more common than now.

When I read the OP I thought "how creepy" about adding people to photographs nowadays. Seeing that wedding picture, tho, it seems touching to include a family member who should be there. I even like the ghostly look of the boy.

I wouldn't have a picture like that myself but I can understand people doing it.

Those photos are disturbing Katek but I can understand why they were done.
I think that adding the deceased to current photos isn't something I'd consider but for those who gain comfort from it, why not?

Certainly having a photo of a stillborn baby is very comforting for the parents, but not necessarily for public viewing.

My son was born prematurely and the nurses in the the Special Care Baby Unit took a photo of him for me to have by my bed on the ward. I was fortunate that he survived and is now a strapping six foot+ young man but I do still remember how comforting it was to have that photo always by me whilst we were separated.

On the original topic, however, we had a speaker at our WI recently who specialised in digitally enhancing photographs. She tolds us how she set about this and some of the many changes she had been asked to make to photographs. This included removing or adding family members for a huge number of reasons including subsequent divorce and bereavements but she did say that the most poignant change she had been asked to make was to add in a young lad who had predeceased his sibling. She had found it very challenging personally to carry out the task. However, the family who had asked her to make the change felt it completed their family photo so it must have given them some consolation.

I think it is very healthy to have a picture of a departed child or relative, but to add them to photos of the living is deeply disturbing/disturbed in my view.

Wordsworth wrote a poem "We are seven" about a little girl who insists that her family consists of seven - although two of them are sleeping in the chburchyard.

He lost a daughter before she was four - Catherine Wordsworth (who may have had Downs syndrome )

We've just done a family wall of photos taken over many years. Unfortunately I never met my father in law. My father passed away over 20yrs ago. It gives me peace of mind and lots of happy memories to see my dad and the dad I never met.

This is link to some of the Victorian pics where they did add the deceased. Warning: doesn't make for comfortable viewing.

www.viralnova.com/post-mortem-victorian-photographs/

Well - I was wondering whether you meant dead or alive!

Lol Jings! It's just that I'd been mentioning stillborn infants and deceased Victorian children so didn't want to leave slightest room for misunderstanding! Victorian pics are very odd indeed if you google them to see.

"To avoid confusion pics are of them when they're alive."

Phew!!!

It's not the photos being taken that I find strange, on the contrary I too would was picture of my baby that died. I've seen some beautiful pictures taken of "sleeping" babies. It's the fact that they are displayed on her wall and that with the incubator and all the equipment the poor child is hardly visible.
To me these are pictures to treasure but not have on display but if it's a comfort to her and DH who am I to criticize. Just my opinion.
On a happier note they now have two happy healthy girls.

I have looked at that picture and as long as it is not on every family portrait I don't find it particularly morbid.

The child in that photo looks at least eight so he was very much part of that family for along time. That family will still always think of him as their missing child/brother, why should his image be erased from that family as if he never existed? It helps keep everyone's memory of him.

I find the idea of adding deceased relatives to current photographs slightly nauseating. I empathise with the woman who added her dead son to her wedding photograph but I genuinely hope it stops there as part of her grieving process, rather than the lad being added to future family photographs.

The photographs of babies 'born sleeping' is totally different I feel. Almost 40 years ago my midwife friends told me she helped parents bath and dress their babies and took photographs of them. She was a lovely woman and dedicated midwife, who understood the need to somehow keep those babies with you. Let's hope that as our understanding of grief and loss continues to develop, mothers and father's will continue to have better care than that given to JamJar's mother.

JamJar, I ache for your mother, possibly it was a time when her son was whipped away from her , she never touched his little hands or cheek , he wasn't really dead because she didn't see him , wasn't allowed to grieve , perhaps even told - you will have more , her son was just a statistic , a still birth . But he was her son . I am sorry you were affected by the death of your brother,I think your mother was just so fearful the same would happen again and she even had to go into a mental hospital

I get so angry thinking how women who suffered the agony of giving birth to a child who had lost life were treated

Hi Anniebach yes no counselling at all and my father and her never spoke of the baby again. Mum was even sectioned for a short time after my brother was born. I'm sure a photo would have helped. I'm so sorry to hear you lost two babies.

I think what makes it difficult for me, is that the photos I've seen are not of the stillborn baby, but that it is a posed (often very stylised) professional photograph taken of the family...

I do understand that it can be comforting to have an image of babies that were lost at birth.

Oh - that is a creepy photo, especially as they have made the missing boy semi-transparent, like a sort of ghost.

I think the idea of washing and dressing a stillborn child makes a lot of sense. You have something real and loved to say goodbye to rather than something that exists only in your imagination.

Babies who die at birth have been loved for months , they lived , they were all little people ,many had names.

JamJar, perhaps your mother was too frightened to allow her emotions flow, the terror of the grief she had experienced was still with her , doubt there was any counselling for her and possibly she was not allowed to grieve openly.

There is an ache for the baby who died which never leaves one , it's a longing which is so difficult to explain , I still have that longing forty years on

You may have to click on pic to open it out

I know of a professional photographer who works for a charity taking pictures of stillborn infants. She has suffered her own loss of a prem baby so understands how these parents are feeling. Very brave of her to do this I think. I can just about get my head round this although it's not something I would want. I can't get to grips with adding the deceased into current family pics though. This is the pic from FB that started the thread. Presume it's ok to post as its already on a public forum.

There was a time, not many years ago , when mothers were encouraged to bath and dress their stillborn babies and they were placed in Moses baskets in the Chapel. I have not heard of this recently so don't know if this still happens.

I suppose the Mum with the baby pics wants to make sure they are not forgotten, their short lives are remembered, I would feel comfortable about seeing those pictures. My Mum's first baby was full term, still born at home, she never saw the baby but heard later it looked a perfect baby girl. It bothered her all her life and especially her last few weeks and being the next born she had huge problems accepting me, bonding, she never really did.