[URL=http://www.babyphotoretouch.com/]This is what I’m talking about.
The gist: Woman gets pregnant. Baby is stillborn. Woman, who happens to be a photo retoucher by trade, wants to be able to show pictures of her baby to her friends and family. Woman retouches baby photos to show a living, if sleeping heavily, baby. Woman decides there’s a market for this.
And apparently, there is.
I mean, am I in the wrong for being mightily creeped out by this?
Oh, that’s right- can’t link here. Any mods want to move this to a more appropriate board?
You can link here, you just forgot the quotation marks.
Here 'ya go- Link.
Regarding the OP, pretty nutso if you ask me.
Here’s the fixed url.
And yes, it’s very creepy.
“Recover a Little Bit of What Was Lost” :eek:
Ooh, that creeps me out too, but then I’m not a bereaved parent. They might feel differently.
The before/after pics are particularly disturbing.
I vote SICKO.
Although neither am I a bereaved parent. I can’t imagine how I would feel in that situation.
Who knew they even *took *pictures of stillborns, stuffed animals and gown and all?
Another vote for “Jesus Christ almighty, that’s creepy!”
It reminds me of the scene in Howard Stern’s: Private Parts when he makes a joke to his wife that “Hey, we can take a picture of our toilet for your parents and tell them it’s their grandson.”
Disturbing as FUCK!!!
A friend of mine has a picture in her hallway of a dead bird that was repainted. It looks beautiful. But it’s not designed to make the bird look alive. Or to make give the viewer some sick and twisted falacy of a living pet.
Hmmm…do you think a business in human taxedermy would do well? I mean, why settle for just pictures of your dead one’s seemingly alive?
I worked with a woman who passed pictures around of her stillborn 5-month baby. It was very sad.
I mentioned this story to a co-worker at a different company, and she said she kept pictures of her dead baby. But she keeps them in her immediate family.
Well,
I don’t need to buy lunch today.
[shudder]
It is creepy, but I think that, given the situation, it would be a valuable resource for grieving parents. That is, for the parents, and their families to have such a momento to keep. A conversation that I was a part of many months ago, was similar, although, much creepier, IMHO, because it was about parents of stillborns who had homepages online, dedicated to their lost babies, and always included photos, many times, several photos. There’s a webring for it, and everything. I would think(not having any experience) that, if it were me, I would want some photos, for myself, to keep, but to put them up on the net to share with the masses? Uh…no.
~V
Not creepy at all. These parents lost a child they wanted.
This woman is just giving the parents something to help them remember. These babies never had the chance to have their pictures taken when they were alive.
Postmortem photography was actually quite common in the 19th and early 20th centuries—see the book Sleeping Beauty: Memorial Photography in America. I do find it creepy, but apparently thousands of others find it somehow comforting.
Not creepy, but disturbing only because anything dealing with dead children is disturbing.
She’s allowing the parents to see what their child would’ve looked like, had it been healthy and alive.
People use to have “death portraits” made of their children, sometimes propped up among other family members.
Wealthier families would even have dolls made to look like the babies they had lost.
Friends of ours had pictures taken of their baby, who died a few hours after birth. They weren’t professional pictures, but they did bathe and dress the baby and took her picture with her mother holding her.
It was very important to them to remember the baby as a particular person, not as a mistake or a memory to be blotted out as soon as possible.
Dammit, Eve! You beat me to it again! (Well, I guess great minds think alike.) Have you had a chance to look through the whole book? It’s very interesting.
FWIW, the book contains all sorts of pictures of dead people who are posed to look like they’re sleeping.
To me it seems creepy as all get-out, but I think cher3 made a very important point when she posted:
–Cliffy
I was somewhat creeped out when my friend told me they had photos like this taken. (they lost their daughter on Christmas, no less)
When I saw the photo though it was very tasteful, albeit very sad.
While I agree with what cher3 said on principle, I find it abhorrent practice to dress up and photograph the dead baby as though it were something alive.
My wife and I lost two babies to miscarriage. It was one of the hardest times in our lives. We have names for them, and we sometimes look at the ultrasound printouts we have of them (our only photos), but I would never want a photograph of the dead child. There’s nothing there, it’s just a lump of dead flesh. It’s just a reminder to me of what we lost. Looking at the URL Lightnin’ posted made me physically ill, and I’m no lightweight. More than margianlly creepy to me.
Sorry, not trying to judge others who have had this done… it just creates a gut reaction (literally) in me that is very unpleasant.
Up until the 80s, malformed or perfectly formed stillborn babies were whisked away and disposed of without the mother (sometimes the father as well) having seen them. The mother then had a very hard time accepting what had happened and often assumed she had given birth to a monstrously deformed baby resulting in nightmares and mental stability problems. Aften a fair amount of research, from the 80s on, it was realised that it was very important for the parents to look at, touch and talk to their dead baby, even if it had been born without a brain etc. I guess taking pictures has also now been included.
Accepting what has happened and that the baby is not a monster is very important for the mental health of the parents.