I think the eye-thing is because he’s wearing spectacles with very thin frames. The photo is a little blurry, but I think I can make out the nose piece.
If you’re correct about the head support, his odd posture might be a result of the support not being quite tall enough for him to stand properly erect.
That sounds reasonable, and might account for the slightly drawn-in position of his head, if he’s trying to conform himself to a head caliper; so it’s unrelated to the lump under his coat? I wonder what that lump is, then – a pet weasel in his pocket?
ETA - Scumpup beat me to it.
That’s another argument for the man being alive. If you imagine the photographer went to all the trouble of dressing a corpse, setting up a stand that can support its weight, getting the head, feet, and hands positioned right, fixing the jaw shut, and so on, it makes even less sense for him to have neglected that button. Whereas if it’s a living photo, it’s possible it was done hastily or sloppily.
Early photographic emulsions were sensitive to blue light only. That is, red colours would appear too dark (silent movie actors used green lipstick to look more natural). Whereas blue colours would become lighter (the sky in old photos is usually bright white, not because the weather was nicer back in the day, but because it’s overexposed).
So, if this man had blue eyes, they would appear unnanturally bright. Like this guy here from a Civil War photo. Brandy Station: 1864 | Shorpy Old Photos | Framed Prints
Yeah, I thought, the exposure time couldn’t have been too long, because, if that’s an angler in a boat there, it would have drifted around. …Then I realised the window is painted. :smack:
Look at this one - the live children are a little blurry, but the dead one is perfectly still and clear. It’s very beautiful.
IANA photography expert, but this thing appears to be a “tintype” (it’s very thin and has a little rust on the back), and I found one source stating that exposure times for that process were 3-20 seconds.
I will have to wait until I get home to look at some of the photos other posters linked to; my employer blocks Flickr but not Photobucket. Weird, but I’m certainly not going to alert them to their inconsistency.
Exposure time depended on lighting. For the wet glass plates my boyfriend does, in bright sun (which is the shortest time) you still have to stand there for 15 seconds. I believe these tintypes do have somewhat shorter exposure times, but 15 seconds is a LOT longer than you’d think. He doesn’t use armatures or anything - you can manage to be still for that long - but it’s very hard not to blink and you end up looking exactly like 19th century people.
You’d think so, but in Dr. Burns’ collections there are several photos of corpses bleeding from the nose or mouth and you wonder why the survivors dressed them up so nicely and then didn’t trouble to wipe away the blood.
I bet the person on the picture is dead by now.
Thanks for the unasked for reminder, fiddlesticks. I loved that film and had been trying to remember its title for ages. Quirky and creepy as hell, but absolutely fascinating, all the same. 
What’s funny is that I actually felt something like relief when I decided these guys were right and I was wrong about its being post-mortem – thinking, “Whew, poor guy’s not dead after all! … oh, wait a minute …”
The guy was ugly, ill-dressed but alive. There’s plenty of photos of living people with armatures visible (including one, IIRC, of Lincoln). It was a common studio prop at the time.
I don’t think this is an example of blinks captured during a long exposure. First, by 1921, the date of this image, “fast” roll and sheet film was available that could easily capture an exposure in a fraction of a second. Second, this image is obviously taken with a flash.
I agree that the eyes look a little funny, and I don’t know exactly why, but I’m 99% sure it’s not because of the long exposure.
Looks long enough to capture both eyes open and eyes shut.
Now I’ve had a chance to look at that flickr site … very interesting. I notice, though, that there’s one photo with a standing subject that “Memento Mori” contends is post-mortem, but the allegedly dead girl looks even livelier than my guy.
It’s even creepier when it’s bigger!
Yeah, but her eyes are painted in. And possibly looking back at me to steal my soul.
Also, look at her hands.
No wonder Great-Grandma was always so cheerful; because she wasn’t living back then anymore.
“Sarah, Mordecai; stand over yonder 'neath the Parlor Wall of Disapproving Relatives, right next to your freshly dead sister’s consumptive corpse, and hold very still for several minutes. Tsk! Mordecai, your late sister’s head hath fallen sidewise; make haste and straighten her funeral weed hat. Obey thy loving father, Mordecai!”
The moral: Dads of any era should not be allowed near cameras.
I’m unconvinced that is actually post mortem. I’ve seen hundreds of p-m pictures and none of them involved posing the deceased in a standing position or painting the eyelids. It is surely a disquieting picture and maybe there is a strange story behind it, but it isn’t that she’s dead.
Pictures with strange looking eyes are always scary.