this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2026
42 points (97.7% liked)
HistoryPhotos
1166 readers
225 users here now
HistoryPhotos is for photographs (or, if it can be found, film) of the past, recent or distant! Give us a little snapshot of history!
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
- No genocide or atrocity denialism.
- Photos MUST be at LEAST 10 years old, and ideally over 20. We appreciate that we are living through events which will become history, but this is ultimately not a comm for news or current affairs, but events which have occurred some time in the past.
Related Communities:
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !historymusic@quokk.au
- !historygallery@quokk.au
- !historymemes@piefed.social
- !historyruins@piefed.social
- !historyart@piefed.social
- !historyartifacts@piefed.social
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Apparently a lot of Victorian photographs of kittens were of dead/taxidermied ones, as the film they had wasn’t fast enough to capture live kittens.
Sadly makes sense for the Victorian Age, altho I understand that by the 1910's, short and instant exposures were available in several cameras.
Frees being a successful, popular photographer, I would tend to think he had access to the newer tech. That still leaves the issue of what state his animals were actually in. I almost don't want to know.