I really don't know what i would do, i think that in this day and age; with photography so commonplace i wouldn't take any photo's of family members who had passed away, BUT, if having a photo taken was still so rare and expensive nowadays then i think i would.
Remember that those people who had those photo's taken probably wouldn't have had any other photo's of their loved ones and this would be the only reminder of their loved ones.
What i found most amazing is just how peaceful those babies and young children looked, just like they were asleep. Those photo's must have been a great source of comfort to the parents, seeing their child no longer in pain, but lying peacefully, as if asleep and as most victorians were deeply religious they would know/think that the child was safely in God's arms.
I didn't find it morbid at all, but i do know an old friend who had 3 babies, all stillborn and she had photo's of them on display, don't get me wrong, I see nothing wrong with this and see it as a way of greiving, but the babies were very early stillborns and not totally developed, 1 was stillborn at 16 weeks, none were over 20 weeks. Now personally i found that very hard to deal with, not only that the babies were not fully developed, but also that she had them on display in her lounge, she showed me them and expected me to say something, what could i say to her? I am sure that she found comfort in those photo's, but to me they should have been kept private and not on show at all. A bit like the old photo's, which i am sure weren't placed on the family mantle piece when they were taken all those years ago.