The story is a journey as a tourist around the eastern Adriatic. Out of the hundreds of possible images I chose these few. I rejected pairs like this taken in Malta …
(insufficient connection between the images)
and this …
(the fish farm doesn’t say enough about the castle on the point)
and this …
(neither image is interesting enough though I did enjoy the contrast between the girl in costume and the dozing man, ideal (from the tourist point of view) and ugly in the same frame).
One set of images, the, for want of a better word, ugly set, is just as representative of what was there as the other set. In fact there was more ugly than pretty and a documentary showing the degeneration of ancient cities would be quite feasible while one showing only the commercial side would not show even half the truth. Both would be convincing because both are available to the camera. I looked for the truth and found only images that could be interpreted according to some kind of stereotype or preconceived notion of what makes a good tourist photograph.
All the images are taken from ‘real life’, though I would have like to have taken more pictures of people as I did for Project 3 but the guided tours left me pressed for time and always accompanied by a crowd. (https://christopherwlog.wordpress.com/category/coursework/part-1-the-photograph-as-document/project-3-reportage-part-1-the-photograph-as-document/)
Ignoring the ideas suggested in the brief is risky. The brief assumes scenarios whereas I chose scenes. My set is less immediate and personal but I believe still shows essential ‘truths’.
Images are well exposed and processed. Looking back, I would have preferred to use a much wider aperture to separate the girl selling almonds from her background. The focus in pair #3 of the boy sitting on the pile is perhaps too soft.
I rely on the footnotes to demonstrate research and knowledge.
Chris Whittle 