I was pondering this thread last night and that dawned on me (I'm slow on the uptake) - which made me understand the differences between the two sets of pictures.
In this case the majority of pictures are (I assume) intended to be primarily illustrational, whereas those in Branch are both documentary (as in showing what was/is going on) and evocative of a sense of place.
Essentially, yes. An ethnography is a research based study into groups of people... an anthropological study. This is why I say the photography is ALMOST incidental to the project. That's not to say it's immaterial, just that pushing creativity and aesthetics too far serves no real purpose for the project. They are indeed illustrative, and very much recording of actions and activities etc. The formal portraits were planned as a section before the bibliography as a "photo album" of the mermaids "dressed" as it were, so some are lit, and posed for that purpose. Everything else is there to scene set, allow the viewer a glimpse into certain things, like Vaughan's solitary tail wearing on the beach, or Kat's tail making activities, and of course Lily-Rose's professional performances.
I understand that this is still in a development stage, if we can watch it develop on here it might prove informative to a lot of people to see how thought processes work. Which is far more important to making good work than knowing how to use a camera 'correctly'.
It probably would, but I feel this forum needs a dedicated section for project based work (that's not a 365 or other stuff) otherwise it just brings out the camera club types who just rant for three pages in some retaliatory way because of who is posting rather than what is being posted... ruining the thread for those who are genuinely interested.
I don't go into the glamour forum to attack all the objectifying soft porn
(sort it out TP it's 2015 not 1975.. has the concept of feminism not reached TP towers yet?) in there, so if this was in a dedicated section, then they'd not be able to to do that so easily, as they're then purposely be going into a section where there is photography they know full well they'll hate, just say how much they hate it... which would cast them in a fairly doubtful light. As it stands here, they can hide behind the "crit" argument... or at least
try to, even though there was no real crit in this thread until this page. If I went into the wildlife forum to do what Bill did in here.... I'd be accused of all manner of things. I have no interest in that work, so therefore I don't go in there.
I can't swim
In all seriousness... that's not what I meant. I mean the travel prevents me spending a lot of time with these people socially, whereas with Branch I did, and continue to do so. I became a members of the society.. I work alongside them.. I get my hands dirty. I'll be there again in the morning laying new tarmac at Thornton station actually. In many ways, Branch would have made a better ethnography for that reason. However, Merfolk makes up for it with the huge amount of oral testimony (I've also been spending a great deal of time on Skype with US mermaids), so while it's not about immersion like Branch is, it is incredibly information rich.. but that will not necessarily show in the images... if you think about it, it's impossible to show that in the images. I wanted Branch to be just a documentary project though, and had already developed along those lines. I've been working on Branch since September last year. I'd already been working with these guys for weeks before I even thought about taking a camera with me. With Merfolk, they agreed to collaborate knowing it would be what it is from the outset. They are two extremely different projects.
