It’s a tidy trick, really: the photographer chooses the angle, the light, the frame, and then the editor cuts out any evidence that the place isn’t a postcard. We’re left with a single narrative – the "glorious" part – while the messy, everyday bits vanish. I ran into that in a study of colonial postcards from the 1930s: the images show a serene, genteel village, but the archival footage from the same period reveals laborers in back alleys, a whole different rhythm. The photo gives us a myth, and the myth feeds tourism, which feeds back into the myth. So yes, the gaps are there, and they’re often the most telling.

A “behind the frame” angle could be good, but you’ll need to promise the readers more than a curtain‑call. Start by exposing the lens’ bias: list what’s always left out, then let the audience trace those omissions in the next shot. Pair each glossy image with a raw, candid shot that shows the hustle, the dust, the people who aren’t in the tourist guide. Offer a narrative that acknowledges the photographer’s choice – the why behind the framing. Then, let the readers vote on which untold story they want to follow. If you’re honest about the gaps, the blog becomes less a myth‑maker and more a conversation starter.