Tag Archives: Trees

Kyle Ford, Billboard with Trees

Kyle Ford, Billboard with Trees

Kyle Ford

Billboard with Trees,
Savannah, Georgia, 2008
From the Second Nature series
Website – KyleFordPhotography.com

Kyle Ford was born in the mountains of the Adirondack Park in upstate New York. He received his Bachelor of Sciences from Skidmore College in 2005 and his Master of Fine Arts from Savannah College of Art and Design in 2009. Kyle’s work has been featured in publications such as Newsweek Japan, Magenta’s Flash Forward and The Wall Street Journal. He is currently living in upstate New York and teaching classes at Skidmore College.

Michael George, Hiking Hocking Hills

Michael George, Hiking Hocking Hills

Michael George

Hiking Hocking Hills,
Ohio, 2011
From the Into the Trees series
Website – MichaelGeorgePhoto.com

Michael George (b. 1988) is a freelance photographer living in Brooklyn, New York. During this past year Michael's thesis, This is Not Real, was exhibited in the Gulf + Western Galleries located at 721 Broadway. The images and supplemental book chronicle a cross-country cycling trip that took Michael from Boston, Massachusetts to Santa Barbara, California. This summer Michael embarked on another trip from NYC to Niagara Falls. His work is generated from an insatiable interest in people, their beauty, and their quirks.

Photographer #388: Kim Boske

Kim Boske, 1978, The Netherlands, is an experimental photographer based in Amsterdam. She studied at the Royal Academy of Art in The Hague. Her photography deals with time, perspectives and space. It is a research in which time and space run together. She focuses on the mutability of things. In her series Mapping she merged different moments in time, investigating how physical movement in time and space change our perspectives. She photographed trees from different angles and when all the images are combined we actually see the tree in its entirety. She created images of flowers that combine several shots of the same object. The changing of light during the day was an important factor. Kim’s photographs reveal phenomena that are impossible to see or witness with the naked eye. Her work has been exhibited at several venues in the world and a large number of Dutch exhibition spaces. The following images come from the series Mapping, Collection of Sleepings and Awakanings and I Go Walking In Your Landscape.

Website: www.kimboske.com

Photographer #325: Paolo Ventura

Paolo Ventura, 1968, Italy, studied at the Accademia di Bella Arti di Brera in Milan and currently lives and works in New York. He envisioned scenes he wanted to photograph, but these situations could not be found anymore. Therefore he started to construct entire sets by hand. He creates miniature buildings, trees and other objects. At the same time he constructs all the figures himself, making tiny clothes for the little men and women that he uses as actors in his scenes to tell his narrative and magical stories. In 2006 he released his series War Souvenir as a monograph and in 2009 the book Winter Stories came out. In the last five years Paolo has exhibited extensively throughout the USA and Europe. The following images come from the series Civil War, Winter Stories and War Souvenir.

Website: www.paoloventura.com

What pictures do the public get to see?


M. Scott Brauer posted an interesting story about the dissemination of photography, using Russell Watkinsphotos of spiderweb-covered trees in the aftermath of flooding in Pakistan as an example. Apparently, those photos have been very widely featured, unlike, it seems, the underlying – actual – story. Watkins writes in a blog post “But how many of the people that have seen these images are being pulled in by them enough to stop and think about the far bigger problem that the images are just a symbol of? Of course its hard to say. […] I wrote in my previous post about how photography can be said to explain everything and yet reveal nothing. And now I find myself realising that I may have taken some photographs that illustrate precisely that characteristic.” (more)

It seems to me that the main reason why these photographs got so widely seen is because all those newspapers and websites that distributed them turned the trees into the story. So I’m tempted to think that it’s one of those photography problems that cannot really be solved by photographers. Instead, it needs to be addressed in the wider context of how images are used and distributed by newspapers and websites. Sadly, while there are many debates about the work of photographers, there aren’t nearly enough about the lives of photographs once they’re out of the hands of photographers.

Make no mistake, it’s not even a new topic. But we better start talking about it, because we might not realize this, but it’s often not the photographers who decide which photographs we get to see. It’s the photography departments of newspapers, magazines, and websites.

We all have a very vital interest in discussing this topic, since the images we get to see to a pretty large extent determine what we learn about the state of this world and what conclusions we draw from this. Sounds too lofty? Well, think about it this way: It’s mostly photographs that have come to form the public’s opinion about NATO’s actions in Libya. Our tax dollars pay for the bombs our jets are dropping there. Is that a good thing or not? To be able to decide about that, we need to be informed about things, and to a fairly large extent our information comes in the form of the images newspapers (or websites) run as part of their stories.

In the spiderweb-tree case, the connection is slightly more indirect, which makes things even more poignant: We could decide to get involved there, by donating money to charities who will help the survivors of the floods in Pakistan. But if the main story we see focuses on spiderweb trees (which, it is believed, help reduce malaria) are we more or less likely to maybe donate a little money?

Instead of asking “What pictures do the public want to see?” I think the real questions are “What pictures do the public get to see?”, “How are the picture presented?”, and “Do those pictures and the presentation help the public form educated opinions about topics that matter?”

In fact, the problem is becoming ever more pressing, now that so much reporting takes place in the form of sites like The Big Picture, where lots of large photos, with very short captions, are used to provide the big picture. It should be pretty obvious that seeing forty photographs of some topic will not even come close to giving you the big picture. But it’s much easier to look at forty photographs and to then think one has an idea of what’s going on than to read a long article.

The reason why I am stressing this so much is because I think photographers (especially photojournalists) have got a pretty bad rap, especially recently. A lot of the image-related problems we have seen recently are not really caused by the photographers (photojournalists) themselves, they are caused by how their photographs are being used.

– How to respond to a Call for Entries

Let’s be honest here, I sort through a ton of photography entries every week. I get so many, I forget who is who, often, even if I’ve seen it before; but there are some things I never forget.

The difference between a good entry and a bad entry is such a huge gap, it makes it very obvious for me what is worth a second look and what is not. I know, from the start, if I need to keep going.  How should a photographer successfully respond to a call for entries?

Firstly, follow the directions of the request. If the call for entries says, "Apply online at http://www.signup.com", don’t e-mail me, and don’t friend me on Facebook, Twitter, or Flickr. It doesn’t impress me that you stalked me all over the net. I’m mostly creeped out. If the call is for documentary photography, don’t submit photos of children and puppies taken with a camera phone and suggest it is quality documentary work. It’s not what we’re looking for. Follow directions!

When I get bad photographers, they usually have some things in common:

1. A Flickr account or something similar is the only place to see other work.

2. No contact information can be found anywhere or their contact information is incorrect.

3. Attached images are of weddings, children, pets, trees, or the homeless. Not really "documentary."

4. The personal message is something to the effect of: "what’s up? check out my photos. let me know if you want to buy stuff. -xoxo"

5. If I was contacted by e-mail, it was sent from an e-mail address like [email protected] 


When I do get a good photographer, there are a few things that seem always to be true, also:

1. They have a personal Web site (not Flickr, Carbonmade, etc.) that is easy to use.

2. The Web site has galleries that are descriptive and I know quickly what it is you are interested in, i.e. "Documentary," "Reportage," "Art." Often, when I get into that gallery I am given options of their recent work, say, an essay on the 2008 Presidential campaigns.

3. If I was contacted by e-mail, the message is short, it has a few links, offers advice on how to view their work, and it usually tells me what I might be most interested in.

4. They have full contact information included, no matter how they applied.

5. The photographs inspire a sense of curiosity and make me want to understand what is happening.  Essentially, the level of professionalism in their communication (whether it be via e-mail or on his or her Web site) often equals the professionalism of their work.  For this reason, I will begin exploring the ways to professionally communicate as a photographer and journalist. Consider this your primer.  What things jump out at you, or what do you wish everyone knew?


In a week or so I will follow up with a more thorough listing of rules to follow when responding to a call for entries.