The source of the visual is unclear, but most likely created by the ethnographer. Like others have pointed out, the photograph depicts a small settlement in the mountain. It shows an idyllic and calm atmosphere, but together with the caption, this feeling can be easily unsettled. The structures of industrial agriculture (greenhouses?) blend in seamlessly.
The caption does a great job at introducing the overall aim of the project, making this visual (or similar) a potential cover image. However, the caption features little description of the photograph itself -- to enrich its message, it could be juxtaposed with other images, e.g. agribusiness advertisements. Such a contrast would draw out what we see and don't see in the image, and what would need to be provided by the caption.
Having, like others, read the photograph as romantic and picturesque, you could play with different techniques that draw out the ethnographic import of the image. I could imagine that contrasting the photo with a representation of agribusiness (an ad, a logo, another photograph) could work well. Miriam has an intreresting image in her set that also depicts toxic farming practices, but it's a graffiti mural. How do the two images differ?
The visual and caption present an interesting take on toxic dynamics, moving between the "small" (family farmers) and the "large" (agribusiness). It clearly points to toxic dynamics of dependency between the two. The visual could be read as reproducing the toxic gaze of a pesticide producer -- pointing to the large scale while obscuring (ignoring?) relations on the ground. The visual could also draw out more what enables small family farming to subsist and resist – what "smallness" (particularities?) does a "large" agricultural company depend upon? Curious to see more!
