Moving Rock

Martin - Of course we all agree that this is one fantastic image. A question: did you check

the bottom of the rock for wheels? I think we may never know the answer to this mystery.

Mister Ken

It never ceases to amaze me (sadly) how some people (e.g., a reviewer above) can

become so jaded to the natural environment. It's reminiscent of Reagan's purported

quote: "If you've seen one redwood, you've seen them all." Yes, this has been

photographed before, and it's one of the better captures of an extremely interesting,

somewhat mysterious phenomenon. What seems to set these images apart is the

background sky and angle of light striking the main subject (sound familiar?). I like

Martin's perspective, great depth of field (I originally thought that he had used a large

format system), and the sky is pretty good. As noted previously, the dark hill on the

left is less than ideal. I happened to see one photo in a gallery in Palm Springs where

the elements all came together: an incredible sky, and the rock was at the edge of

the shadow made by a setting sun. We deal with what we're given, and Martin has

done an excellent (not perfect) job with the elements that were in front of him. In

addition, I can appreciate the effort that was expended to get to this spot, and that

only enhances the image in my mind. I tried it once in a Ford Tempo, and one mile of

the worst washboard I've ever driven on made me turn back. Considering the fact

that some people leave footprints that will last for many years, and that other pick up

the rocks to keep as amulets or magical souveniers, one realizes that this kind of

image may become increasingly rare. Whether an image is common as a sunset,

rising moon, interior of a forest, coastal seascape, flock of birds, or ripples in a sand

dune, I will always appreciate the perspectives of photographers who bring together

the elements of light and composition in ways that capture the essence of a place. So

when I leave a positive comment or rating, it's not because I've been smoking crack;

it's because I really, really appreciate the place or object depicted in the photo.

Just a comment about the location. I had the chance to visit last year and took mainly black and white shots. The racetrack does have a very rough dirt road to get to it. This is one long dirt road and took about two hours each way. You feel good when you can go 15-20 miles an hour. I wasn't sure if it was going to be worth it. As a matter of fact one guy coming back tried to dissuade me from continuing the drive. He said he went all that way and then he found out he couldn't drive his 4x4 on it!

I loved the location! Talk about isolated. This place felt so remote. It was a great adventure. Just make sure you have very reliable transportation. As stated above these tracks and rocks are the real deal. While I did not find lots of them I was surprised as some of them were larger than I expected.

 

Best wishes!

C'mon ... I think we can all agree that the originality rating is highly subjective and means something different to everyone. I've often complained that there is no way on PN to differentiate an original experimental work from a technically perfect work of a subject that's been covered before. For me, I will admit that I tend to rate the Originality rating with the Aesthetic when I really like a picture. I don't want to kill the guy by giving him a 7/3 for a great picture. Next, this may be a common subject to people who have studied photography extensively or lived in the west, but it's not to me. I never saw a picture of it before today. I never saw the wave or a slot canyon until about a month ago. Kent, I see you have given a 6 in originalty to a picture of the streets of Naples (I absolutely LOVE that pic by the way) and I can pronmise you that that scene is in every guide book and post card shop in Naples. Everyone will interpet originality in their own way. Finally, even if the subject isn't original, his approach was. As I noted before, it's a rock on a plain. You can go horizontal or vertical, include more or less foreground, play with depth of field, but there are only so many options. Still, someone above provided us with a link to about a dozen pics and I think this doesn't look quite like any of them. Placed on that page, it would immediately stand out, IMO.

I think somebody from that mountain had a radio sender connected to the stone, did you check the antenna?

 

Great image! Just amazing!

The dark mountain is due to the graduated neutral density filter, probably 3 stop hard

edge, may be more. There is a tall mountain behind the photographer that extends

downward to the South of the dry lake toward the West (the dark one we see), the sun is

just starting to peak over and illuminates the high mountains on the West/South West,

everything else in the shot is in shadow. The only way to get a balanced shot is to use the

grad filter.

Yes, a good 4x4 is a must. Some years, especially after a wet Spring like 2005, it can be

awful. I have driven it in a Jeep Grand Cherokee without problem; the first time on a very

bumpy journey, the second on a very smooth surface (could have been done with a regular

car). The last time was with a Chevy Tahoe coming straight down from the Bristlecone Pine

forest in the White Mountains where we shot sunset with a friend. We arrived at the lake at

2am with broken front shocks, planted the tents at the foot of the lake to be ready for

sunrise. Everytime I went there (Summer) I didn't see a soul, a very solitary place, great

starry sky, bats landing on my shoulders, amazing place.

As someone above said, simply WOW! Even I thought it was taken with a large format camera, until Stephen Penland implied that it was not. Pardon my newbie ignorance here, but if it's not large format, then what is it? Is there someway to find out from a pic, it's details? (I am just about to get my first DSLR, so most likely these are stupid questions, and I should shut up). I would like to know what lens/focal length was this shot at.

Also, some people are commenting about originality. But I saw this particular shot for the first time. And only now do I know, that it's a cliched pic. So no matter if it's the thousandth time for someone else, it's always first time for some new kid somewhere. And frankly, after looking at the google images pointed by OceanPhysics I still think, this image can hold its own.

Hi.

 

To be frank I think it is a basic photograph but the phenomenon of the rock 'moving' is interesting. Perhaps a photo of a human skull in a dry African river bed would be beter, might provide the missing link. I think like the other poster said, a large format camera with movements would do the rock better.

I was not aware of the phenomenom nor of the location (until I read the discussion), and I

have not been to Death Valley. And (as far as I can remember) I have not seen any similar

images., so the subject was very novel to me.

 

The image certainly got my attention. Here are the things that I like about it:- a) it

expresses movement, yet the actual content - a rock sitting on the ground - is normally

the epitome of stasis. This presents a conceptual contrast; b) the contrast between the flat

fore/middle ground and the mountains; c) the light in the centre/rh background; and

finally d) the texture of the foreground & middleground; I can almost feel it.

 

I like the image very much.

You would think that it would be obvious what aspects of a shot make it better than similar compositions taken at the same location. All the google images that I saw are washed out mid day snaps that would deserve 2s and 3s if uploaded here. The PN upload referenced above is far better, but derives its appeal from a very heavy color cast that permeates everything . . . maybe from a filter, probably from the sun. Martin's POW is the first I've seen that features a colorful rock and plays off the curved track with two other curves - the clouds on the right and the mountains on the left.

 

Setting aside the issue of jpeg compression, why is it that people with cheap, old, or poorly calibrated monitors don't yet understand that just because they don't see shadow detail doesn't mean it isn't there. I can see it fine, and assume that someone who uses split neutral density filters knows how to spot meter different areas of the scene in order to pick the right one.

 

Each of these aspects of the photograph contribute to its originality. If you're not inclined to break down the image that way, then for you, I guess it is all about the subject.

Ok Martin,

 

the "Details" say this picture was taken with a Nikon D100 and the 17-35 f/2.8 AFS Nikkor. Digital, no doubt.

 

Later you say ABOVE: "I sent this out to be scanned because I have yet to purchase a scanner capable of scanning 4x5 transparencies."

 

HOW DO YOU GET 4 BY 5 TRANSpereNCIES FROM A D100?

 

It looks as if this picture were taken using Scheimflug lens tilt, though. So you may be right here, and wrong in the "Details" section.

 

All confused ... Sorry.

I also want to know the story behind this so called 4x5 scan? The details show a D100, the image looks like it could be 4x5. what's up?

I find it interesting that this does not attempt be overly dramatic about the subject and scene in the foreground. The foreground doesn't hide any details or defects. The rock is not overly impressive and maybe even ugly by rock standards :o) We even see the mud clinging to it. There are imperfections in the surface of the land, the track isn't perfectly cut and the dried shapes crumble. Despite the drama of the sliding rock, the foreground is normal/common and real.

 

The background is not every day, but rather quite dramatic. Anyone would be impressed to see such a sunset/sunrise. I think the everyday treatment of the foreground and the not so everyday background sets this apart from other photos of similar scenes. If the entire scene were glorified, what would it say... (not as much)

 

The curve of the path and the clouds in the sky suggest movement from right to left over or around the dark hills on the left. This photo is taking us from everyday to some other, "better", place. Through the use of the entire scene and all of its basic elements the photo communicates a simple message to the viewer. It's a strong landscape photo, once you get past the fact that you may have seen similar photos many other times.

Sensational, I especially like the lit up far mountain juxtaposed with the rock. Very nice composition too. Congrats on POW. :) -Greg-

This image was taken with a D100, I also took the same shot with my 4x5 but have not had any of them scanned in yet.

It never ceases to amaze me (sadly) how some people (e.g., a reviewer above) can become so jaded to the natural environment.

I'm not jaded about the natural environment. In fact, I quit a six-figure job in industry so that I can live in poverty for six or seven years in graduate school and spend my life studying the natural environment. Have you?

If I'm jaded it's about having seen pretty much this exact shot dozens of times. I was impressed the first time I saw one, close to ten years ago. In fact, I bought it, in black and white, and I still have it someplace, stored away, because it wore out its welcome on my wall. Without comparing them side by side it wouldn't be hard to believe the two shots were made at the same time from the same tripod holes.

Ocean Physics -- Yes, I have. Seven years, to be exact (PhD, U. of WA, 1984). I'm

glad you can remember your impressions when you saw this image for the first time,

because that's what many other viewers are now experiencing. I count myself

fortunate that I still like a well-executed rendition of these moving rocks, even

though I've seen many (a few great, some very good, many are not very good....in

terms of light and composition). Unlike photos of nudes, there just aren't as many

possible variations on a theme. I don't expect landscapes to be radically different

over the years, but I do appreciate the eyes and skills of individual photographers

who can capture the essence of a place better than most, as Martin has done.

How's this for the Originality debate: This summer I went to Delicate Arch after a rain with a friend (?) who is now accusing me of stealing "her shot".....weird. Anwyay, this is a great image--I've also seen many other versions/variations, but this is great. Maybe the 3-stop filter was too much--one can really see the line. Great DOF and great clouds. I'd be pleased with myself if it were my capture. ~cc

Its a phenomenon that i've never heard about until now. Porbably because of the region I live in, and of the fact that we don't have too much desert area in our country. Its a nicely done National Geographic style photo! Keep it up !

I checked out the link to the other racetrack photos, browsed through seven pages of them, and found only one I liked as much as this one.

 

Not sure why taking a photo of something that has been photographed before is not considered creative or original, expecially when you manage a composition that is superior to most. We may as well give up now on Landscape photography if that is the case.

Well maybe they have never been observed moving because they move so little.

But here you can see it over time.

http://geosun.sjsu.edu/paula/rtp/

how many times have we seen this photo? ive seen it printed in different magazines over time, but all by different photographers. and its always the same perspective. i guess i was hoping for something new.

Even if there have been dozens of virtually identical shots taken from the same place - complete with colored rock, cloud and mountain curves, and SND filter - the image would serve the purpose not just of introducing it to a new audience, which it clearly has here, but also showing how even subtle differences in an otherwise identical shot can make a difference in the overall aesthetic of an image. You can't learn that as easily when you're comparing two images with a long list of different attributes. All those people who think their race track shots are worth posting on the web so that google can find them would do well to study this shot.

 

The reason you don't see a different perspective on this scene is because this one is clearly the most effective. The google search shows lots of different views. None work as well as this one.

I'm glad you can remember your impressions when you saw this image for the first time, because that's what many other viewers are now experiencing.

Thank you for that blinding glimpse of the obvious. And clearly the most worthwhile perspectives come from beginners and others who haven't spent enough time looking at landscape photography to have seen this before.

As to the phenomenon, I'm mystified as to why anyone thinks ice is involved. It's pretty clear it isn't. The bed, made of clay, gets wet and a thin layer of very slick mud forms on top. High winds push the rocks around. Ice would just hamper the process. And if large sheets of ice were somehow moving around, you'd see rocks moving in parallel paths, which does not occur.

same-o same-o all over again

 

this photograph illustrates everything but illuminates very little -

the photography planet is loaded with flawlessly executed (if

heavy-handed gnd use is "flawless") clones

 

but then again, every photographer has to start their journey

somewhere. one just hopes that they eventually get beyond the

obvious and ubiquitous