Moving Rock by Martin Quinn

This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest. It is simply an image that the Elves found interesting and worthy of discussion. Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Site Feedback forum.

When including images, please make sure they are relevant to the discussion, not more than 511 pixels wide, sufficiently compressed and make sure to enter a caption when uploading.

so I guess you guys won't buy into the aliens moved it idea?

really nice picture of a very intersting phenomenon

one of the better pics I've seen of this phenomenon.

this rock, I believe, has been shot over and over again. Personally, I like this one better.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1812305

My guess is that the rock got caught in a sheet of ice. I've seen it lake ice push huge boulders up the shore like toys.

this is probably the best POW I've seen.. the fact that it's not "staged" just blows my mind. absolutely incredible!! wonderful comp, detail, color... wow. just WOW.

love it!

7/7

It's one of those pictures that makes you say "How did he do that?" And as you look for visible signs of how this was done, it is intriguing.

But this picture stands up well in its own right without the "moving rock mystery. The lighting, the depth and composition are great.

Very interesting phenomenon. Splendid photo.

The neutral grad removes nearly all detail from the hills in the distance on the left side. That's a shame. I think this reduces the image impact. The hard edge of the ND grad could have been pulled up just a bit higher too, so as not to leave the distant ground level noticeably darker. With a bit of manipulation you may be able to bring up the brightness level of the ground in the background, but not much can be done for the lost detail in the hills.

It's well-done enough, but it's certainly one of the cliches of western U.S. landscape photography. I've seen at least a dozen versions by a dozen photographers, all taken at the same location, and they all pretty much look like this, whether in color or black and white. The first time you see it, it's interesting. After a few more times, not as much.

Here are some other versions.

Yeah, it's been done so many times and I've seen stronger versions than this. It's not a bad shot by any means, of course.

I figure the rocks move with the wind when the valley is soaked by rain.

I'd like to go there myself.

nice picture but i have seen it a thousand times. nothing creative compared to other images of the racetrack.

Martin - you have very pretty photographs in your portfolio but not an original idea and this POW is an example.

Do we always have to blast everyone for not being original? It's a rock in the middle of a plain. There just isn't that much one can do with it. Does that mean he shouldn't photograph it? There is room for all kinds of photgraphy in the world, crazy experimental stuff and classic ideas well executed. It's like a restaraunt ... there can be foie grass berry polenta combinations and there can be meatloaf. Sure, this is meatloaf but it's good meatloaf. I looked at all the other pictures of this location (which is fascinating and I've never seen it before) on the page that the posters above linked us to and this seems better than any of them. It's not perfect ... but it's good, quality work and that's worth something.

I can't help thinking that people need to step back from their critiques before they press the submit button.

This is an interesting image and is all the better for the balanced composition and exposure.

To those who would criticise the lack of originality, keep in mind that this image has been chosen as the photo of the week, not the photo of the century.

Peter

I have been to the Racetrack many times, not boring at all. Yet the time to get shots under the "good light" is short. I like this shot. I have some similar ones but not looking West as this one is. The composition is very good. The rocks need more than water and wind to move. They also need ice. This location is so windy in the Winter than the winds can push up to 100 Lb rocks if the lake bed is icy. The sad thing about the place is that it is becoming well known and the dirt road easier to handle than in the past. The results is that some visitors show no respect to the place and hike on the playa before it's completely dry leaving footprints everywhere. The first time I visited, about 6-7 years ago, they were almost none, now you have to hike way past the first rocks to find a virgin spot. These footprints will last for decades as rainfall is very small at this location, the reason why the rocks tracks are able to stand.

Sure there are thousands of shots of this location, but this one great all the same. The light is really fantastic. Awesome capture.

Interesting phenomenon. Nothing much to say about the photo itself IMO, a clean shot, choice of lense and vertical presentation was not the only option... I would have tried horizontal with wide angle (as suggested in the original comments by Jens-A. Wiken , November 16, 2005; 05:51 A.M. here ).

Also funny to see this POW above the NOKIA ads on PNet front page...
"they can only see the dead end...
you can see the path to greatness"
quite a good match! LOL

In looking at Martin's picture, I was impressed with the lighting he was able to capture. Having driven to the racetrack several times, you rarely get decent conditions. And the road/route there is a difficult one to say the least. It's no wonder that they have never been observed moving when you consider how isolated the spot is. Nice job Martin.

Ahhhh, the moving rocks of The Racetrack. These always make good photos and Martin did an exceptional job. The light is well balanced and the image itself is balance, although I would've liked to see a more dynamic composition with the rock in one corner and the track leading more through the image.

Good work nonetheless. Keep it up.

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

Without a doubt one of the best images I have seen of the Racetrack; and yes, I have seen a few. What stands this image apart is the crisp and brilliant clarity presented. The textures of this hardened mud form an almost hypnotic pattern that lofts the viewer deeper into the beauty beyond. The question of originality, especially for landscapes, has itself been viewed many times before, and I see nothing here in this discussion that is original on this point. I, myself, will continue to be delighted with images such as this, seeing as I do the shared appreciation for the everchanging and infinite variety of moods that nature imparts...

Mark, although I agree that tripod hole shots should never be the ultimate goal of any photographer, it is fair to say that the vast majority of photographers never get to the point where they can do what is necessary to get this shot. Are all Martin's shots "tripod hole" shots? Have you never taken any? (Haven't we all?)

Actually, I can articulate something that feels fresh and original about this image. It's really about the sensation I feel of scudding across this landscape. Where the clarity and expanse of this landscape -- an expanse that is being traversed by both cloud and rock -- imparts an almost proprioceptive sensation of scudding...

Part of the originality of any image is its ability to evoke original responses from the viewer. You might want to ask what you bring to the table.

Nathan Wegemer wrote:
Also, if the rock were moving by the wind, it would want to show itself to the wind in such a way as to offer the least resistance... by this I mean it would tend to rotate to offer the least drag, and in the case of this rock I think the sloped face that is before the camera would have turned around, and the the taller, more vertical face that is not looking at the camera would have then been facing us. Really perplexing.

So true. But what if the wind blew backwards over this rock?

:^)

I love the framing and the way the complete silhouette of the first ridge contrasts with the color of the second ridge. A lot of things had to go right to make this the shot that it is.

Perfection! Perfect lighting. Perfect composition. Very interesting subject matter! 7/7

I don't know if all of Martin's shots are tripod shots or not. I've certainly taken my fair share. While I was learning the technical skills required to take them, it was fun, and it's still fun sometimes, but more in the sense that it's fun getting outdoors and doing it rather than any satisfaction at the results.

There's no doubt that Martin's shot is technically much better than most of the photos I googled up, which are mainly snapshots. I only object to being accused of being "jaded about the environment" or whatever it was. It's quite possible to be very interested in the environment and yet find this photo, or even nature photography in general, mostly boring. Photographs of the environment are not the environment.

Sorry, should read "I don't know if all of Martin's shots are tripod-hole shots or not."

The ice element was explained by scientists in a scientific magazine published 4-5 years ago. The precipitations at the Racetrack are very, very low. If the playa was getting very wet the rock would tend to sink a bit in the mud and the tracks would also tend to dissapear. From my recollection of the article the cold of winter nights allows the surface humidity to freeze hardening a bit the playa and allowing the rocks to kind of float thus allowing the winds to slightly move the rocks. Keep in mind that it take years for a rock to make some patterns as they sometimes change directions.

I always thought this discussion was about the photo. Most of the comments I have read seem to be about why the rocks move, which is pretty easy to find out by using google with "racetrack death valley moving rocks". This is a very good photo (and I won't add "not perfect" because I don't see what that is supposed to imply other than say "very good but it could be better) I don't see why it should be any better - and yes, I would love to see the results of the 5x4 shots. Can I also say that I got a bit lost looking at links in the photographers website, but he missed out www.christopherburkett.com and www.harrycorywright.com. Thanks for the piuc, and I hope you sell a shedload of them for $350 or whatever you are asking - you evidently know what you are doing. Cheers robertx

This is an excellent photo. I have been to this place, and I have seen numerous other photos of this same subject. So far, this is the best photo of a rock on the "Race Track" that I have seen. The photo has great, dynamic, intriguing composition: in contrast to the many flat views, this one is very three dimensional. The angle of view positions the sinuous track to drive this composition. The lighting and complementary hues couldn't have been done better in a studio. I bet it took some patience to get the lighting you got here.

There are a lot of other rocks out there, and the choice of this rock makes the scene; it looks like a detached head of a prehistoric saurian. It creates the feeling of a silurian sea creature stranded on a drying seabed as it vainly tried to reach a receding ocean.

There's a lot of art in this image.

I've never seen in real this extraordinary phenomena but it let me totaly speechless viewing it in picture.
I've already seen it from other photographers and tried to understand....
As it is a mystery (for me), great part because of my poor English, I just want to say I'm in admiration viewing this wonderful quality and dimension of this photograph.
The wide angle gives to the picture a complete view of the track, from the point where the rock is stopping to the wonderful sky.
A rare and admirable POW.
Bravo.

It makes you wonder how the rock moved? I like the composition but it lacks some colors and level adjustments. Anyhow very interesting photo.

For those who can read French, a good explanation about this phenomema of the "rolling stones"... :

http://chezclaude.mon-blog.org/index.php/Les-pierres-qui-bougent

Nice picture

Reminds me of the one Fred Miranda has in his gallery:

(link)

Mark

Looking at the world in a truthful way requires that we clear our minds as much as possible of our preconceived notions and simply view what we see with new vision every moment. This is a wonderful photograph and if it is the only one you ever saw of this strange phenomena it would be worth remembering. Good composition, color, strong elements. If the explanation for this were simple, i.e. simply ice, simply wind, simply slippery mud, etc. you'd see it on every dry lake bed in the world but you don't. Go see it your self and experience a bit of wonder. It is unlike any other place in the world. I am saddened by how many responses to this photo can be summed up by 'I've seen better'. Better of course is in the mind of the beholder. What criteria do you consider paramount? Dinner with some of these people must be a real gas. "Nice steak but I've had better', 'Jeez, this wine again?'. For every photographer that values sharpness (impossible to judge on your monitor in most cases anyway) over content, there is another that values color balance over shadow detail. Some like pinhole photography. Some just like the look and feel of a photo. Photography encompasses a huge range of qualities and it it is about capturing an aspect of something fleeting, a flicker of existence. Just look, just experience the moment that has been captured. If the photograph doesn't speak of the moment, then it has failed. If it says something, anything, about the moment, then it has succeeded.

Say something constructive.

Great moment captured, Martin.

Great image.

I can't get past the people claiming this is not original, not good enough, etc..

Everyone of those comments reads as a thinly veiled, "I'm better then this and I'm jealous I don't have a PoW." It is really sad that all the PoW discussions have degraded to this over the last year or two.

There is almost no constructive criticism of the image in this thread, I guess that means it really is a stunning image of this phenomenon, because everyone would rather act jealous then critique the image.

The only things I can think of that could make this better would be waiting around (for years?) for dramatic weather and maybe adding a bit more sky to the image. Without dramatic weather this composition seems the best choice. Short of someone developing an Ansel Adamsish dedication to this place, this seems to be the best we can hope to see.

I do like the 'adjusted levels' version. Perhaps it just a wee smidgeon too saturated, but does help give the image a bit more 'pop', as they say. It's close to how I would adjust it. -Greg-

Perhaps somewhere midway between the two (maintain natural look, while adding more contrast & color saturation).

I like what Javed's version with adjusted levels has done to the rock (i.e. makes it stand out far more agqainst the lakebed) but not what it's done to the sky (it's a bit vulgar and velvet-Elvis, plus tends to draw the eye away from the rock). I'd keep the levels adjusted rock/lakebed (the bottom half of the picture) and do a mask to erase back to the original on top. Just a suggestion.

I have adjusted the levels again. This is for you Phillip.

Are you suggesting that rocks migrate????

Very clever well executed image.

FWIW, I prefer the original. I think the colors in the second image are oversaturated and garish and take away from the concept.

Isn't there any possibility that rock has been moving against wind? If wind dug sand in front of rock and piled behind, rock has no way to go but windward. It can be occurerd by the weight of rock itself, not by the pushing force of wind. Wind has been pulling rock and yet now.

Now, don't start thinking about photographing our sun setting; it's been done before.

The original work is an excellently executed image celebrating a quiet mystery.

The original is an extremely well executed photo - very good clarity, sharpness and balance. The dark hills (where some viewers say details have been lost) don't bother me at all - they sit comfortably where they are in the composition. One of the better shots of this phenomenon that I have seen.

The alternative versions do have a bit more 'pop' but the blueness of the stone seems totally unnatural in them.

On the originality or lack of: perhaps we should be thankful that a photo taken recently somewhere in the world still looks like one taken years ago, thankful that there are still some unspoilt places. The bumpier the trail to this place the better IMO.

I don't believe in the ice theory. If it were iced surface, why then is there a track carved by the rock, just like it were moving in mud? If it were iced, there would be no track. It must be mudslide.

The scientists who suggested ice meant a very, very thin layer of ice.

Yeah, then why does the rock carve a path in the ground? The ice would only help the rock move by removing friction, in which case the rock would not be able to move significant material to the sides. In the picture above you can see that material has been taken from the path and moved to the sides by the rock. Only if the ground is wet would this happen.

Just saw similar photograph. Please follow (link)

A variation on the theme can be found by clicking HERE

sorry - not a helpful link - here is image....

In geologic terms, this phenomenum is known as an 'exit strategy'.

Reading in between Ben and Ocean Physics' comments there is an important issue here. OP has made the important point that this is like many that have come before it.

If this photo does not help the viewer discover (and in this case for many, re-discover) what is beautiful about this scene, the rock, the surface or the land, or the drama in the distance, through shape/form or use of light, etc then the photo is not as successful as it could have been. The question then becomes--how could the photo be improved to help the viewer re-discover what is beautiful in this scene?

Some might conclude that there is nothing that can be done to improve the photo--it is too much like others that have come before it. Some others would rather see the photo transformed into something that pleases their own pre-conceived notion of what is beautiful. Others would rather conclude--pretty photo, difficult/or can't be improved. As some others do, I think there is something deeper to be found here in this photo--in my case I enjoy the contrast between the mundane foreground and the spectacular background. Some do not feel this way. These are all valid points, but one thing is for sure: critiquing is hard work!

a most excellent shot of "The racetrack" I liked the color in the backround sky. I am a sucker for that.....

I like it. Even those who had severe criticism found it worthwhile enough to take the time to comment on it. I like the tire photo, too. That one is especially mysterious.

I would give this a high rating. I've only seen this type of image once before - in a book that I bought. I like this photo. I also find the subject very intrigueing.

I think that it must obviously have been ghosts that moved this rock (or maybe just one ghost). It is Death Valley after all.

Martin, I congratulate you. You've succeeded in making a beautiful photo, and also you've created an image that is surprisingly controversial.

P.S. At first I didn't find it beautiful, and I couldn't understand why people were calling this a beautiful image. Now, for some reason, I think it IS beautiful. Hmmm...

Visit this place for info. about the moving rocks.

http://www.death-valley.us/article332.html

Happy holidays!

Scott

..

i really can't believe this..i dunno how it happens...but it's really a great picture i'ved ever seen,..

This photograph is technically amazing. I have watched many shows on this strange occurance and no one really knows why or how it happens but it is real. They do move. I was thinking if it happens when the ground is frozen then it would probably not leave a trail as the ground would be too hard to make a scar. All in all this is a wonderful image.

Very nice shot, great composition. BUT, I have seen it before. see the below link fop another shot at the same location, although this one is very "photoshoped"

http://www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=416191