gdanmitchell wrote:
I'll have to go back through some of my older photographs from the Race Track at some point and find pre-vandalism images of some of these rocks and tracks... but they have been moved. I recall the first time I encountered such things. It wasn't a happy experience.
Lots of strange and unfortunate stuff has happened at the Race Track in the past decade or so... which is one reason I no longer go there. (I'm going to look and see if I can find a photograph of that rock from some years back. Watch for an update below.)
That said, this is a beautiful park full of grand spaces and immense silence and lovely light! Congratulations on your photographs.
Dan
- - - - - -
OK, this may be the same rock found in the middle of the track in your photo. Its contour looks right, though the angle is different. Photo is from about a dozen years ago. I'll keep looking through my archives...
I have a bunch of archival raw files that I'll check, too. I've been meaning to do this for some time — since I first saw what has been going on out there with the rocks. Thanks for giving me a reason to check out the old images!...Show more →
Thanks Dan for taking a look through your archives. Yeah that could be the same rock.
Earlier I neglected to mention image #5 (I think — the one with the short dune extending into the frame from the bottom).
We all tend to go for the really big dunes or else photograph smaller dunes in ways that make them fill the frame or nearly so. Being a frequent visitor to the place, I like this one as an exploration of that interesting boundary between the edges of the sand and the flat desert beyond.
In the first two images I especially like what you did with the choice of subject, light, and composition. They turned out very well and are a welcome break from the same-old for DV. In the image of the mud cracks, I wondered what happened there? Why only two paw prints and none others in the surrounding mud? Were those the only two polygons moist enough to take impressions? Did a raptor drop the fox (or whatever) just long enough for it to do a two-legged handstand? Did the same prankster who allegedly moved the rock also use a purloined paw to make the mud more interesting? Was it a flying fox looking for fruit in barren DV after a long flight across the Pacific and end up just doing a touch-and-go landing?
Rajan Parrikar wrote:
I have no qualms revealing all the remote Death Valley locations I have been to. I have also put people in touch with an expert or two ("desert rats," as they call themselves) that I have hired over the years who will take you to any place in Death Valley and the Mojave (for a fee, of course). Speaking of remote, this is a good start -
Fortunately, most of the great places to photograph death valley are NOT on this list
I rarely post detailed locations in public forums not because I live under some illusion that my images from there are somehow unique. I just value my (relative) solitude above almost anything else and can't stand the IG and "influencer" crowds, and the noisy sheep they bring along. On the other hand, I will honor considerate requests for location information in a PM 9 times out of 10, unless someone else showed me a location and asked that it be kept relatively private. Fortunately, as little as 1 mile of hiking will peel off 90% of the herd, and by the second mile you are pretty much on your own. Sometimes just the absence of a "viewpoint" sign is enough - thank god!
Great set of photos of a great place!
There is so much to discover in different corners of the 100 mile stretch of the area, high and low, hot and cold (before sunrise at least).
Sand dunes themselves have enough variety by themselves, there can be a flower season... and different months bring different opportunities.
There will be sand storms, on rare occasion a flooding or road washouts, dried mud fields, salt fields, unpaved roads and very unique sky sometimes.
Props like that work sometimes, here I would like it more without. It breaks up the repetitive pattern of the gaps. The prop is too big and with a big shadow. Try one with and one without, decide at home. One or the other will make a stronger photo.
People work in pictures too, try with them walking into the picture rather than out of (within first half of picture)
digital_AM wrote:
Thanks for the input Gordon! I understand regarding that image. In all honesty, yes I did place that branch there. I'm not planning to do that again for the sake of capturing an image.
xterra07 wrote:
Props like that work sometimes, here I would like it more without. It breaks up the repetitive pattern of the gaps. The prop is too big and with a big shadow. Try one with and one without, decide at home. One or the other will make a stronger photo.
People work in pictures too, try with them walking into the picture rather than out of (within first half of picture)
digital_AM wrote:
Thanks for the input Gordon! I understand regarding that image. In all honesty, yes I did place that branch there. I'm not planning to do that again for the sake of capturing an image.
As a friend likes to say (when considering the removal of such a thing, rather than its addition), "Maybe it wasn't always there." In your case, "maybe" it was. ;-)
As to whether it adds or detracts in the case of your photograph, I lean to "adds," but I might have a few small compositional quibbles, for what its worth.
Years ago I spent a lot of time looking for an arrangement that would have the quality of a well-known Adams print of Yosemite dogwood blossoms. Over the years, I came close a few times, but could never quite find what I was looking for.
I was relieved to eventually find out that he had placed flowers manually in that arrangement. And a bit embarrassed that it took me so long to see the obvious.
Rajan Parrikar wrote:
Fortunately, Steve Hall is a conscientious guy and a good steward of the land without being a preening, self-righteous peacock.
My feelings are hurt. Peacocks are so ugly, being compared to one is a hit below the belt. The self-righteous and preening parts sound about right though.
I do not know the person who runs this site. He seems to know the lay of the land exceptionally well. I have no reason to think that he is anything but a "conscientious guy and a good steward of the land". But he most definitely is not a good photographer, at least as judged from the images that accompany his trail descriptions . This is by no means a put down. Great hikes are often not great photo ops. If you want to make a great image of a gnarly peak you don't hike the peak most of the time, you find a smaller unobtrusive protrusion next to the peak and hike that for a great view of the peak. Makes for a boring hike.
Back on the topic - I like how the OP has elegantly avoided cliches even with images from easily recognizable and often visited locations. The second one from Zabriskie in early morning light is particularly lovely.The mud flats next to Golden Canyon are also nice, though I wish the light was softer, or the PP was tweaked to make it look softer.
GroovyGeek wrote:
My feelings are hurt. Peacocks are so ugly, being compared to one is a hit below the belt. The self-righteous and preening parts sound about right though.
The peacock reference was not aimed at you.
Steve Hall is a hiker; the photos are his way of documenting his hiking expeditions. Photography is not his central interest. I have found his site to be an exceptional resource for teasing out photographic opportunities.
