Why it's so easy to shoot rocks

markbarendt · Sep 23, 2014

Actually reading Willian Mortenson Pictorial Lighting and exploring the differences between Notan and Chiaroscuro, truly interesting schools of thought in how and what to photograph in each style.

Giving me a whole new way to think about how to photograph a rock.

I do think though that mostly, rocks are easy because they normally stand still longer than my grand daughter.

Nuff · Sep 23, 2014

ntenny said:
Hmm. I tend to think that photos of rocks typically are "photos for photographers"; with a few exceptions dominated by Ansel Adams, it seems to me that civilian viewers aren't much interested in a black-and-white rock, either as a print or in person. That doesn't make the rock a bad subject (nor does it make the viewers a bloody rotten audience, I suppose), but it says something about the scope of this discussion.

I submit that most viewers have enormous difficulty in the comparativ^W^W^Wfinding the essence of a subject in any black-and-white image, and that as a result, b&w photography is almost inevitably about some combination of (1) overcoming that challenge, (2) preaching to the relatively small choir of monochromophiles, and (3) working to one's own taste rather than to any particular audience. Rocks mostly skip over the first of those items, the third is wholly personal---and so while I'm all for lithotropism, I do think it resides in a specific, fairly insular segment of the photographic dialectic.

More generally, I'm a little suspicious of viewing photography as "reality with constraints". I'm not sure I can articulate a good alternative, but Feininger's idea of focusing (so to speak) on what the subject is, and on what aspects of it fail to be duplicated in the photo, strikes me as needlessly narrowing.

-NT

I was to say something along the same lines. But me as a civilian with a camera, I prefer photos with more interesting subjects and a story to tell. Usually rocks do not have that, as they do not poses movement, unless they are being thrown by people and they start doing something, they will become a lot more interesting subjects.

There are very few photos of rocks that I would rate. And I think the only photo of rock that I took was Japanese rock garden, but I think there's much more to them than just rocks.

As for another posted trying to capture the essence of a rock, you going have a hard time, although they are full of minerals

polyglot · Sep 23, 2014

Bill Burk said:
Andreas Feininger explained a philosophy of photography, in which Black and white photographs deprive their subjects of three of their most important qualities - color, three-dimensionality and motion.

Absence of these qualities in the subject, makes such subjects so much easier to photograph since fewer of their characteristics will be lacking in the picture.

I don't think he was trying to make the point that landscape photography is easy. But it struck me as I read that passage... that it might explain why I so much love black and white landscape photography. For the print of a rock "only" loses its three-dimensionality. As a subject it doesn't have movement to lose. Granite might literally be black and white to start with. So a print feels very close to the original scene to me.

I think I understand more now why I am so satisfied with a print of a rock.

I reject the premise

I think the point missed here is that a B&W photo is a composed abstraction. Sure, a B&W photo itself has no colour, dimension or motion but a good B&W photo will contain abstractions of all of those parts if necessary.

By all means consider me a civilian, but pictures of rocks don't generally do it for me, probably because there is no colour, motion or emotion implied by your average picture of a rock. The only exceptions that come to mind are some of the better examples from Nana Sousa Dias on LFPF - and they're good because the compositions bring implied colour, depth and motion.

IMHO if you can take a picture of a rock and it loses nothing in the literal translation, it's a boring rock and therefore probably a boring photo.

KenS · Sep 23, 2014

Roger Cole said:
Well I've found rocks and trees agreeable subjects because they don't move and they aren't fickle about how they look in the final result. Both endear them to me compared to photos with those unpredictably moving, disagreeable, argumentative and generally chaotic homo sapiens.

... and they never seem to have that 'sickly' or 'awkward/forced' smiles that seem to be so prevalent in so many 'people' photographs

Ken

Bill Burk · Sep 23, 2014

markbarendt said:
Actually reading Willian Mortenson Pictorial Lighting and exploring the differences between Notan and Chiaroscuro, truly interesting schools of thought in how and what to photograph in each style.

Giving me a whole new way to think about how to photograph a rock.

I do think though that mostly, rocks are easy because they normally stand still longer than my grand daughter.

Oh my! I'm reading that same book. I'm going to have to see about getting two 500 Watt lamps out into the wilderness...

Bill Burk · Sep 23, 2014

polyglot said:
I reject the premise

I think the point missed here is that a B&W photo is a composed abstraction. Sure, a B&W photo itself has no colour, dimension or motion but a good B&W photo will contain abstractions of all of those parts if necessary.

Wait, before you reject the premise. Andreas Feininger was a pretty sharp guy and his thoughts deserve to be read... My first post only provided the lead-in. What you're saying, about a good B&W photo containing abstractions, is exactly how he said the problem must be solved.

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 23, 2014

Bill Burk said:
Oh my! I'm reading that same book. I'm going to have to see about getting two 500 Watt lamps out into the wilderness...

The lamps aren't the problem. The problem is where do you store the batteries? What a bum-mer.

Bill Burk · Sep 23, 2014

Something tells me I'll be looking into some Norman 200B's, a couple Graflex flashguns or some Vivitar 283's instead.

aRolleiBrujo · Sep 23, 2014

Bill Burk said:
Something tells me I'll be looking into some Norman 200B's, a couple Graflex flashguns or some Vivitar 283's instead.

Don't forget the Vivitar 285HV Flash too!

markbarendt · Sep 24, 2014

Old-N-Feeble said:
The lamps aren't the problem. The problem is where do you store the batteries? What a bum-mer.

http://paulcbuff.com/vm120.php

I have an older version of this and it works great to run a set of strobes.

Admittedly taking the strobe set and batteries requires extra effort, mechanical, biologic, or both.

Ghostman · Sep 24, 2014

I believe that all objects, including rocks choose to reveal themselves to those who pay attention and observe in earnest and with the right intention.

ntenny · Sep 24, 2014

Ghostman said:
I believe that all objects, including rocks choose to reveal themselves to those who pay attention and observe in earnest and with the right intention.

You know, I almost blew past that post without thinking about it, but I actually think it's interesting and, well, "revealing". You seem to be thinking of a photo as a representation, something that's "about" a subject and shows something "revealed" from the subject, which the camera and photographer then "capture". Fair summary?

The complementary idea would be that a photograph is something "made" rather than "found" or "taken"; that at most, you could say a particular subject "contains" or "implies" a whole spectrum of possible photographs, but that none of them exist until a photographer comes along to create one.

Platonism and constructivism, if you like.

I'm feeling like Feininger, or at least Bill's summary of Feininger in this thread, doesn't give enough of an opening to the second of those ideas. They both have merits, and I think no reasonable person locates photography entirely on one side or the other, but the way we've mostly been talking about photographs "of" rocks kind of overweights the representational model.

Sorry about all the quotation marks---language is a blunt instrument and I feel like I'm having to stretch a lot of these words to make them apply to the ideas at hand.

-NT

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 24, 2014

A rock revealed itself to me once. I blushed and ran away.

ntenny · Sep 24, 2014

Old-N-Feeble said:
A rock revealed itself to me once. I blushed and ran away.

Somehow this reminds me of a poster that became immediately famous in Portland, OR when I lived there:
http://www.art.com/products/p10036661-sa-i892096/m-ryerson-expose-yourself-to-art.htm

The guy (not the statue) was later elected mayor---the incumbent against whom he was running tried to turn the poster into an embarrassment, and it completely backfired.

-NT

Rick A · Sep 24, 2014

It's easy for me to photograph rocks because they are one of the few objects slower than me.

Ghostman · Sep 24, 2014

ntenny said:
You know, I almost blew past that post without thinking about it, but I actually think it's interesting and, well, "revealing". You seem to be thinking of a photo as a representation, something that's "about" a subject and shows something "revealed" from the subject, which the camera and photographer then "capture". Fair summary?

The complementary idea would be that a photograph is something "made" rather than "found" or "taken"; that at most, you could say a particular subject "contains" or "implies" a whole spectrum of possible photographs, but that none of them exist until a photographer comes along to create one.

Platonism and constructivism, if you like.

I'm feeling like Feininger, or at least Bill's summary of Feininger in this thread, doesn't give enough of an opening to the second of those ideas. They both have merits, and I think no reasonable person locates photography entirely on one side or the other, but the way we've mostly been talking about photographs "of" rocks kind of overweights the representational model.

Sorry about all the quotation marks---language is a blunt instrument and I feel like I'm having to stretch a lot of these words to make them apply to the ideas at hand.

-NT

I believe in the sentience of all things at all levels. I believe that nature emulates itself on every level, from the microscopic to the macroscopic. A photo is as you say a representation that is about a subject and shows something revealed. It's more than that though, it's an iteration, it gains a sentience because it has been birthed. It is brought into existence and continues to resonate through time. It exists outside of its creation and is its own being. It is the child of the observer and the observed.

Just as we sometimes meet people and sometimes these meetings are more extraordinary than others, so some photographs are more exceptional than others. Even though a photograph may exceptionally reveal something does not mean that the viewer of the photograph will see it. That too needs to be 'seen'. An exceptional photograph does not require an exceptional photographer, it requires an observer.

When an observer surrenders to the circumstance, the world in whatever form will reveal itself on any number of levels. That representation may or may not be seen by another being in same way. The process is alive and never the same.

All we ever do is see and perceive. Someone who embraces seeing, someone who tours the endless halls of perception and seeks understanding will imprint his intent onto silver and marry his soul with what has been observed. The spawn is magic.

Photography is magic.

markbarendt · Sep 24, 2014

ntenny said:
Somehow this reminds me of a poster that became immediately famous in Portland, OR when I lived there:
http://www.art.com/products/p10036661-sa-i892096/m-ryerson-expose-yourself-to-art.htm

The guy (not the statue) was later elected mayor---the incumbent against whom he was running tried to turn the poster into an embarrassment, and it completely backfired.

-NT

The PDX area is becoming my new stomping ground over the next couple weeks, fun town.

Bill Burk · Sep 24, 2014

ntenny said:
I'm feeling like Feininger, or at least Bill's summary of Feininger in this thread, doesn't give enough of an opening to the second of those ideas.

And I'm sorry for butchering Feininger, hopefully I can represent him better... His book is meant to encourage you to think in advance and be inventive when taking pictures. If it doesn't come across that way I did something wrong.

Bill Burk · Sep 25, 2014

Richard Sintchak (rich815) said:
Berkeley Marina Shorebird Park Rolleiflex3-5E Planar Neopan400 HC-110dilH 7min 21C 2010-12 VSmac 9000 Scan-101230-0003 by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr

Richard Sintchak, Your photograph is a real good example of what I meant by "why it's so easy" - if my backwards take on Andreas Feininger's theory has any merit, this was probably not a very difficult photograph for you to take. And it satisfied you highly when you printed it... Because it came back to life "just as you saw it".

The rock picture I took that I had in mind is somewhat similar (it's a relatively large rock in respect to the surrounding rocks, and it's somewhat round-ish). But if I am projecting onto you... My photograph surprised me how well it reflected what I remember seeing. And it seemed very easy.

Bill Burk · Sep 25, 2014

aRolleiBrujo said:
Don't forget the Vivitar 285HV Flash too!

OK found one of those in my garage. Next to the moviedeck.

Richard S. (rich815) · Sep 25, 2014

Bill Burk said:
Richard Sintchak, Your photograph is a real good example of what I meant by "why it's so easy" - if my backwards take on Andreas Feininger's theory has any merit, this was probably not a very difficult photograph for you to take. And it satisfied you highly when you printed it... Because it came back to life "just as you saw it".

The rock picture I took that I had in mind is somewhat similar (it's a relatively large rock in respect to the surrounding rocks, and it's somewhat round-ish). But if I am projecting onto you... My photograph surprised me how well it reflected what I remember seeing. And it seemed very easy.

Oh yeah. Easy as pie to take. Hand held, at a nearby beach with my family and my sister's family. Most of the roll portraits and shots of them. Saw this rock, composed and shot. Now developing, scanning and printing was a bit harder to get the tones and look I wanted.

This print has sold twice, from unsolicited contact to me in emails from people who saw it on Flickr. Please don't tell them how easy it was.

aRolleiBrujo · Sep 25, 2014

Bill Burk said:
OK found one of those in my garage. Next to the moviedeck.

Cool! I have used my two back when I had my Nikon D800, and the were pretty swell!
I used them tethered and with a Wein Peanut with really decent results, considering that I have been very novice in everything photography!

Why it's so easy to shoot rocks

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency