01-28-09 – Rocks – Page 3 – Its not photography, its Farktography

This topic has 92 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 9 months ago by corsec67.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 93 total)

← 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 →

Author

Posts
January 24, 2009 at 1:34 am #20511

soosh
Participant

I don’t think moved from rivers or streams is the problem, just not altered.

what about polished? If we’re going to allow geodes, do we allow polished? like I’ve got a chunk of jade that’s about six inches long and four inches thick, and it’s been cut from a larger piece, so three of the sides are flat cut from the saw that cut them. I was thinking of doing a macro of the cut surface, but is that out?

Many mineral specimens have simarly been removed from their original matrix rock. are garnets still captured in granite ok, but garnets out aren’t? what about rough-cut non-jewlery-finished gemstones, like opal, that have been cut as a display piece, not for jewelry?

January 24, 2009 at 1:47 am #20512

wrayvynn
Participant

Some rocks simply aren’t best veiwed uncut. I had a slice of jasper with a vein of copper through it, would have almost never known had it not been cut. Although, it seems like to allow cut, and not polished itsnt kosher.
We should specify “unprocessed rocks” just for clarification if thats the case.

Most of the Agates I have found remain uncut and on display in my aquarium in little piles to my smaller fish to use as shelter. Are those okay even though I have arranged them in piles? What about raw coal/fossilized wood?

January 24, 2009 at 6:50 am #20513

orionid
Participant

My $.02, based on what I was doing from interpretation, is as follows:
Natural, in nature: Go flight
Natural, stacked to resemble sculpture(such that the overall stack is more of a focus than any of the rocks themselves): No go
Natural, randomly tossed about, or collected arbitrarily: Go flight
Naturally polished by a river or beach beating: Go flight
Synthetically polished via tumbler or polishing wheel: No go
Gemstones in the rough: Go flight
Gemstones cut: No go
Broken – following natural cleaves: Go flight
Cut: No go
Geodes: Go flight following above two guidelines
Natural Crystal: Go flight
homegrown crystal: debatable, but some said okay
Raw coal: Go flight
Fossilized wood: Go flight
Coral: No go
Fossilized coral: Go flight
Fossilized Trilobite? Badass go flight as long as it’s not polished.

Anyhow, so far for my three shots, my attempt to grow halite crystals is failing, so that one’s going to go away – not sure what will replace it, I have a semi-macro shot of a pile of rough sapphire with a large rough ruby in the center, and as soon as I get the package from my parents house, a semi-macro of a smoky quartz cluster.

Again, just my two cents.

January 24, 2009 at 3:10 pm #20514

nobigdeal
Participant

My $.02, based on what I was doing from interpretation, is as follows:
Natural, in nature: Go flight
Natural, stacked to resemble sculpture(such that the overall stack is more of a focus than any of the rocks themselves): No go
Natural, randomly tossed about, or collected arbitrarily: Go flight
Naturally polished by a river or beach beating: Go flight
Synthetically polished via tumbler or polishing wheel: No go
Gemstones in the rough: Go flight
Gemstones cut: No go
Broken – following natural cleaves: Go flight
Cut: No go
Geodes: Go flight following above two guidelines
Natural Crystal: Go flight
homegrown crystal: debatable, but some said okay
Raw coal: Go flight
Fossilized wood: Go flight
Coral: No go
Fossilized coral: Go flight
Fossilized Trilobite? Badass go flight as long as it’s not polished.

Anyhow, so far for my three shots, my attempt to grow halite crystals is failing, so that one’s going to go away – not sure what will replace it, I have a semi-macro shot of a pile of rough sapphire with a large rough ruby in the center, and as soon as I get the package from my parents house, a semi-macro of a smoky quartz cluster.

Again, just my two cents.

I think since srewjack never came back to clarify we use orionids guidelines.

Elsinore?

January 24, 2009 at 5:08 pm #20515

Elsinore
Keymaster

I agree. That list pretty much mirrors my understanding at what screwjack was getting at. Thanks for organizing that, orionid 🙂

January 27, 2009 at 5:50 pm #20516

nobigdeal
Participant

I need some help here. Are these shots “rock” enough? Or is there too much other stuff going on in the photo? I’m thinking of using one of these but not sure which one yet.

January 27, 2009 at 5:57 pm #20517

corsec67
Participant

I need some help here. Are these shots “rock” enough? Or is there too much other stuff going on in the photo? I’m thinking of using one of these but not sure which one yet.

To me, the subject of those photos is the river.

(Just like in the color contests, I assume that the topic should be the subject of the picture)

Like this:

/I love IR photography in Utah.

January 27, 2009 at 8:01 pm #20518

olavf
Participant

I’d agree – the river seems to be more the subject in those pics NoBigDeal. They are pretty sweet shots though!

On that note I wanna hedge one of my bets – I’ve got a fish fossil that’s in/on a piece of sandstone. The sandstone had to be cleaved to expose the fossil of course (I’m assuming the geode ruling applies here) and the surface is unaltered but the sides of the stone – which are not in the shots I took – were finished I think. Is that still keeping in the spirit? Personally, I think so, and the wife agrees, but I wanted to throw it out here to be safe.
/don’t have access to the photo at the moment because I haven’t resized it yet but I can post it here this evening if need be

January 27, 2009 at 8:40 pm #20519

nobigdeal
Participant

Yea I kinda thought that too, that’s why I threw it out here for other opinions.

olavf I have no idea on your question, I would think that if the sides are polished it is out, but if all you show is the fossil???

Hmm…maybe if you didn’t say anything nobody would know. 😉

January 27, 2009 at 9:09 pm #20520

olavf
Participant

The sides of the stone aren’t polished. Basically think of a piece of sandstone that’s been cleaved (split open) and then cut to about 4″x6″.

Similar to this one, though I’m not sure I’ll end up using this particular shot.
http://65.78.140.207/gallery2/main.php/v/olav_art/farktography/rocks/fish_fossil-5698.jpg.html

And I’m sure no one else would know, but *I* would :/

January 27, 2009 at 9:14 pm #20521

Elsinore
Keymaster

NBD your shots do contain natural rocks, and in the first two, my eyes are particularly drawn to rocks on the side of the stream. The third one definitely seems less focused on the rocks, though.

olavf: I think you’re fine. In the example shot, particularly, the focus is definitely on the rock and fossil. And yeah, it’s not like it’s polished.

January 27, 2009 at 9:46 pm #20522

olavf
Participant

Thanks Elsinore! Now all I have to do is polish the picture… 😉

January 28, 2009 at 1:59 am #20523

nobigdeal
Participant

NBD your shots do contain natural rocks, and in the first two, my eyes are particularly drawn to rocks on the side of the stream. The third one definitely seems less focused on the rocks, though.

olavf: I think you’re fine. In the example shot, particularly, the focus is definitely on the rock and fossil. And yeah, it’s not like it’s polished.

I may use the 1st one since I now have the Elsinore seal of approval!

On another note…anyone know what this is? My wife found it in the yard a few years ago when we were digging for new sewer lines.

I took some badass macros of it tonight, but I am not sure what it is. It looks kinda like quartz but it seems browner than it should be.

/not a geologist

January 28, 2009 at 5:53 am #20524

lokisbong
Participant

Do you all think there is enough rock in this picture?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34626556@N02/3218842993/
For some reason I couldn’t link directly.

January 28, 2009 at 6:04 am #20525

millera9
Participant

Is it alright to have people in the picture?
Author

Posts