Sean wrote...
the moon is so low for this one, it's basically a sidelight

Amy wrote...
I keep staring at this shot wondering HOW the stars on the right are streaky, while those on the left are dotted pins of light?? Maybe I am just a bit too drunk for looking at flickr, hehehee.

Emma (but call me Em) wrote...
Guessing (I'm no astronomer) that the pole star is just out of shot on the left - with all the stars appearing to revolve around Polaris those further away from it will move further across the sky during the exposure than those which are closer. The details say this was a 5 min exposure. Emma x

Amy wrote...
Oh that's nifty-- I didn't know that all the stars appeared to rotate around Polaris. (Apparently this was lacking in my physics education. Now I get to harass the astronomers I know for not telling me! ;) Long exposure photography is amazing!!! Thanks you guys.

Jonathan Haeber wrote...
You are correct. The stars on the left are closer to Polaris, which is true North and therefore doesn't rotate. I'm not astronomer either, but years of photography have revealed to me this great secret :-)

Amy wrote...
> years of photography have revealed to me this great secret :-) Hahaha! you should take me exploring sometime and reveal more of your great secrets. The nights look clear this week =D

jamiro.blue wrote...
Small note: The earth is rotating, not the stars ;) Great pictures by the way, wonder how you git in there....

Angelcdp wrote...
hahah oh come on now, didn't you know that everything revolves around earth? ..and apparently around Michael Jacksons Neverland ranch, somewhere around the Sea Dragon. It's all becoming clear now. lol