Very creative! It is indeed different and yet cool. It's amazing in that it helps to show that all of the stars are not a zillion miles away, that some must be much closer. When shooting normally, at least for me, the feeling is that all of the stars are just so far away, but with the zooming and having some stars with longer trails it shows that some are indeed closer and end up with the longer tails.
What made you think about doing this at night with stars?
Jim
actually, the closest star to us (besides the sun) is 24,937,717,408,529 miles away.
JimFox wrote:
It's amazing in that it helps to show that all of the stars are not a zillion miles away, that some must be much closer. When shooting normally, at least for me, the feeling is that all of the stars are just so far away, but with the zooming and having some stars with longer trails it shows that some are indeed closer and end up with the longer tails.
I'm afraid it doesn't show this at all - the difference in length of trail is purely to do with where in the sky the stars are, stars that happen to be right in the centre of the image will produce shorter trails (and the dimmer stars will only be visible when the focus was changed at the end of the exposure, thus appearing to have very short trails).
As far as photography is concerned the stars might as well be painted on the inside of a sphere encompassing the earth, there would be no way to tell the difference using a camera*. Or to put it another way you could get exactly the same effect by zooming in on a poster of the milky way.
*unless you travelled to opposite sides of the earth, you might get the tiniest amount of parallax.
