主播大秀

I'm sorry but these images do not appear to show any meteor trails.

The streaks are stars which show up like this when a long exposure is made.

You can see the curve in the trails which is caused by the earth's spin.

lollobeeb is correct: these are the trails of stars as the earth rotates during a long photo exposure. Meteor trails, in a similar part of the sky, would be of different lengths, and would not be curved uniformly around the Pole Star.

I just want to explain the photographic process of long exposure which should clear up any doubt about the fact that the geminids are indeed present in my images. The exposure time of 5 to 10 minutes captured what passed through the field of view during that time. Yes, the stars were captured and yes, the trails can be clearly seen. The geminids were also captured. Your comments are nothing short of nonsense. I stood in the graveyard of St Mary Magdalenes church St Clears. I am sure you could check its bearings. The camera was aimed at the church with a vast amount of sky in the field of view. I used a 50 mm lens wide open and set to infinity. The time was approximately 9.30 p.m. when I opened the shutter. I closed it at approximately 9.40p.m. Someone, somewhere in Nasa could confirm that geminids passed through this field of view. I myself saw at least five or six during the exposure. I have no doubt whatsoever that these images have captured the geminids. I congratulate Mr. Brockway for presenting the evidence in such an informative way.

Just to confirm the evidence I have looked at the predicted rate of appearance of the geminids. I have pasted a piece from a website which states

'The meteors can appear anywhere in the sky, but if traced back, they'll all appear to emanate from the constellation of Gemini, hence the name of the shower. Geminds may appear in bursts, so give the show some time. If you only expect to watch for an hour or less, then around midnight local time is the best time to go out.

"Depending on how dark your location is, and how much of the sky you can see, meteors may streak into view that night at an average rate of one or two per minute," said SPACE.com's Skywatching Columnist Joe Rao.

That is one or two per minute. Take my exposure time and that translates as minimum 10 and maximum 20. As with any discovery there are always doubters. Where is their evidence? Did they attempt to record the event? How on Earth will we ever progress as a civilization if we have people who base their beliefs on the obvious? Just because you cannot see it, it does not mean that it does not exist. How much more is there that we have not seen, not discovered? I wish you all a wonderful winter solstice spell. Naolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.

"The exposure time of 5 to 10 minutes captured what passed through the field of view during that time."

Exactly. Which proves that the short, bright streaks in those shots are star trails and only star trails. A meteor traveling across the camera's limited field of view would have left a long streak from one side to the other of the image. No meteor travels so slowly that it wouldn't completely cross the field of view in five or six minutes.

I am not disputing the star trails. You appear to be missing the point. The meteor travelling across the camera's limited field of view would have left a long streak from one side to the other of the image. (NONSENSE)

It is entirely the opposite and you do not understand the principles of photography. The camera will only record something which remains still for long enough. Anything of extreme high speed requires a fast shutter speed or flash photography.

The only thing which left a long streak was an aircraft which can be clearly seen in one of the images as a straight line with a series of dots. The aircraft was travelling at high speed but nowhere near the speed of a meteor. the aircraft is barely visible. The fact that the geminid trail is not there does not mean that it was not there. You are disputing the fact that the meteor shower existed. How many people sat at home, did not see the shower but know it happened. I could have pointed the camera at any of them in their living room with the field of view covering the sky out of a large window. I could have exposed the image for ten minutes. If that person decided to get up after the shutter was opened and walked around in front of the camera at speed, they would not register on the image. Would you then say they were not there? and I WOULD STILL SAY THE IMAGE CAPTURED GEMINIDS

The view of the church is approximately NE and the left hand stars are those of Ursa Major (the Plough). Gemini is in the east at about 30 degrees elevation. The top of the image is about 28 degrees elevation. I would expect to see meteors higher up than this generally but it's still possible to see them this low.

In the NASA image the long straight lines are a perfect example of meteor trails in a long exposure. I have yet to capture a meteor trail image.

In good conditions about 4 years ago I had a two hour observing session with a 10 minute exposure every 10 minutes (pointing NE) and did not get any results. I saw plenty but not one image.

My point exactly. You have yet to capture a meteor. You saw plenty but not one image. You did capture them, they were there. Take this scenario and try it out at home. Darken a large room and give about 6 people bright torches. Set the camera to bulb and infinity. Expose for 10 minutes. Ask some people to walk slowly around the room. Ask one person to run straight across the field of view at speed. Your slow movers will register. The high speed star amongst them will not. Was that person there? Did they cross the field of view? Do they exist? YES YES YES. This is the joy of the universe, the one thing, the one place that we have yet to master. I FEEL AN EPISODE OF DR WHO COMING ON

If you look at the image 'stars 1' and zoom in on it, you will clearly see a horizontal streak of light above the church. It has intermittent dots. This was the flight path and lights of an airplane passing by. It gives you an idea of the length of the exposure. During this time i conservatively estimate that 6 to 8 geminids passed my field of view. Without prior knowledge this is supported by space.coms estimate of 1 to two per minute. The photographer Michael Wesley makes exposure lasting 3 to 5 years. He mounts his camera to buildings such as the museum of modern art. He opens the shutter and for 3 to five years the camera makes the exposure. What you see is buildings being erected, the path of the sun over each of the years and you can see which were the cloudy days with no sun. Millions of people would have been present in New York in the field of view of his camera yet not one registers. Google Photographer Michael Wesley and you are in for a treat.

A discussion ends when one party refuses to accept the other's point of view. As a photographer of 40 years and an amateur astronomer of 5 years I know where I stand.

Check out this link for some advice....


And re-read/re-think your comments on long exposures.

You can point a camera at the sky but you can't guarantee that's where the the little fellahs will appear....

"The fact that the geminid trail is not there does not mean that it was not there. You are disputing the fact that the meteor shower existed."

I never said (nor would I) that the Geminids didn't happen. My point is that there are no Geminid meteors visible in your photos. The author of this article put up two photos claiming meteors were visible in them, but the only celestial objects visible in them are stars. The image caption claiming, "The meteors passing over the church," is inaccurate, as it implies those bright, short visible lines are meteors and not stars.

Why some people get rude and make bad assumptions when confronted with facts they don't like is beyond me, but honestly there's no need for it. Good day sir, and better luck photographing those meteors next shower.

I have to disagree with the comments that "A discussion ends when one party refuses to accept the other's point of view" I also take issue with the statement that there are no meteors visible in your photos. I have given my explanation and the caption meteors passing over the church is correct. It is accurate and does not imply that the bright short trails are meteors not stars. It clearly implies that the images captured the geminids. You can be a photographer of 75 years and it would not make a jot of difference, you may never see the light. As with anything, the self professed experts protest when faced with anything which questions their authority. I do not need any luck in photographing the meteors. I succeeded where others have failed and I guess this hurts.

The article at is very useful however it fails to deal with any of the points which I have been making. I will state one more time. I made a 5 to 10 minute exposure of the night sky which is clearly obvious from the light trails of the stars, the aircraft and the absorbed street lighting illuminating the church. You have agreed and most of the relevant material including the article you kindly directed me to confirms that a clear visual record of the meteors is not an easy thing to achieve and can appear as a long trail or a small point depending on the lens, depth of fiel, exposure time and ISO of the camera amongst other things. The FACT remains that the meteors passed over the church and that they were captured during the exposures. The camera recorded what my naked eye saw during that time and considerably more because of the camera's greater capabilities. I maintain that you have failed to understand the principles of photography and the are governed by what is visible rather than what exists and occurs. I believe that you will need all the luck in the world to capture one of the meteors given your views and that even if one landed in your back garden you would question its existence. I am quite happy to keep this discussion going however I do not feel obliged to accept anyone's point of view. There are plenty of places for this sort of discussion which usually come under some form of label or title ranging from Parliament, local authority, loyal order of mousse or whatever name makes them feel comfortable and secure with their knowledge or beliefs. I avoid them like the plague.

Sir, there is no visible meteor trail across either of the above images. In what reality do you live in that you can validly consider something photographed when it does not appear in the picture?

I do not need to say anymore. You have managed to convince me that you have absolutely no concept of reality.

"The camera will only record something which remains still for long enough. Anything of extreme high speed requires a fast shutter speed or flash photography."

Not true. If it is bright enough then it will record even if it is only a brief event. More so if you set your ISO speed higher.

There are no meteors visible in these photos. To say that they happened but did not record in the photo and present this as evidence is one of the most ludicrous arguments I have ever encountered.

I am afraid noahelkanahpops that you have been pwned.

Thanks everyone for your support of my opening comment. It's been somewhat entertaining....

My vocabulary has been expanded today. In the gaming world...

"Pwned" = Completely annihilated or dominated.

This is the biggest piece of unmitigated horse pooh I have ever seen.
By this token you can claim to have photographed the invisible man.
Get a grip, get an understanding of physics, especially with respect to photography and understand criticism may be trying to be helpful.
Skybadger

I would love to comment on your images of the Geminid meteor shower. But, to be honest I didn't see any on your photographs (as others have already stated). I am not suggesting that you didn't see any just that they don't appear on your pictures. Nice picture of star trails though.

Safety in numbers BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! I have been sent some images which have captured the geminids. I only have the information that it was a 60 second exposure. The images have been enhanced (extreme zoom) and show geminids. I have given instructions which amply demonstrate my point. If you have not attempted the experiment then don't knock it. Pwned is very apt and highlights the intent of the people who cannot see the wood for the trees. May you find peace and hapiness together in your utopian idyll which must not be rocked.

Re: cvarley - Thanks for your comments, much appreciated, try the experiment.

Re; Skybadger's comments - I can go better than photographing the invisible man. I can photograph thousands of people in a town centre without any of them being in the photograph. I doubt you understand though.

One last possibility..

I've already copied your pix and blown them up to no avail. The image resolution on this web page is very low. There is no sign of meteors or aeroplane trail.

Why not post your pix somewhere in full resolution (say on flickr.com and give us a link. Maybe we'll see what you see. If you don't we'll know why....

Re; Jah79 - Can you give me any explanation as to why with an ISO of 1600 shutter wide open F/4.0 and set to bulb with an exposure time of 5 to 10 minutes focus set to infinity with 50mm lens covering a large portion of clear sky and with the meteors passing at a rate of approximately one per minute that they were not captured?

The meteors have not read the rules and none of them passed the FOV of your camera in the 5 min's your shutter was open.... Just a thought.

Nice one Mike. Most sensible comment yet. They did pass though.

The fact remains though that you did not catch any meteors in your shot(as far as I can tell from the low rez images posted),the title of the blog should have been "a shot of the sky taken during the Geminid meteor shower".

Have you tried the experiment? If you have a camera with a bulb setting or a 30 second exposure just switch of all the lights. walk around with a torch. Before the shutter closes whizz as fast as poss across the field of view. The light should record but you will see that the fastest speed with light is fainter. Even better find a dark beach and try it there. Try the same without a torch in bright conditions. run as fast as you can through the field of view and voila, the invisible man. Were you there, was it you, do you exist, is there shepherds pie for tea. Who knows, but it relieves the boredom

I did not give titles to the photos, that was done by the administrator of the blog. GEnerally I do not title my images, I find it confuses people with a lack of imagination as is apparent from some of the comments.

Yes but the point is you would not then post a picture called "man running on the beach" if he was not in the shot.

"The fact remains though that you did not catch any meteors in your shot(as far as I can tell from the low rez images posted),the title of the blog should have been "a shot of the sky taken during the Geminid meteor shower". They are there Mike. Feel the force! Believe! Expand your mind! Become one with the universe, don't fight it.

Yes but the point is you would not then post a picture called "man running on the beach" if he was not in the shot. Are you familiar with the work of Marcel Duchamp?

Also See Magritte! Magritte's work frequently displays a juxtaposition of ordinary objects in an unusual context, giving new meanings to familiar things. The representational use of objects as other than what they seem is typified in his painting, The Treachery of Images (La trahison des images), which shows a pipe that looks as though it is a model for a tobacco store advertisement. Magritte painted below the pipe "This is not a pipe" (Ceci n'est pas une pipe), which seems a contradiction, but is actually true: the painting is not a pipe, it is an image of a pipe. It does not "satisfy emotionally"鈥攚hen Magritte once was asked about this image, he replied that of course it was not a pipe, just try to fill it with tobacco.[13]
Magritte used the same approach in a painting of an apple: he painted the fruit realistically and then used an internal caption or framing device to deny that the item was an apple. In these Ceci n'est pas works, Magritte points out that no matter how closely, through realism-art, we come to depicting an item accurately, we never do catch the item itself.

Source 'Wikipedia'

Yes maybe they "were" there, but they are there in your shot just as they would have been there if it had been full cloud cover that night and you took the same shot.

"I did not give titles to the photos, that was done by the administrator of the blog. GEnerally I do not title my images, I find it confuses people with a lack of imagination as is apparent from some of the comments."

I have a very good imagination, maybe I just imagined I didn't see the meteor trails in your photographs. Meteor trails would have shown up if you had captured them.

Reminder on 26.

Will you post full res images?

This reminds me of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, which postulates that what a human experiences is not real, but a shadow on the wall of the 'cosmic cave'...

Thanks so much for inspiring a philosophical moment for me.
Most enjoyable.

Sooooooooooo....basically we are saying,

"Even though the images of Geminids are not in the picture,it is still a photo of Geminids because they where there at the time?"

Sooooooooo....If I where to photograph the moon say,I have actually without knowing it captured Neil Armstrong's bootprint and could then label said photo as that of "Neil Armstrong's bootprint" but then again my photo would be more acurate then yours because mine would actually contain Neil Armstrong's bootprint where as yours is devoid of the Geminids.

This quote though I find a gem.

"I did not give titles to the photos, that was done by the administrator of the blog. GEnerally I do not title my images, I find it confuses people with a lack of imagination as is apparent from some of the comments."

So we have to imagine what the photo is?

I'll start the ball rolling.....

First pic I'll call "Big Tree"

Second pic "Fence post in the dark"

Re; lulu57. At last, intelligent life form. Re others: I guess Lady Ga Ga is lost on you. Neil Armstrong MY FOOT! MY FOOT!

Re lollobeeb 'will you post high res images. I cannot do this as I do not administer the blog.

I have to ask the people commenting if they were indoors at the time of the meteor showers. I can understand your argument that the meteors did not exist or are not there in the image because you did not see them whereas I did therefore they are there.

Re: One last possibility..

I've already copied your pix and blown them up to no avail. The image resolution on this web page is very low. There is no sign of meteors or aeroplane trail.

Why not post your pix somewhere in full resolution (say on flickr.com and give us a link. Maybe we'll see what you see. If you don't we'll know why...

The pix are low res but the geminids are still there. You are a determined soul. but I am afraid you will not see what I saw. Good luck though.

Yes I was indors at the time or the meteor shower (it was cloudy so I didn't see any). The meteor shower did occur even if I didn't observe it myself. If you captured the image of a meteor passing across the field of view of the camera where is it ?. lastly, if a tree falls in a forest does it still make a noise ? It is still a nice picture of a star trail but not a picture of a meteor trail.

Were the clouds there? Did you see them. I dont believe the shower occured. I took a photo of it and it was not there!

My wife just told me she saw two from the kitchen window. I find this hard to believe as she did not photograph them. Had she photographed the two she saw and they did not turn up in the image, should I believe her

I have no evidence that your wife exists, so I couldn't possibly comment.

I exist. I have been writing as my husband. He is an obsessive photographer and spends all his time looking for meteors. I may as well not exist but thanks to this blog, I have justified my existence. I thank you all.

Glad to be of service.

RE- "I did not give titles to the photos, that was done by the administrator of the blog."

But on your wesite you call the shots "Meteors Over St Clears".

They are very nice images just not images of Meteors.

Dude, it is well past the time to eat humble pie.

I CAN'T, IT DOES NOT EXIST WHEREAS THE METEORS DO

The administrator's blog and my website are two separate issues. Glad to discuss my website on my website.

There are galaxies, star clusters, nebulae, super-novas, exoplanets, black holes, dark matter, and even things we haven't even discovered or dreamt of yet in your photo, as well as the odd meteor.

But I can't see any of them, so I'd be hard pressed to say your photo rivals the average Hubble shot for its astronomical significance.

Nobody is denying the existance of the meteor shower. Nobody is even denying that you saw it. You may well even have pointed your camera in the right direction at the right time, and pressed the shutter release.

But with respect, you have not taken a picture OF a meteor shower. You have only taken a picture DURING a meteor shower.

"But with respect, you have not taken a picture OF a meteor shower. You have only taken a picture DURING a meteor shower."

Exactly

"But with respect, you have not taken a picture OF a meteor shower. You have only taken a picture DURING a meteor shower."

Exactly

More Nonsense! How on earth can you justify this comment?

I do not see any evidence of the a meteor trail in the photographs. Therefore you cannot state that these photographs are of the meteor shower. The meteor shower did take place, but I did not have to witness the event to know this. The photographs have been taken during a meteor shower but have not captured any meteors. They are just photographs of star trails, not meteor trails.

I'm sorry, why does my comment need justification?

You claim to have taken a picture of the sky as the meteors were passing overhead. I don't doubt that. However, the meteors do NOT appear in your photo. In fact, you may well have higher-resolution photos that DO show meteors, but the low-res ones we are debating, the ones at the top of this page, do NOT show any meteors. They are, therefore, NOT photos of meteors, in the same way they are NOT photos of the inscriptions on the gravestones in that cemetary, or of the molecular structure of the fence post.

To claim otherwise is a blatant use of Special Pleading, and really makes the whole thing rather pointless.

I did not have to witness the event to know this

so something you did not witness exists whereas something i witnessed does not. That makes sense.

To claim otherwise is a blatant use of Special Pleading, and really makes the whole thing rather pointless.

It is not I doing the special pleading. It cannot be pointless the blog proves otherwise

I've already said, I'm sure you did witness it. Nobody here has denied that. You are just making claims about the photo which are blatantly wrong. If you have higher resolution photos that show the meteor shower, then please, prove us all wrong and share them. But on the basis of the photos above, you have not captured an image of the meteors. You are a silly twit, and I'm quite frankly done with this whole thing. Better luck next time.

NOW NOW! don't throw your toys out of the crib. It always resorts to the lowest form when someone cannot get their own way. Bye!

Thanks for brightening up my day, Alan Evans. You've given a lot of entertainment to a lot of people.

I love you all!

"so something you did not witness exists whereas something i witnessed does not. That makes sense."

I shall say it again. The meteor shower took place, I do not deny this, it happens every year and is predictable, I did not have to see it to know this. The photographs do not show any meteor trails, therefore, the photographs are incorrectly captioned. You may very well have seen the meteor shower, unfortunately it was cloudy for me, but maybe your camera was pointing in the wrong direction or the shutter was not open when a meteor passed the field of view.

I just register on this site to say that before this I thought there was a limit to stupidity.

The authors off this article clearly prove there isn't!

Are you referring to your article when you say 'this'? Could you also clarify what you mean by 'authors'? be more specific in your writing if you are to contribute to something you have reluctantly joined.

I believe he's referring to the captions of your images which, while shot during a meteor shower, do not have any meteors in them. Contrary to what one would expect from the captions.

Gull - has Derek Brockway checked with his astronomer friend yet? Would be good to hear an opinion from him.

I shall say it again. The meteor shower took place, I do not deny this, it happens every year and is predictable, I did not have to see it to know this. The photographs do not show any meteor trails, therefore, the photographs are incorrectly captioned. You may very well have seen the meteor shower, unfortunately it was cloudy for me, but maybe your camera was pointing in the wrong direction or the shutter was not open when a meteor passed the field of view.

My photography also took place. Can you predict that this will happen next year. How can you be certain the meteor shower will occur next year. The photographs were not captioned by me but I approve of the caption. My website contains images in a gallery which has been captioned 'meteors over st clears. Perhaps the camera did fall to the ground without me noticing, perhaps the meteor predicted that I was going t take the photograph and decided to dodge the field of view. A lot of ifs or buts and predictions and maybes and poor attempts at avoiding the truth.

"The photographs are incorrectly captioned."
Almost sounds like a result.
"The photographs were not captioned by me but I approve of the caption."
Oh well...

noahelkanahpops wrote:
"The administrator's blog and my website are two separate issues. Glad to discuss my website on my website."

Please post a link to your website.

I'm intrigued...

Mercury66 wrote:
"Thanks for brightening up my day, Alan Evans. You've given a lot of entertainment to a lot of people.

Stagazer's Lounge: Hilarious debate on astrophotography"

Thanks for this link Mercury66 - I'll be browsing, not one I've seen before....

Thanks for the advertising

I think your photos are beautiful and you're very talented. It's just that there aren't any meteors in them. You're having a very hard time admitting a simple mistake that anybody could make.
If you ever get tired of photography you could always go into politics.

Thanks for the compliment. Politics does not appeal to me, too many false claims!I am beginning to tire of photography though. I may go into astronomy, much more interesting group of people and much friendlier than photographers judging by the comments.

I am signing off now. The discussion continues with or without me. This is democracy. I thank you all for your comments. It has been lovely spending some time with people I liken to the geminids. You are out there, I have not got an image of you but your souls have left their mark through a few black marks tapped out through a machine. I will leave you wishing you Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda or Have a wonderful Winter Solstice Spell. I leave the final words to Neale Donald Walsch

鈥淧eople believe I am what they see Me as, rather than what they do not see. But I am the Great Unseen, not what I cause Myself to be in any particular moment. In a sense, I am what I am not. It is from the Am-notness that I come, and to it I always return.鈥�

There are a number of meteor showers every year that are predictable. Astronomers know when these showers occur and look forward to seeing them. The Geminid meteor shower is just one of them.


"My photography also took place. Can you predict that this will happen next year."

To be honest, I don't know if you will be photographing meteors next year. The meteor shower will take place whether you photograph it or not as will all the other annual meteor showers.

Your photographs are not of a meteor shower, I would expect to see at least one meteor trail for that, they are still and always will be photographs of star trails. Better luck with the next annual meteor shower.

(Quantrids Jan 1-5 max Jan 3 ZHR120)

Actually those do look like star trails to me
Here's a picture showing star and meteor trails



You can find lots more if you Google images for star and/or meteor trails

Ok, one last post, now that I know he is a "professional" photographer.

I do hope none of his potential clients find this page. Can you imagine:

Client: "I hired you to photograph my wedding"

Him: "I did"

Client: "But these are all photos of ducks."

Him: "Yes, but I took them at the same time as your wedding. I was even pointed in the right direction. Ergo, these photos are of your wedding. It's not my fault your wedding was in Dorset and my camera was in Yorkshire."

Client: "You're an idiot. Nice ducks, though."

Maybe Bruce Cockburn sums it up in "If a tree falls"..

Rain forest
Mist and mystery
Teeming green
Green brain facing lobotomy
Climate control centre for the world
Ancient cord of coexistence
Hacked by parasitic greedhead scam
From Sarawak to Amazonas
Costa Rica to mangy B.C. hills
Cortege rhythm of falling timber.

What kind of currency grows in these new deserts,
These brand new flood plains?

If a tree falls in the forest does anybody hear?
If a tree falls in the forest does anybody hear?
Anybody hear the forest fall?

Cut and move on
Cut and move on
Take out trees
Take out wildlife at a rate of species every single day
Take out people who've lived with this for 100,000 years
Inject a billion burgers worth of beef
Grain eaters, methane dispensers.

Through thinning ozone,
Waves fall on wrinkled earth
Gravity, light, ancient refuse of stars,
Speak of a drowning
But this, this is something other.
Busy monster eats dark holes in the spirit world
Where wild things have to go
To disappear
Forever

If a tree falls in the forest does anybody hear?
If a tree falls in the forest does anybody hear?
Anybody hear the forest fall?

If a tree falls in the forest does anybody hear?
If a tree falls in the forest does anybody hear?
Anybody hear the forest fall?

(If a tree falls in the forest)
(If a tree falls in the forest)

Was this discussion surreal or what?

L

Derek...

Please check future contributions before you blog 'em!

The photographer has graciously withdrawn from this discussion - now the editors of this website need to show some responsibility and make a comment. Since Monday 14 December thay have been running a photo which they say shows a meteor shower, when plainly it doesn't. The error has been pointed out by numerous people.

Come on guys, you're journalists, you're the 主播大秀, you know the score. A correction and an apology please.

Never let it be said that a journalit never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Others have already pointed out the error the 主播大秀 made in the captioning of the photographs and have left Mr Alan Evans to defend himself because of your error in misrepresenting the photographs as images of meteor showers. Take resposibility 主播大秀.

Having just signed to the blog and an amateur photographer Alan Evans's photo has certainly made an impact with very interesting reading
there is no doubt that the trails in this image are all stars,
Camera was pointing about NNE as the centre of these radii is above the left side of the picture,and they all scribe the same amount of arc
the picture is small and highly compressed noisy and has no exif (due to uploading to the blog ) but I would say the aperture was quite small and/or the ISO was quite low,
A 10 min exposure will expose those slow moving stars for 600 seconds whilst a fast moving meteor might be in shot for a second or two,
It doesn't need a mathematician to calculate how bright the meteor will show in comparison to the stars
but I have to say well done to Alan Evans for getting out there and giving it a go,and ening up with a cracking picture,
better luck the next time.

Many Thanks Mike. Camera Setting As Follows. I agree, low res images don't give much detail. ISO of 1600 shutter wide open F/4.0 and set to bulb with an exposure time of 5 to 10 minutes focus set to infinity with 50mm lens covering a large portion of clear sky and with the meteors passing at a rate of approximately one per minute. Your comments are far less insulting than the astronomers which have been posted on their website. As I said, safety in numbers and mob rule. I wouldn't want to meet any of them in the dark. They have been particularly insulting to Derek and the 主播大秀.

post from the astronomers website, one of many nasty little comments

Clearly neither Derek or himself are astronomers, because if they were they would know that the images contained exactly NO geminids and the images would not have been published and made open for discussion.

No offence to Wales or the Welsh peope (i love you and your country), but if this has been the most popular blog on the Welsh 主播大秀 website ever.................i'm thinking not alot of exciting stuff happens in Wales.

I'm glad we got this sorted out. I dont know how much more of it i could have taken before i gave myself a hernia from laughing so much.

HOW NARROW MINDED CAN ONE GET

Honestly, are you STILL going on about it? Now that this blog indirectly advertises your buisness (for better or for worse), I would have thought you'd draw a line under it and get on with your life.

Forget about it. Judging by your website, you're obviously a talented photographer, but this whole debacle really doesn't do you any favours.

"HOW NARROW MINDED CAN ONE GET"

Clearly you have not taken in what others and myself have said about your photographs of the "meteors". The camera clearly was not pointing in the right direction or the shutter was not open when a meteor passed the field of view. The metor trails would have appeared on your photographs had they passed infront of the camera. This is all we have tried to impress upon you, but you are still convinced that your photographs show meteor trails and star trails. Could you possibly open your own mind to fact that you didn't capture the meteor trails ?. There is nothing wrong with the photograph as a photograph of star trails, but inaccurate and misleading as a photograph of meteor trails.
You will have another chance to photograph meteors in early January. I would recommend that you use a wider angle lens next time so that you can cover a greater area of the sky.

apologies, this is the website. Haven't done so bad yourselves withh the advertising