I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that the image must be a composite. The premise that you can't go that deep without trailing the foreground no longer applies. Modern DSLR's can produce very sharp images at exceedingly high ISO's. The Nikon D3 can shoot at ISO 6400 with amazing sharpness. You can even bump it up to an ISO of 25,600 and get good results. If the image was shot on a pro DSLR by somebody who knows their way around CS3, I could believe it being the edited version of a single exposure. Bill in Flag In a message dated 4/16/2008 6:24:15 PM US Mountain Standard Time, bas@xxxxxxxxxx writes: It's just occurred to me that the Duriscoe shot of the Peaks _must_ be a composite. The reason simply is that Earth still spins: you can't get a sky shot that deep without having the foreground smeared out from trailing at least a little bit. So there might be just two shots taken back-to-back---maybe the slight trace of illumination on the cloud-cap isn't from the east side of Flagstaff, but instead from a bit of morning twilight. **************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851) -- See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please send personal replies to the author, not the list.