Because M 13 sits at +36 ° declination, it never rises for far-southern latitudes and hugs the horizon below about 30 ° S. The high elevation in the shot (no obvious atmospheric extinction gradient) suggests a mid-northern site—e.g., the U.S. Midwest such as Michigan (your home turf), Canada, northern Europe, etc. The star field alone can’t narrow it further than that.
So, in practical terms: the camera was pointed toward Hercules to capture M 13 and nearby NGC 6207, almost certainly from a mid-northern latitude location on Earth.
Yep, you need date and time to get closer, sorry. 4/27, around 11pm.
That's the impressive part. "M13 is in northern latitudes" is not particularly amazing by itself :)
And even in EXIF-stripped pictures, the creation date/time is often correct, which means for practical purposes - worth a shot.
But it's interesting to see it's completely making up the "mid-northern side". That's seven degrees of latitude off.
I'm curious what happens if you tell it date and time, and if it still sticks to its story. (I don't think I've told o3 about the Bay Area, it's not in memory, but... who knows ;)
Where on Earth the photographer had to be
Because M 13 sits at +36 ° declination, it never rises for far-southern latitudes and hugs the horizon below about 30 ° S. The high elevation in the shot (no obvious atmospheric extinction gradient) suggests a mid-northern site—e.g., the U.S. Midwest such as Michigan (your home turf), Canada, northern Europe, etc. The star field alone can’t narrow it further than that.
So, in practical terms: the camera was pointed toward Hercules to capture M 13 and nearby NGC 6207, almost certainly from a mid-northern latitude location on Earth.