NavList:

Murray B, you wrote:
"As for latitude, we don't have a great horizon in the picture because the trees."

Trees? Oh! Yes. I interpreted that background as "hills" which would be more distant (and thus closer to a true horizon), but you could well be right. So that's a problem. Another problem with the assumed "horizon" in this image is an implicit assumption that we almost always make with "photos" like this. We assume that the image is "square", aligned to the local vertical. Most photographers in a majority of photos try to hold the camera level, or they place it on a tripod, which might be more carefully leveled, if it's professional photography. But there's really no "evidence" for that alignment in the image, so it's always possible that our apparent "horizon" is much worse than we think. [this puzzle if just for fun, of course, so we can set aside these worries, right? :) ]

"Given Frank's non-astronomical assumption that the photograph is intended to depict an individual within the U.S., and given the orientation of the sky, I don't think this can be below the 49th parallel."

Yes, exactly, we have to be at a high latitude.

"So I need to go north, into Eastern Alaska or maybe as far north as Anchorage, about 61N. and about 132W."

Yes. That's very close to what I found from the image. My latitude was slightly lower than yours, but given the non-astronomical assumption that this image is targeting US consumers, the only US land along the latitude that matches the photo would have to be in Alaska.

Frank Reed