Mario22 Loc: Albany, NY

I will ask about a daylight pic to help see the possible scene. There was no cropping done. Obtaining more info is being delayed due to the holiday and travel. Thx so much for your interest and ideas!

FastHorses Loc: The Bluegrass

Makes me think of a double exposure...

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

The image is dark and the second deer behind the first and facing in the opposite direction might not have been noticed when shooting. It seems quite possible they were positive about it not being there but they were mistaken.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Today when I look at this again, it seems to be simply a second, larger deer standing in the dark just outside the range of the light.

dustie Loc: Nose to the grindstone

Trying a little more subtle moving of some adjustment sliders takes me back to Grahame's look on page 4. --. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/tpr?p=14297441&t=792684

Grahame shows what can be Deer 1, Deer 2, Deer 3, Deer 4.
Deer 1 is pretty obvious.

Not certain where the yellow outline of Deer 2 body actually should be. Seems it was not illuminated to the same level as Deer 3 and 4.

Deer 3, outlined in white, appears to have some portions of lower legs/feet visible.

Deer 4 shows a flank and hind leg.

The green line marks what appears to be where the ground drops down in the more faint image of Deer 2, 3, and 4.

If any of this is close to the truth, it is understandably conceivable there is a double image here, but the camera position and subject to camera distance do not seem to be identical in both.
There is also a distinct horizontal line straight across the upper portion quite near the top (if you look closely), which seems to indicate double exposure where the two images are not indexed exactly alike in that upper area.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Good work outlining them and here's how I had interpreted Deer 2. Not being a Deer expert, what is the possibility of Deer 1 with the antlers being that physical size compared to the others behind it?

(Download)

dustie Loc: Nose to the grindstone

Ahhhhh.....perfectly reasonable interpretation of Deer 2 !!

If there is that much size disparity between deer 1 and the others while the subject-to-camera distance and camera position parameters are in the same frame at the same time, it shows a very interesting case of either a very nicely proportioned, definitely undersized buck in front of some probably normal deer, or a normal deer in front of some unusually large framed specimens.

Do you see the horizontal line across the upper porttion of the frame? Does it seem like it may indicate two separate frames not stacked exactly with matching borders?

Klickitatdave Loc: Seattle Washington

dustie Loc: Nose to the grindstone

I keep thinking there is something different about the antler rack on the buck, also, which really is probably an entirely different matter.
It seems there is a single spike on his left side and a three point rack on his right. Not entirely unusual to see non-symmetrical racks, or an animal with one side damaged/broken, but the way this one appears in this photo just has a look of something being a little off from even a lack of symmetry.

dustie Loc: Nose to the grindstone

If it is four deer in the same frame taken in one exposure, where are # 2, 3, and 4 standing? It certainly seems the ground level drops down beyond #1, so that 2 and 3, are extemely long-legged or walking on stilts? and four is on something other than the same ground level where #1 is.

Lucian Loc: From Wales, living in Ohio

Might have been an internal reflection on one of the lens elements from the red focus assist light of a deer off to one side that bounced back to the camera, at the same time, the flash illuminated one was photographed.

dustie Loc: Nose to the grindstone

That possibility, mentioned a couple times earlier, is making more sense as I keep coming back to consider this.

If the internal reflection is mirror imaged by the physics taking place within the lens elements, Deer #4 in Grahame's example may be the reflection of the flank and leg of Deer #1.
Deer #'s 2, and 3 may be others out of direct field of view to the right of the camera, and possibly closer to it than Deer #1 is.

I suppose the size proportionality in the reflection does not have to exactly match 1:1 with the actual animals if it is being affected by perspective differences and curvature of lens elements.

I may still be way out beyond left field.
Will also be interesting if OP can obtain daytime images to use for scene comparison purposes.

Mario22 Loc: Albany, NY

Thx again for your continued thoughts. I do see the horizontal line across the top that might indicate a double exposure. I will share these diagrams with my friend and the owner to get their opinion and obtain some further info: photo in the light, she was camera last moved, any other deer images on their card and how far back from the buck does the ground drop off and how much. Thx again. I find this fascinating too.

Dan' de Bourgogne

This picture looks like...1) the result of a "double exposure shot"....2) "trap focus" could have been used to snap both images.
It supposes, the camera can be set to shot "double or multiple exposures"...and can also be set to "trap focus" in the case one would avoid to stay waiting for the moment to press the shutter release.

So, first of all, check if this camera is able to be set to shot "multiple exposures"!
If so, I imagine the following process:
- camera was set to shot "multiple exposure"...say, 2 images++++ set to "trap focus" to make the job easyer!

- the 1st image has been shot at sunset set or short after...with WB =10000°K...giving an hard red "cast"...or perhaps the drive way in the yard to the store garage is lit by a red light which is automaticaly triggered on when something is moving nearby?
- the 2nd one...simply shot with a flash burst...eventually triggered with "trap focus"...1st or 2nd curtain doesnt matter. But for this 2nd image, WB seems to be OK= set to flash...I don't suppose the opérator would have put a gélatine on the speedlight just to counteract a wrong WB setting!
I'm not sure if it is possible to change the WB setting while shoting double exposure! (i.e 100000°K for 1st image and 5200°K for the 2nd one)
OK...all this looks like strange...but plausible.
Simply my suggestion to explain the "phénomène"!
If You get the explained solution, pls. let me know...I find the subject interesting.

Bill_de Loc: US

Good photos on UHH should get this much attention.

---