I have read about how Fuji digital cameras have built-in film simulations in JPG, allowing a photographer to select, for example, a Velvia-like appearance. Does anyone know, or have, recipes for creating similar simulations in Sony digital cameras? I have the A7CR and A7R4, and they allow me to select a "creative look", such as Vivid, and then to select a wide range of variables in contrast, highlights, shadow, saturation, and sharpness. Of course, this only works in JPG. But since I shoot mostly in JPG, and like playing around witih the Creative Looks, I wonder if there are some recipies for creating specific films looks using those adjustable parameters. Thanks in advance.

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.

This appears to be a special case of internal reflection inside the lens called “ghosting”. This can cause bright objects from outside the field of view to be captured by the lens and reflected internally, finally reaching the sensor. Internal reflections occur inside all lens, but most of the time are too low to be perceived. The following link gives further discussion, by Michael C[lark] regarding this effect.

https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/69043/what-could-cause-this-visible-artifact-which-seems-to-a-be-a-glowing-inverse-of/69048#69048

In the case of the field camera, the second deer was likely just outside the field of view of the lens when the camera flashed. The flash hitting the second deer made it bright enough to be sensed by the sensor.

Very interesting and technical idea. I like the notion of the reflection. But I wonder about the red color and the multiple deer, deer head images, that others have found with some more processing?
Here is a personal example of this effect. The circled objects were not in the field of view of the lens, but found their way into the image via internal reflections.

Not buying that. Its a trail camera. Theres no actual eye witnesses. An automated camera doesnt just make stuff up. And peeps who post their puzzlement on UHH often have no great claims to reliable info.

I cant be 100% sure of anything about it, but I know where the lesser and greater degrees of credibilty are found.

All Im saying is that between a robot and a Hawgster, history favors the robot. Personally, Im not even convinced that the background shape should be seen as an animal, sorta like seeing shapes in the clouds or in wood grain, etc. just imaginitive interpretation.

If a double exposure is in play here, the disproportion question still remains. The neck of the "doe" is quite long for that of a typical doe. It is more like the appearance of a llama or elk, if we are to imagine it as belonging to an actual animal. And the "tail" of the "red doe" appears strangely out of place if the back end of the "animal" is in typical alignment (or, it's actually ears of another animal in Grahame's four deer scenario.)

If it is double exposure, why is only one concentrated area colored red and raising the question of double exposure, while the rest of the frame is not giving the impression of double exposure and red imaging? Unless, of course, it is a composite produced in some after-camera post process.