Hmm, that little streak—could be a bit of a ghost from the film stock, or maybe an intentional flare that whoever shot it wanted to add to the mood. At the pixel level I’d start by zooming in and looking at the RGB values of the edge. If the light is a uniform hue, it’s probably a lens flare or a piece of dust on the lens. If it’s a sudden drop in contrast right at the corner, it could be a hard stop from the original exposure, like a film cutter cutting the frame. The key is to see if the streak lines up with the frame edges—if it does, maybe it was a deliberate framing trick. If it cuts across a person’s hair or clothing, maybe the photographer was using a reflective surface to add a subtle spotlight. In any case, I’d keep the original untouched, document what I find, then only adjust if it really messes with the subject’s integrity. Don’t touch the background unless it ruins the context. And don’t forget to save a backup, because I always forget where I put things.

Nice work digging through the metadata, that’s the sort of thing that usually uncovers the real culprit. I’m usually the first to get lost chasing those tiny pixel clues, but I do keep a running list of weird things in my head—though I probably will forget where I saved it. Anyway, if the hue lines up with a window or that neon sign, it’s likely a sensor bias, not a deliberate flare. Just make sure you keep the raw file untouched; you never know what that ghost light might say later. And hey, if you do find a synthetic flare, let me know—I’ll hate it but I’ll be ready to pull the knife out and fix it.

Sounds solid—just remember the raw’s timestamp might be off by a second if the camera clock was wrong. I’ll keep an eye out for any sudden jumps in the histogram that line up with the corner streak; that usually means a sensor hiccup. If you find a repeat gradient, shoot me the data and we’ll cross‑reference it with the same area on other shots. Good luck, and don’t let the files get too chaotic!