As far as that goes, why would a photo of a spirit show only the head? Spirits don’t have necks?
'tis a mystery, but I have read people describing seeing a floating head and associating that as a ghost. However, I’m no spiritual apologist. I would just find it interesting to see more of a figure becoming transparent and then losing the majority of its form for that is a camera effect that I’ve never heard of before.
Here’s what I could whip up in the last 10 minutes. Warning: absolutely awful photo ahead, but shows the basic idea. This is a single frame, not a composite:
The dog was about three feet or so to the left of the frame when I took the photo. You could see the very edge of his leash at the bottom left corner.
So here’s the basic deal. Camera set at an exposure of two seconds. Pitch black outside. Tungsten light source (in this case, a flashlight handheld by me, which made this particularly tricky to take, balancing a camera in my right hand and a flashlight in my left). Flash illuminates foreground of Weber Smokey Mountain and plastic chairs. I whirl my camera to the left, where my dog is illuminated by a flashlight I’m trying to keep on him. The second or second and a half or so on which my camera is on the dog is enough to record an exposure with the flashlight against the grass and black background. (The background was far enough away that it wasn’t illuminated by the flash–same as in your photo). If I had “stuttered” my camera in two places, I could have made another ghost impression of the dog in the frame, but juggling a camera, flashlight, and getting my dog to look at me and patiently sit (which he did for a couple minutes, good dog!) was difficult enough. And, as you see, the flash exposure has a white neutral to slightly bluish tone to it, and the tungsten, continuous/ambient light source has an amber color to it.
Thank you. 
That was very interesting
That doesn’t look like your dog. That looks like my dog that died 10 years ago…in a tragic accident with a Weber grill!
(Seriously, that’s a pretty great demonstration of the same effect to pull together in 10 minutes.)
And here’s a version that didn’t come out as well, but shows you the streaking that you see in your photo (although your photo has more pronounced streaking because it has a more reflective surface, like a belt buckle), and here’s a photo that might help you understand what’s happening.
Please do not judge me as a photographer by these photos. 
Oh, and looking through the rest of my, um, “artistic” photos, here’s an example of what I mean by if I “stuttered” I could have made two impressions of the dog. I didn’t get a chance to try that with the flash (my dog had lost patience by then), but I could have combined the flashed Weber exposure with that one in one frame.
Now I don’t necessarily think the photo was deliberately staged as a fake. I suppose it could have been, but these sorts of photos happen as accidents. You take a frame, forgetting or not knowing that the camera is set for a flash and a long exposure, and after the flash fires, you whip it to one side when you move it away from your face, and if somebody happens to be standing in a lit area by happenstance, they will get recorded into your frame.
Remarkable lesson in photographic science! I’m impressed. A lot of those “accidental” effects could be really artistic, when used intentionally (or perhaps just fortuitously!)
Many years ago, I played some double-exposure games, such as putting San Diego’s Qualcomm Stadium down into the middle of an empty pasture, or overlaying a friend’s face onto an elephant’s butt. Nowadays, post-processing makes all of that much too easy!
And one last one, just of our model Zuk, who was clearly not amused. ("What the fuck? I was sleeping peacefully on the couch and you got me out for this???)
Not that it matters, but here’s another site claiming that these pictures are spirits.
http://www.iisis.net/index.php?page=reincarnation-spirit-photos-images
Yes, there’s a shit ton of these sorts of sites. Also look up “ghost orbs.” There’s a lot of bullshit out there.
I just want to appluad pullykamell for taking the trouble. Good on you!
People’s capacity for ignorance and stupidity will never cease to amaze me. I used to take silly shots like that on film 30 years ago, usually on purpose and sometimes accidentally. The idea anyone could believe that spirits etc was a preferred explanation boggles my mind.
Your immortal soul is in jeopardy mister.
dude - disembodied
That Cthulu in the upper left?
I just noticed a slight error above this morning. The technique, as mentioned above by another poster, is called dragging the shutter in combination with either front- or rear-curtain sync on the flash. All cameras that I know of default to front curtain sync (flash at beginning of exposure.) More expensive cameras and flash units also have a rear-curtain option (flash at very end of exposure.) “Slow sync” is a mode you often see on cameras that combines flash with an ambient exposure (dragging the shutter.)
It’s not really that important to the discussion, but I wanted to set the record straight on the terminology as, in my rush out the door, I combined two separate concepts int one. My photos were taken with default front-curtain flash and a 2 second exposure.
No photoshop required. You see a face in an illuminated plume of smoke because of pareidolia. In fact you can see faces in practically any picture ever taken.
You can–it’s just that the picture in the OP is not an example of this phenomenon. Well, I kind of take that back. The “dog” in the OP’s second photo that is mentioned later in thread would be an example of pareidolia. The screaming face is an actual person, somewhere left of the main frame/exposure of the vehicle. (Or, another possibility I haven’t discussed is that this can also just be an inadvertent double exposure. The same effect can be done that way. Or I suppose it can be a purposeful double exposure, but I’m just giving the person who took the photo the benefit of a doubt that it’s not willful misdirection. Actually, revisiting the original frame, I think it’s most likely a single exposure, given the blurring of the car itself where some ambient light bled through. But I can’t 100% rule out a double exposure. That picture could be made that way, too.)