SV: filmscanners: Vignetting?

["Ingemar Lindahl" <ilindahl@telia.com>]

Rob,

I sometimes  strongly believe that the established use and interpretation of a 
word is more important than the technically correct origin. Most photographers 
I can think of, as most photo editors, would look at your photo and think/say: 
There's some (a lot of) vignetting there! (Then, if time permitted, they'd 
start thinking:What made it?)  I guess we'll have to live with that. Btw, the 
real origin of the word means a small vine, usually a decorative addition to ( 
the corners of ) a book page, used already in the Very early days of 
printing/copying. 
(To me, the extreme super-blue is  more distracting than the v-effect).

Ingemar  Lindahl (:-))


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Rob Geraghty <harper@wordweb.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 2:33 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Vignetting?


> Apologies to those who are using the digest, because the attached picture
> will appear as encoded ascii.  A while back I was in touch with a guy from a
> stock photo company and I sent a low res jpeg of a photo of mine, which he
> claimed showed vignetting.  Now to me, vignetting in the camera is caused by
> a wide-angle lens "seeing" the edges of a filter.  Years ago I did make the
> mistake of putting a polariser on the end of a lens which already had a UV
> filter on it, and this certainly caused vignetting.  But the effect I
> believe he was attributing to vignetting is caused by a polariser - the sky
> tends to be darker at the edge of the photo, sometimes on one side,
> sometimes both depending on the angle to the sun.
> 
> Would anyone on the list call the variation in the sky in the attached jpeg
> vignetting?  I don't find the effect objectionable, but are publishers
> really likely to?
> 
> Obscanning: images which have this kind of effect may actually enhance it
> depending on the scanner settings used.
> 
> Rob
> 
>