The effect is not actually vignetting in a in a traditional photographic sense.
The effect of the polarizer is heavier on the left side. The sky and sea seem
darker on the right side due to the polarizer. I agree with you on the
vignetting from lenses. The other vignetting effect can be seen in Photoshop
and causes fuzzy edges around an image and makes it look like a 1890's
photograph. However, "Webster's" does not restrict the definition to what has
traditionally been used in a photograpgic sense.
Gordon
Rob Geraghty wrote:
> 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: 20010118 0332.jpg
> 20010118 0332.jpg Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg)
> Encoding: base64
