ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

Attachment: 20010118 0332.jpg
Description: JPEG image



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.