Gordon wrote:
> The effect is not actually vignetting in a in a traditional
> photographic sense.
Thanks. I didn't think it was.
> 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.
It all depends on the angle of the light. The polariser is
most effective at right angles to the sun since it removes
scattered light - but of course the sky in any given shot
covers more than the bit of the sky that is exactly at right
angles!
> 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.
I haven't tried this, but if you mean something which puts
an oval shape around the edge of an image, that's what I
know of as vignetting in terms of printing photos - done
by dodging or burning the edges.
> However, "Webster's" does not restrict the definition
> to what has traditionally been used in a photographic
> sense.
I'll just refuse to take offense over the opinion of one
person from a stock image company. :) In defense of my
use of polarisers - I like the saturated colours in a
polarised landscape, but in the case of this particular
photo shoot, it was to reduce the contrast in the shots.
Because the summer light in Australia is very bright,
and thanks to the hole in the ozone layer there's lots
of UV, the polariser helps to cut down the highlights
and put the image in a range the film can deal with
more easily. In an ideal world I might use huge
diffusers and warming reflectors, but I don't have a
cast of thousands (or a budget to match) when taking
pictures. :)
Thanks to everyone who replied - I was particularly
intrigued to hear of the origin of the word.
Rob
PS Other shots taken with a simple UV filter don't
show the same variations in the sky, so it's not
a fault in the camera lens.
Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com
