File :-(, x, )
yo /p/ Pulng
Afternoon /p/

Why does /p/ not like vignetting?
Is it because its not a 'real' effect? or because it branched off of using the wrong equiptment?

pic related, but not mine.
>> Anonymous
It does not 'add' anything to a picture, but it's more the fact that when it's applied by say, noobs, it looks so obviously shopped that it just hurts.
>> Anonymous
It's generally used by idiots to place emphasis on the subject, which would be done better by good composition.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
I kinda like it, myself.
>> Anonymous
If I wanted vignetting I'd use the stock lens.
>> M/A !n21TE7QU8U
Various reasons i guess.
To most people it looks like LOL VIGNETTE but to some it emphasises the subject.
If done properly it can look good.
Still, natural vignetting > shooped.
>> Anonymous
It is a real effect? I don't know why you think it isn't. All lenses vignette to some extent.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Some cameras do it naturally...
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
/p/ doesnt like it because trendy kids think its cool but their Rebel doesnt do it so they over shoop it in.

Threads where ive seen real vignetting have generally not minded it or liked it.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
I've never gotten shit for doing it, or selective masking, which is basically the same thing.

Just do it right and /p/ won't care.
>> Depressed Cheesecake
you guys are homos

vignetting FTW
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
vignetting (and selective desat, and hdr, and all the million little photoshop tricks) instantly dates your images. you guys love it now, but in ten years... (flash back to 1998: why can't i put scanlines all over my photos guys? why can't i run it through the watercolor filter?)

really good photography should be timeless, or serve as a document of the times. it should never be just a product of the times, and that's what vignetting does to it.
>> Anonymous
>>152827

but if i do it in film, i'm cool, am i rite lol
>> Anonymous
What all of you are talking about is fall-off, not vignetting. It happens with all lenses, but usually only visibly when shooting wide open on normal and wide-angle lenses, particularly non-retrofocus wide angles such as found on rangefinder cameras. Vignetting occurs when something physically blocks light from entering the lens and appears in the photograph, such as with a lens hood that is too long.

IMO edge burning is fine so long as it is done appropriately and well, which unfortunately it isn't always.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
>>152827
>it should never be just a product of the times, and that's what vignetting does to it.

Tell that to Stieglitz. As both a matter-of-fact optical effect and a creative treatment, it's been around a long, long time.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
     File :-(, x)
>>152841
....yeah....forgot the Stieglitz
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>152838
>What all of you are talking about is fall-off, not vignetting.
No, Vignetting just means the darkening at the edges of the picture. It can be from having too many filters or mounting a lens that doesn't project a big enough image circle, but it's still vignetting if it's vignetting due to falloff.
>> Anonymous
>>152843
Traditionally, vignetting has always referred to physical interference with the path of light.
>> Anonymous
>it's still vignetting if it's vignetting due to falloff

Not so. It's just falloff then. "vignetting due to falloff" is a contradiction in terms.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>152846
>>152847
Do you guys have a credible source on this? This is the first time I've heard this distinction being made. A quick google search suggests I'm right, since the only people arguing elsewise are just random yahoos on message boards.
>> Anonymous
Please do not feed the trolls. -___-
>> Anonymous
>>152850
Every proper text on photography I've ever had has made this distinction. Technical classes in college. Technical reviews of lens cite falloff where there's falloff, only citing vignetting when there's a problem with a lens hood, filters on a wide lens, or something like that. Granted, it's not a huge distinction between the two, but they are still fundamentally different terms.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>152853
Well, there's always the chance that one's a troll and the other's just some guy who believed the troll because nobody contradicted him. Wouldn't want to see something like that build steam.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>152854
>Every proper text on photography I've ever had has made this distinction.
That's not a cite. That's an "I remember reading this..."

I'm thinking it's more likely that you just got the wrong idea because they are slightly different terms. Vignetting is *caused by* falloff, or by obstruction. Vignetting isn't a fundamental property of a lens, whereas falloff is. But a lens with a lot of falloff will give you vignetting on your pictures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignetting
(In b4 someone edits the Wikipedia page to disagree with me)
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
>>152857
I think that's what he was saying.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>152860
No, he's saying that vignetting caused by falloff isn't vignetting.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Vignetting is awesome and I love it. Not all the time, but I love it when it's used well.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
>>152867
Well in traditional terms it isn't, really. Falloff is falloff. But whatever, language evolves.