[NecroticSoldier]

Where would you want to use Vignetting?

[Tuner571]

Personally, I do like vignetting on some shots but it really depends on the photo itself. Last year I took a photo of a couple sitting on the rocks fishing while the sun was setting. I converted the image to a sepia tone and then added a little vignetting so that the viewers eyes would go more quickly to the main subjects. I also think it can be used to somewhat frame a subject as well as the photo I mentioned above. The darkening of the edges framed the couple very nicely and made the photo more appealing over all.

Cory

[jct us101]

Personally I like to use vignetting a lot, but I find that nobody else really likes it. In any situation (maybe not architecture, because it doesn't feel right there) I can usually find a way to make it work, but some notable examples of where it would definitely add to the photo is sunset style sky photos, and then also portraits and portraits of flowers, and that kind of photography.

But like I said, I love to use vignetting everywhere that I can, because I think that it really helps with adding a more natural kind of frame to the photo.

[Itai]

Never, ever, ever use vignetting. If you want crappy results might as well pay for crappy stuff.

Everything looks like a tunnel. Some people say it draws attention to the subject but in that
case I call it poor framing. As Alain Briot said, the world does not get darker on the edges of
our vision, so why would be shot that on photos?

- Itai
Neoluminance | Fine Art Photography by Itai Danan

[RioRico]

Vignetting adds a 'period' feel. I do a bit of shooting with actinic (violet-blue) light, which emulates pre-1890 orthochromatic film emulsions. Some vignetting enhances the Robber-Barons-era effect. Ah, and WHY was vignetting prevalent in that period? Because cheap traveling tintypists used cheap lenses to shoot multiple little pictures on one metal plate, to keep costs down, and those lenses didn't have an image circle sufficient to cover that place segment. Old and cheap, oh yes...

Vignetting has been used in portraiture for a long time, even in pre-photographic days, as a way to emphasize the subject. Many print mattes and mounts were (and still are) oval, or have rounded corners, or use devices at the corners to hold the prints, giving de-facto vignetting. Similarly, many portraits were (and are) shot with lenses or cheap filters that deliberately smear or fog the corners and edges, again to emphasize the subject. Some think of it as a 'romantic' effect. Form your own opinion.

A different form of vignetting comes from using a cheap wide-angle or fisheye adapter on a lens. Edges and corners are blurred, distorted, rather cruddy. These adapters were popular on early camcorders to give wide-angle or fishy effects, and because of the (low) quality and (mediocre) presentation of pre-HDTV video, the distortions didn't seem too objectionable. Put such an adapter on a FF or APS camera, or even on a better P&S, and the shortcomings are apparent. Such images CRY OUT for more forceful vignetting.

Or you can pretend it's a cheap Toy Camera effect. I cut out a piece of cardboard with a square opening and taped it over (and around) the fixed lens of an old 1mpx Sony DSC-P20 P&S. I get vignetting, light streaks, diffraction effects -- hey, it's almost as good as a Holga! And it cost absolutely nothing!

Notice how many times the word CHEAP appears above? That word is often associated with vignetting. Think about it.

EDIT:

As Alain Briot said, the world does not get darker on the edges of our vision, so why would be shot that on photos?

Actually, the world DOES fade away at the edges of my vision, but that's because my eyes are deteriorating.

[Rondec]

I don't use vignetting. In fact, if I have it show up in one of my photos, I am careful to remove it. When it works, it tends to be combined with sepia or older looking filters -- I guess the idea being to convey that the photo is some sort of throw back.

[fractal]

Never, ever, ever use vignetting. If you want crappy results might as well pay for crappy stuff.

Everything looks like a tunnel. Some people say it draws attention to the subject but in that
case I call it poor framing. As Alain Briot said, the world does not get darker on the edges of
our vision, so why would be shot that on photos?

We can't see the world in IR light, so lets scrap IR photography shall we? What about HDR?

I use it quite often if you have not already gathered. I used to get a very small amount sometimes on my DA 18-250 and it never bothered me enough to remove it.

[Nomad]

We can't see the world in IR light, so lets scrap IR photography shall we? What about HDR?

I use it quite often if you have not already gathered. I used to get a very small amount sometimes on my DA 18-250 and it never bothered me enough to remove it.

And macro
And fisheye
And long tele
Flash
Long exposure
etc etc

Hel, I am getting a point and shoot and just gonna take snapshots from now on!!


Take a look at some galleries and form an opinion of what does/doesn't work for you and HAVE FUN