Burning in the corners is a pretty classic effect used by many of the B&W masters. If you've used Photokit Color Effects they have filters for doing various burn-in effects like this. I think it is effective at drawing focus to the central region of the image but I think it needs to be subtle. I think the effect is a little heavy in the example you posted. As applied in the example, It makes it look like you're looking through something to the scene.
I think you have to start with a better image for it to work well.
The effect in Marc's image may be caused by the polarizer rather than being intentional (though I didn't read all the posts to find out). At any rate, I wouldn't intenationally add it, but in the case of Marc's image, wouldn't go to any great lengths to remove it either.
Generally, Marc stays away from adding any digital (post-processing) effects to his photos. He shoots with the same setup as I have (including the 17-40mm Canon L, which is a very nice lens, but notorious for bad vignetting when used wide open. I'd bet that the vignette was caused by the lens. Speaking of Marc...this guy is just amazing. I've never seen anything in our time that matches his portfolio. He has an incredible sense of patience and adventure.
Yeah, its too bad Marc couldn't have taken a better shot than that.
Actually, I have really been admiring his work lately. He really has been getting out there and seems willing to go to extremes to get the shot.
He seems to take the 'f8 and be there' principle very seriously.
I agree with Mel that 35mm @f14 shouldn't produce this kind of vignetting. If so the that would cover almost the 17-40L's entire range. I have not noticed this is other people's shots @35mm even on a FF. But stranger things could happened I guess.
I agree it can be effective when used cautiously. Speaking of his work, i just checked out his portfolio the other day. If i can get one shot like "inside the ice canyon" before i die, i will die happy!
I've been following some of Marc's work for about 9 months, which by no means makes me an expert on his work, but I believe there are some occasions where he adds the vignette. I asked him just that question about his ESS post from a few days ago. I saw this particular ESS post a few days ago on the PNWNP board. Of course, this is a great image, but I think the vignette is too pronounced here. Of all the aspects he does well, of which there are many, his ability to capture a scene with a contrast range similar to that the eye sees is his most impressive ability IMO. As such, the pronounced vignette in this photo is a detractor in comparison to his other work. As such, I'd give this image a paultry 9.6 rather than the usual 9.9 or 10.0. His die hard dedication to his craft, time spent in harsh locations, knowledge of the subject matter and shear desire to produce images sets him apart. I read he took 10,000 images on an exursion last year - I've maybe taken 7,000 in my entire life. It would be interesting to see some of the images he throws away - they probably look like the ones I post.
Another way to do this effect is to use the vignette in raw conversion. It is really designed to remove the effect, but one can use it to create the effect.
Discussion
8 repliesI was admiring this recent shot from Marc Adamus, and was wondering if anyone else uses this effect?
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=17725&b=vf15&st=0&la=1910&ph=4&sid=13221&u=13221
Do you think this draws the viewer in? Just curious. I tend to like it.
- Derek
The effect in Marc's image may be caused by the polarizer rather than being intentional (though I didn't read all the posts to find out). At any rate, I wouldn't intenationally add it, but in the case of Marc's image, wouldn't go to any great lengths to remove it either.
Yeah, its too bad Marc couldn't have taken a better shot than that.
Actually, I have really been admiring his work lately. He really has been getting out there and seems willing to go to extremes to get the shot.
He seems to take the 'f8 and be there' principle very seriously.
I agree with Mel that 35mm @f14 shouldn't produce this kind of vignetting. If so the that would cover almost the 17-40L's entire range. I have not noticed this is other people's shots @35mm even on a FF. But stranger things could happened I guess.
- Derek
Scott