I was using only the short default shade, not the deep shade, so that isn't a factor. Most of the vignetting is from my rendering ... I often add some vignetting and otherwise manipulate the illumination across the field of view for a given scene to help direct the eye in a quiet way to what I am intending for the photograph.Godfrey, the Color Skopar 50mm f2.5 seems to vignette on the M10. Or is it the shade?
How these two light falloffs are cancelled each other? Does enlarger lens produce the fall off similar to the lens? is this should add more falloff? ThanksI think when printing analogue the light falloff disappears in part because the enlarger produces light falloff too!
Erik.
I'd never thought of this but it makes sense. With a negative image, light becomes dark and dark becomes light. When the light from the enlarger passes through, the vignetting from its lens darkens the parts of the negative where the taking lens vignetting made the image brighter. When it's projected onto paper in a positive image, it has the effect of brightening the vignetted corners. Brilliant!The lens of the camera vignettes, but the lens of the enlarger vignettes too, so the vignetting of the enlarger cancels out the vignetting of the camera. Positive/negative.
Erik.
It's been too long for me to remember the details, honestly, but I know that my rendering notions for printing changed a lot when I went to all-inkjet printing. A lot of what I reach for when rendering now was either a part of the materials' nature when I printed in the wet lab, or actually go in the other direction due to the different nature of an inkjet printer engine.I think when printing analogue the light falloff disappears in part because the enlarger produces light falloff too!
Got it, it is the negative film showed more translucency around the corners and the enlarger lens pass less light around the cornersThe lens of the camera vignettes, but the lens of the enlarger vignettes too, so the vignetting of the enlarger cancels out the vignetting of the camera. Positive/negative.
Erik.
Which shots are you referring to, the test exposures or the photograph of the skeleton reposing in a front yard? The latter is a rendered interpretation—whether you like it or not is purely a matter of personal preference. The former are unedited and display what the lenses produce... 😉To my taste the shots of Godfrey above have too much light fall off. It immediately stands out. I guess this effect is easy to remove in Photoshop.