Full frame vignetting vs. Post processed -vignetting

I've always noticed that the vignetting that comes from a lens on a full frame camera is so, so much better than any post-processed vignetting I've ever seen. I feel that the vignetting that comes from a full frame camera and lens (i.e. 24-70mm) is something you can't exactly duplicate in post--especially aesthetically speaking.

Do any of you have opinions on this?

What's the closest to true lens vignetting that you've gotten?

Why would it be any different? Can you post a sample of the two showing the difference?

It is always seemed kind of silly to me that we do lens correction to remove vignetting and then put it back in for aesthetic reasons. That is one of the reasons why I don't apply lens correction unless the image contains straight lines. OTOH, LR's vignetting is post-crop and very controllable while lens vignetting is full frame. Also, vignetting done with the radial filter can be asymmetric.

@quad: lightroom vignetting is the best way to go. It looks absolutely realistic to me (plus im not 100% sure but I think it only modifies the current lens vignette to burn in more or less so it looks the exact same)

That is the vignetting control on the Lens Correction/Profile panel. There is also the vignetting in the Effects panel which can be very different.

I'm still wondering what the difference is.

gjl711 wrote in post #16548721
I'm still wondering what the difference is.

Well, in the Effects panel of LR there are three different types of vignetting; Highlight Priority, Color Priority and Paint Overlay. You can control amount, centering, roundness and feather and as I said it is applied post-cropping, so if you want it to be different, it can be very different. Or if you use the Radial Filter, the circle can be placed anywhere to create different amounts of vignetting in different corners. Of course if you do your vignetting in PS you have many, many more possibilities.

As to what is "better", that is in the eye of the beholder.

tzalman wrote in post #16548787
Well, in the Effects panel of LR there are three different types of vignetting; Highlight Priority, Color Priority and Paint Overlay. You can control amount, centering, roundness and feather and as I said it is applied post-cropping, so if you want it to be different, it can be very different. Or if you use the Radial Filter, the circle can be placed anywhere to create different amounts of vignetting in different corners. Of course if you do your vignetting in PS you have many, many more possibilities.

As to what is "better", that is in the eye of the beholder.

Yes, I understand that in post many different types of vignetting can be applied, but the OP states that the vignetting from a FF sensor is somehow far superior to one applied in post production. I am assuming that the OP is referring to either mechanical, optical, or more likely pixel vignetting as a FF sensor was specified and pixel vignetting is greater in a FF sensor. So, as these three forms are nothing more than a reduction of light as it approaches the periphery of the frame, I was wondering what property is so unique that is cannot be duplicated.

gjl711 wrote in post #16549059
...or more likely pixel vignetting as a FF sensor was specified and pixel vignetting is greater in a FF sensor.

Not to hijack the thread, but what is pixel vignetting?

drmaxx wrote in post #16549197
Not to hijack the thread, but what is pixel vignetting?

This article explains it way better than I ever could but in brief, the photo sensitive area is not on the surface of the imaging chip but recessed. In the center the light falls directly perpendicular to the chip so the center receives 100% of the photons. As you move toward the edges the light falls at an angle increasing as you move to the edges of the chip. So the photo diode receives something less.

I just truly believe that the vignetting achieved by a full frame sensor cannot be duplicated as accurately. It just looks way better. Something about it, but I can't put a finger on it.

quadwing, have you been busy breaking into Canon R&D to get that 5D IV you have in your sig?

quadwing wrote in post #17047576
I just truly believe that the vignetting achieved by a full frame sensor cannot be duplicated as accurately. It just looks way better. Something about it, but I can't put a finger on it.

quadwing, I can certainly understand the viewpoint that "truly optical" is better than "digital processing", sure, although vignetting is about of the least of things I'd consider in that respect! To me, that's especially true since vignetting is not something I'd consider an "optical quality"...and truly, if it appeals to you to have darker corners, well, that can be pretty effectively added in post processing...

There are other optical/digital qualities that lenses can provide and sometimes really need to be "tweaked" in post processing, like depth-of-field/lens blur and the whole "phony-tilt-and-shift-effect"...those are interesting things that people play with!

tim wrote in post #17047649
quadwing, have you been busy breaking into Canon R&D to get that 5D IV you have in your sig?

He is the unacknowledged son of the CEO of Canon who was a member of a group of Japanese business men that passed through Alabama twenty years ago. In lieu of child support he gets a prototype of every new Canon product.

tzalman wrote in post #17047911
He is the unacknowledged son of the CEO of Canon who was a member of a group of Japanese business men that passed through Alabama twenty years ago. In lieu of child support he gets a prototype of every new Canon product.

Precisely. I've actually been trying out the new Canon 8D. 32.8MP, medium format camera, and the EF 10-200mm f/2.8L IS USM--tack sharp!