Po co winieta?

All portraits in this series have been edited ?on the spot? ? right after taking the photo, with a maximum of 5 mins for post-processing. None of them have been shot in a studio, always on location and most of the time outside. At the time the vignetting seemed appropriate, and I still like it although a lot of people seem to have spoken against it in on other similar portraits.

I would recomend to dedicate more time for post processing. Vignette looks horrible and is expendable.

What I really don?t understand is how do you even notice the vignetting on a portrait shot with 1 light on a black background? Most of it is naturally occurring? the intended purpose is to emphasize the facial features, and not to seek imperfections in the surroundings? The whole idea of the project (around 80 portraits) was to shoot with minimal on-location equipment and to post-process as quick as possible. I am fully aware what the result could be after spending an hour in Photoshop or Lightroom, but that wasn?t my intention:)

It does not look natural. That is why I am asking. It is only my opinion but if you can remove vignette would be a lot better. From my point of view you do not need so strong vignette, it is enough light on his face.

Thanks for pointing that out, maybe I will re-edit in once I realize what's wrong with it... but I am afraid I still can't put my finger on it...

uff, dzieki, moj angielski jest na porazajacym poziomie