It was overcast, gray, chilly, and windy. . .

It was overcast, gray, chilly, and windy outside when our English Oak tree was delivered to replace the tree that broke off in the Kansas wind. I would appreciate C & C (particularly interested in learning how I might have improved the exposure). Thank you in advance.

So much going on.... don't know what to focus on.

Here is another one. How does the exposure look on this one?

In spite of the fact that it was overcast, where the sun is becomes important.

There is one clear indicator and that is the face of the one person whose face is showing the most. What would you say about the quality of light on his face?

What does that tell you about where the sun was at in relation to your vantage point and line of sight?

Was any of that of concern to you when you took your shot?

In the second shot, it appears that the lighting is better here, because the man's face is clear. What do you think about the relative quality of light in the two pictures?

I am not sure where the sun was. It was about 1:30 in the afternoon and completely overcast. I probably should have metered on faces and not on the tree trunk. I thought the tree trunk was nearer to 18% gray though. The second one is better but I do not know why his face is not in focus. Probably because I focused on the tree trunk because that is what I was interested in.

The important issue was not metering but lighting. The scene would surely have been better with the sun behind you - you have to learn to look for shadows. Yes, they were faint, but they were there.

In the 1.5 MP version that is hosted for us to see, I cannot detect any unsharpness in his face at 200% to 400% where it is becoming pixellated. I would think that the dof would be pretty good at f/7.1 - and the tree trunk was at the same distance as his face.

Actually, when all is said and done, there is nothing here to complain about - we're just nit picking, because there are no big issues

There is something very seriously wrong here. I spent two years stationed at Fort Riley during the Vietnam war and trees were always leaning over about 45 degrees due to the ever-present 60 MPH "breeze". Just pulling your leg --

Seriously, I think that the subject is good, but I learned a new thing today from Bob about shadows on heavily overcast days. I can see that there are definite shadows from the people, wheelbarrows, and even the trees. Very good information to file away. As far as metering is concerned, it does not need to be gray and I was taught that you should pick something that you want to be at the mid-range of exposure. Many years ago (not having a dedicated light meter) I would get very close to a subjects face to get a meter reading through the camera's metering system because the face is what I usually wanted to be at mid-range exposure.

Bill Boehme wrote in post #8883211
There is something very seriously wrong here. I spent two years stationed at Fort Riley during the Vietnam war and trees were always leaning over about 45 degrees due to the ever-present 60 MPH "breeze". Just pulling your leg --

Seriously, I think that the subject is good, but I learned a new thing today from Bob about shadows on heavily overcast days. I can see that there are definite shadows from the people, wheelbarrows, and even the trees. Very good information to file away. As far as metering is concerned, it does not need to be gray and I was taught that you should pick something that you want to be at the mid-range of exposure. Many years ago (not having a dedicated light meter) I would get very close to a subjects face to get a meter reading through the camera's metering system because the face is what I usually wanted to be at mid-range exposure.

And while everyone interprets the Zone system differently, one thing I have come to accept as valid is that caucasion complexion calls for a Zone VI placement.
Zone VI placement can be interpreted as exposure of one stop greater than is called for by your in camera meter.
Having said all that, there is one irrefutable truth about an autoexposure system, and that is that it is as dumb as a rock.

Robert_Lay wrote in post #8885642
And while everyone interprets the Zone system differently, one thing I have come to accept as valid is that caucasion complexion calls for a Zone VI placement.
Zone VI placement can be interpreted as exposure of one stop greater than is called for by your in camera meter.
Having said all that, there is one irrefutable truth about an autoexposure system, and that is that it is as dumb as a rock.

That's good to know. I can apply it to my new digital camera. I forgot to mention that the camera that I was using back when I learned to meter off the face was purely manual with a built-in center-the-needle light meter. Interestingly enough, they called it an automatic camera because of the built-in light meter. The automatic part was done by me when I set the aperture and shutter speed. If I had actually known about the Zone system back then (forty years ago), I might have also figured out to increase the exposure by one stop.

Thanks so much to everyone for taking the time to post comments and advice. I really appreciate it a lot.

My first thought on viewing the first image was "walk around to the other side".
That is what Bob is telling you.
Position yourself strategically in terms of light (or provide your own)
Watch your background, consider your exposure, take the shot.
Blasting away just causes you more work.

Here, here!

The more people understand this concept the better their photos will become for they then understand that the meter is only recommending an 18% grey exposure with the ASSUMPTION that this is what one wants.

I thought that wedding dress was white?

After I will die, I will be found clutching my incident meter in my cold dead hand.