A unlit wedding shot in the shade

Was walking through Golden Gate park yesterday and saw a newly married couple dressed to the nines and what looked one photographer with a DSLR and a guy with a P&S. The couple were under the shade of a tree and no flash click click click. It was a deep high rooted tree with a canopy at about 7'. They were at least 2' inside and the reflected sky light from the opening was coming from dark surroundings ... i.e. the light was low and flat.

This doesnt necessarily sound poorly executed to me.
If I were in the situation, I would put them in the shade with my DSLR with no flash. The person with a P&S was probably a guest.

Shade lighting is like death in my world ... I want nice soft directional lighting ... a real source to extend the contrast at capture rather than trying to pump life into a flat file.

Unless you saw their pictures, why would you put down a fellow professional, assuming you are one.

jetcode wrote in post #10860262
Shade lighting is like death in my world ... I want nice soft directional lighting ... a real source to extend the contrast at capture rather than trying to pump life into a flat file.

I have no idea what you saying. Are you saying lighting using the shade is bad?

If that's what you are saying, you are contradicting yourself. It is directional lighting. Might not be the direction you like, but it has a direction.

You can get very contrasty images if you know how to position your subjects in the shade. Why do you think professionals use window light whenever they can?

viet wrote in post #10860304
I have no idea what you saying. Are you saying lighting using the shade is bad?

I won't pretend to speak for Jetcode, and maybe his statement was overly dramatic, but he's right. In REALLY cloudy or overcast conditions, the lighting loses direction because it's so diffuse that it appears to come from everywhere. This can lead to very flat looking images. I will add some flash to this situation; maybe only 1-2 stops above ambient, just to give the subjects some definition. Otherwise; the image may appear very flat. All that said, I'd much rather shoot in heavy cloud-cover and be able to control the direction and intensity of my light than deal with full sun and have to fill.

Jetcode you're coming off as a bit of a know-it-all amateur. Shade can give great lighting, and depending on where people are placed in shade it can give directional light. If I shoot in shade I may or may not use flash.

There's none of your work linked from anywhere either, pictures you've posted are landscape or objects, not people. I don't think you can criticize people unless you can show you can do as well or better.

I agree with Tim, a little forward of Jet to state the poor quality of photographer w/o s eeing work, nor posting his!! Mid-day sun, sun piercing in eyes, squinting....all fairly good reasons to get some shade!

Peacefield wrote in post #10861100
I won't pretend to speak for Jetcode, and maybe his statement was overly dramatic, but he's right. In REALLY cloudy or overcast conditions, the lighting loses direction because it's so diffuse that it appears to come from everywhere. This can lead to very flat looking images. I will add some flash to this situation; maybe only 1-2 stops above ambient, just to give the subjects some definition. Otherwise; the image may appear very flat. All that said, I'd much rather shoot in heavy cloud-cover and be able to control the direction and intensity of my light than deal with full sun and have to fill.

i wouldn't say so. i've done some of my favorite work in cloudy conditions. think of it like the whole sky being a giant softbox for you, and work accordingly.

@jetcode: perhaps you could learn a thing or two from that photographer. i don't know what his final results look like, but shade does not equate to the necessity of flash in my book, and i've done plenty of work that speaks otherwise to such a limited mindset.

I love shooting in shade with no flash. It is my favorite lighting

i like shade with fill flash

tim wrote in post #10862198
Jetcode you're coming off as a bit of a know-it-all amateur. Shade can give great lighting, and depending on where people are placed in shade it can give directional light. If I shoot in shade I may or may not use flash.

There's none of your work linked from anywhere either, pictures you've posted are landscape or objects, not people. I don't think you can criticize people unless you can show you can do as well or better.

I almost wanted to respond to this ... but I won't.

IMO shaded light has no where near the luminosity of real directional light. It was dark under this tree and the light was flat and no flash. You might get some nice skin tone and contrast but you will never get the kind of shadows that quality directional lighting offers.

Focused Moments wrote in post #10862281
i like shade with fill flash

+1^^^ my preference would be a side light flash and a bounce on the other side

jetcode wrote in post #10862316
I almost wanted to respond to this ... but I won't.

Shade has no where near the luminosity of real directional light. It was dark under this tree and the light was flat and no flash. You might get some nice skin tone and contrast but you will never get the kind of shadows that quality directional lighting offers.

all i can advise is to considering broadening your horizons a little. directional lighting is not a prerequisite to high quality results.

alt4852 wrote in post #10862328
all i can advise is to considering broadening your horizons a little. directional lighting is not a prerequisite to high quality results.

For the record and since you don't know me I will assume it matters. I have shot in shade. I am well aware of what that light source is like. I can see light fairly well and for me it's less desirable than filtered / non filtered directional light. YMWV duly noted. I need shadows but that's me.

Folks feel free to offer some shade lit images. I'd love to see them.

jetcode wrote in post #10862316
I almost wanted to respond to this ... but I won't.

IMO shaded light has no where near the luminosity of real directional light. It was dark under this tree and the light was flat and no flash. You might get some nice skin tone and contrast but you will never get the kind of shadows that quality directional lighting offers.

+1^^^ my preference would be a side light flash and a bounce on the other side

Unless the tree was the size of the Mother tree in Avatar. It was directional light.

Here's a couple samples I shot under overcast and using the "shade" inside the window + ambient from the lamp. Excuse the lame border & diff. sizes, grabs from two different times. Top from a few years back, bottom recently and second shot for someone else.

Over cast:

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

viet wrote in post #10862499
Unless the tree was the size of the Mother tree in Avatar. It was directional light.

It was large enough (low overhang) for the entire entourage to get lost amongst it's roots it was not directional it was dark and shady and filled with reflected overhead light after sun down.

Both images are lovely.