A unlit wedding shot in the shade

i'm switching computers so i don't have immediate access to any of my wedding work, but here's some random stuff on my photobucket done on cloudy days or under shade:

So are you saying they should have shot midday in full sun? That just doesnt sound very smart.

If shade doesnt give the best results, full sun gives worse. At least give the guy that much credit.

Dude, to solve this all you had to do was do your own shooting in the same conditions, under the same tree.

Red Tie Photography wrote in post #10862611
So are you saying they should have shot midday in full sun? That just doesnt sound very smart.

If shade doesnt give the best results, full sun gives worse. At least give the guy that much credit.

fill flash ... high quality fill flash ... just saying ... as far as credit you had to see it ... I wouldn't want to process those shots. They are probably fine but I have seen some dandy fill flash work that takes it all up a couple of juicy notches. IMO I will never be able to recreate that kind of quality light in a flat or poorly lit frame.

Originally Posted by SuperHuman21
Dude, to solve this all you had to do was do your own shooting in the same conditions, under the same tree.
what does that mean? there is nothing to solve it's an observation.

There is or you wouldn't be asking for images. Think whatever you want though.

alt4852 wrote in post #10862588
i'm switching computers so i don't have immediate access to any of my wedding work, but here's some random stuff on my photobucket done on cloudy days or under shade:

etc etc.

The 1st and 4th image feature directional lighting. Natural directional light. Notice how beautifully luminescent that light is? how the shadows work? and I believe the light source is flat sky light at a 135-150 degree right angle.

jetcode wrote in post #10862663
The 1st and 4th image feature directional lighting. Natural directional light. Notice how beautifully luminescent that light is? how the shadows work? and I believe the light source is flat sky light at a 135-150 degree right angle.

that's my point. you don't need flash to achieve this. put a subject near the edge between a shaded area and a sunny area, and you'll usually encounter beautifully soft reflected light from the ground alone. it might not work as well deep under a large tree, but perhaps the photographer saw some compositional element that he wanted to play around with.

all i'm saying is that cloudiness and shade do no necessitate the use of flash. you can get very pleasant lighting just by playing to a scene's strengths. i just wouldn't be so quick to write off another photographer's skills based on what you described. you don't know what he was seeing.

I checked out of this thread a day or two ago and don't have the patience to read enough to completly catch up, but quickly, I think some are confusing shade and directional light. You always want directional light no matter what; outdoors, indoors, sunny, cloudy; this is what sculpts your subject and gives it some depth. As someone earler said (though it actually works against the argument they were trying to make), when it's heavily over cast, the sky acts like a big soft box. So much so that the light appears to come from everywhere meaning it lacks direction and fails to give your subject definintion, or to the extent that it has direction, that direction is down which is undesirable.

In Alt's four sample images, I would tell you that 3, though nice, lacks directional light, or to the extent that it has it, the direction appears to be from above. It works here because of the nature of the pose, but for portraits, diffuse light coming from above is undesirable. Every bit as undesirable as bouncing your flash off the ceiling without the use of a bounce card; it's essentially the same thing. The other three images (though very subtle in 1, much more present in 2 and 4) have wonderful directional light channeled into the subject through windows.

I'm not saying you HAVE to use flash on cloudy days if you can take advantage of windows, doorways, porches, etc. But if you're out in an open area, the only other way to do it is add some directional light of your own.

alt4852 wrote in post #10864229
that's my point. you don't need flash to achieve this. put a subject near the edge between a shaded area and a sunny area, and you'll usually encounter beautifully soft reflected light from the ground alone.

The downside with this strategy is placement and location of subject. The light is forcing your composition. With flash the light is portable and can be located anywhere in relation to the subject.

In this particular circumstance the tree was next to a sidewalk with traffic and the couple were facing the dense root structure of the tree under the shade of the tree. The light was behind them at that point. I only saw this scene for 30 seconds and they had been there for a minute or two.

One of the key essentials to directional lighting is a light sink or light absorption. If a scene had overcast light and the right light absorbers (black absorber) shadows might work to create some sense of dimension in the scene.

Not sure if you are criticizing the photog but...
It is hard to say how good the images were. Looking through the camera and knowing what the photographer seen is a big help to judge whether it was a stellar image or a flop. I have gone to very dark areas to silhouette the couple. It makes for some interesting images. I have also gone under trees and shot ambient for the streaks of light.
The photog may have been shooting for hours and just wanted a different look or tried experimenting a little.
Maybe he wanted to blow out the background for some high key images.
Point is, it is not easy to judge the quality of photographer/image without seeing the final result.