Also, look at this scene as a real photographer would necessarily do. If you walked into that car-shed, your eyes would be able to discern detail everywhere, but only because your eyes scan the scene to allow your brain to construct your “impression” of the scene.
An actual photographer would fill the set with hidden strobes and soft-boxes, carefully injecting light into the scene to create a properly “realistic” (sic …) impression. That is to say, to ensure that the tonal range of the lighting was both “plausible” and within the resolving-power of the film. Video is actually much the same way, whether we’re talking about actual videography or CG.
“The sun,” in such a scene, is basically “a ‘practial light.’” That is to say, it is an object visible within the frame which the viewer will understand to be “a light source,” but which is not(!) going to be an actual light-source – in terms of exposure – at all! :eek:
Knowing that the sun is up there, and (judging from the shadows and light-patches) where in the sky it is, and perceiving no other source of light, the viewer will have certain expectations with regard to the lighting that he sees. But it would be both difficult and unnecessary for the sun to actually be contributing any illumination to any part of this hall.
I was once present at a magazine shoot of the interior of a historic hotel. In the spread, “sunlight is streaming through the skylights” in a lovely, pleasing way. But what the magazine reader does not know is that the photo was taken at one o’clock in the morning on a moonless night! N-o-t-h-i-n-g in that utterly-convincing photo is as it seems.