Is this image muddy/flat due to severe underexposure?

[markbarendt]

What I mean is, why is the darkest tone in the overall photo not black? If no light hit the film, shouldn't it render those parts as black...like this:

Were my negatives underdeveloped or something? Or is that milky gray style a normal thing for underexposed photos?

The milkiness is called "base + fog". Some is normal, a lot may be a sign of poor fixing.

It is not because of under exposure.

Those areas should print black if printed traditionally.

Talk with your lab, see what they say.

 

[markbarendt]

My apologies. I misread your question regarding milkiness.

IMO the milkiness, lack of snap, grayness, or flatness; is a result of the choices your lab made digitally.

Your question seems to be hunting for some absolute "correct" exposure and or "development" regime that will fix this.

There is not. Especially when a scan is involved.

 

[markbarendt]

What I mean is, why is the darkest tone in the overall photo not black?

Being able to explain this is bothering me like a song that has been stuck my head that just won't go away.

So that you understand why I'm suggesting that it's the lab's choices are the reason there was no strong black in the scan, I need to define how you get black on paper.

It has to do with how much exposure the paper gets. This is true both traditionally printed or digitally printed light sensitive papers.

The silver in photographic paper requires a certain amount of exposure to make black, anything less results in some shade of gray.

If you put a negative between the the light source and the paper it acts a bit like sunglasses. Even the edges of the negative, where there was no camera exposure, acts a bit like sunglasses. The "base + fog" reduces the exposure and can result in a gray, muddy, milky looking print.

The fix for that is adjusting the light source to provide a bit more light to overcome the sunglass effect of the base + fog.

That paper exposure adjustment is an absolutely required part of making a photo.

What I'm saying is that, metaphorically, your lab put the negative in the light path (the scanner) but they didn't take the required next step to adjust the print exposure to make black.

 

[John Koehrer]

Nothing is averaged; it is precise if done correctly.

Yep. That's the key isn't it? IF you're trying to use it as a reflected meter, reading high, med and dark areas you're just making life difficult.

I should have said integrated. Mea culpa.

 

[markbarendt]

... reading high, med and dark areas you're just making life difficult.

Difficult compared to what?