>>4494058Maybe just me but I wouldn't call this particularly under-exposed. It could do with maybe a pinch more exposure just to bring out a fraction more detail in some of the darker spots. But definitely not bad, if it were exposed any more I think you would lose all detail in the sky.
Beware the white and black subjects as well, it's tricky to get blacks to be detailed without blowing highlights and tricky to get detail in white areas without heavy under-exposure. In situations like that I tend to just meter the blue of the sky (altho this can still cause whites to be overcooked if the source of light is reflecting off them too much).
I would say picrel (it's a bad photo but a good demo) is probably the "ideal" of what an exposure should be (for colour), to some extent I think you might be too often shooting into the shadows or the light in a scene. Which would work great for B&W but is a bit of a pain for colour.
>>4494057What on earth is going on with the scanning of those leaves on the trees. How have you scanned these? There's almost a grey fringing or haze around a lot of the shapes in this picture.
