Underexposure Can Be Good

Purposeful underexposure can yield interesting pictures, but I'm not sophisticated enough to remember the technique is available, much less recognize appropriate situations. So I'm left with mistakes.

I shot a snakeskin at the Columbus Zoo. It was severely underexposed, and I don't know why. I typically use full automatic mode when shooting handheld in the Reptile Building, so the exposure should have been fine. I don't need a fast shutter because the animals rarely move. If I want more depth of field (smaller aperture), I use a tripod because a longish exposure is required.

Anyway, the shot came out 2 or 3 stops too dark but I like it a lot. I used software to add 1 to 3 stops of light to see what it would look light at the correct exposure.

original

+1 stop

+2 stops

+3 stops

I make this kind of correction using software from Nikon and the RAW image from the camera, instead of the JPEG image. RAW is what comes off the sensor and contains more information than the corresponding JPEG image. I use Nikon's software because I figure Nikon knows its RAW format best. I'm amazed that there are colors hidden in the darkness. There is a lot of noise in the third and fourth versions that shows up as pixels of the wrong color in areas that that are mostly one color.