Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
What you have created is a proof, not a finished work. Proofs from negatives are simply used to decide what you want to do next, they are not meant for display or sharing.
Metaphorically, you have not adjusted the second exposure yet. Whether using an enlarger or a digital processes you need to adjust to get the output you want.
the negative is a film stencil
the print is what is made when light is shone through it
whether it is transferred to another media ( numerically )
or chemically ( paper )
the trick is to have fun making whichever one you decide you want to make ..
For example TXP (Tri-X Professional 320) is a film with a very long toe. Some of us very much like the effect of the toe when shot at box speed, others prefer to give more exposure to get the subject matter up off the toe a ways; Both approaches are "correct".
Both approaches can also be "standardized" for an individual. The adjustments required "to print" can become standard and applied automatically so that the proofs are much closer to what the individual expects on the first try.
Still, a fine print almost always requires more adjustments.
I think basically that what everyone is saying is expose for the shadows to get detail in them, and then if you want to print them black you can do so. But if you underexpose you will never be able to get information from them.
The best advice I can give is to stop trying to do it in the camera. Prints happen in the darkroom. We have an old saying: " you can't print what isn't there" and it is very true. You can on the other hand choose not to print what is there by controlling your contrast and exposure during printing. Add dodging and burning to that and you are on your way. Prints that look like the one you referenced usually start out with the photographer striving to make the most expansive negative he can, and then printing it a little hard. When you have a negative that goes to ten you can do that, have your hard blacks, and still hold the highlights. If you printed the negative I've attached straight up it would look like mud, because in order to get the latitude to handle the contrast that's the way I made it. You could use this negative for welding goggles. If it hasn't been made that way there wouldn't have been a hope in hell for the stuff in the middle and on down. I chose where to have black fall, something I wouldn't have been able to do with a negative that had been truncated by under exposure. I hope that makes some sense.