Them apples

[(Ghastly) Krueger]

I got the advice to go back to basics and keep it simple.
One of the books I have on photography gives small assignments to build skills. I thought I'd follow some of them.

One of the first assignments is "shape". The 3d shape of an object should be accurately represented in 2d... or something like that.
Of the series of pics I took, this is the one I like most. I think the part of 3d shape is covered, but beyond that?
Do you think the composition is ok?
I underexposed it on purpose to avoid overblowing the brighter areas. It is a bit dark, but I like the tones. Please critique the exposure as well.

Camera make: Konica Minolta Camera, Inc.
Camera model: DiMAGE Xg
Resolution: 768 x 1024
Color/bw: Black and white
Flash used: No
Focal length: 10.4mm (35mm equivalent: 67mm)
Exposure time: 0.033 s (1/30)
Aperture: f/3.1
ISO equiv.: 100
Exposure bias: -0.70
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: matrix
Exposure: program (auto)

 

[justphotos]

The exposure's not so bad though it would have looked a little better if it was lighter. I really like the composition. I love monotone pictures. It adds a very artistic element to the picture.

 

[LaFoto]

Erm .... what is the "2nd" and the "3rd" shape?

I like what you did.
It could do with a tad more shadows and highlights.
I find it a bit grey.
But I don't know how soon you would lose things by getting hot spots?

 

[(Ghastly) Krueger]

Thanks for your comments, justphotos and LaFoto.

In this case I did my homework and bracketed the exposure. Here is the verision with no compensation.

Oh, and LaFoto, sorry for the confusiuon, I should have put 3D and 2D, as in 3 dimensional and 2 dimensional... or:
The 3 dimensional shape of an object should be accurately represented in a 2 dimensional image

Oh, yes, the EXIF:
Resolution: 768 x 1024
Color/bw: Black and white
Flash used: No
Focal length: 10.4mm (35mm equivalent: 67mm)
Exposure time: 0.050 s (1/20)
Aperture: f/3.1
ISO equiv.: 100
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: matrix
Exposure: program (auto)

 

[(Ghastly) Krueger]

Oh, and a color version. (Yup, grüne Äpfel )

 

[Alpha]

IMHO, this photo would have been much beter shot with a proper macro lens (they make those for digital right?), or at least shot wide open. In spite of contrast issues, I think that the conversion could have been better-- i.e. it's totally flat. It looks like digital Delta. That may be due to the aperture issues. I dunno what digital cameras do to aperture, but man, 3.1 should have way more DOF than that. Open it up as wide as you can go.

 

[(Ghastly) Krueger]

they make those for digital right?

Yes, some digital cameras have / accept macro lenses, but not mine.

or at least shot wide open.

I do not have direct control over the aperture, either. I have to rely on the automatic programs (sports, portrait, etc) to get an aperture close to whati want.

it's totally flat.

Flat in perspective or tones?

It looks like digital Delta.

What's digital delta?

Again, thanks for your comments.