Some photos from an afternoon walk around the less touristy streets

File: shibuya-web (5 of 10).jpg (852KB, 1007x1500px) Image search: [Google]

852KB, 1007x1500px

>>3016194
[2/10]

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: shibuya-web (1 of 10).jpg (933KB, 982x1500px) Image search: [Google]

933KB, 982x1500px

>>3016196
[3/10]

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: shibuya-web (6 of 10).jpg (1MB, 993x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 993x1500px

>>3016198
[4/10]

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: shibuya-web (3 of 10).jpg (928KB, 1500x983px) Image search: [Google]

928KB, 1500x983px

>>3016200
[5/10]

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: shibuya-web (10 of 10).jpg (857KB, 971x1500px) Image search: [Google]

857KB, 971x1500px

>>3016201
[6/10]

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: shibuya-web (2 of 10).jpg (943KB, 987x1500px) Image search: [Google]

943KB, 987x1500px

>>3016207
[7/10]

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: shibuya-web (4 of 10).jpg (901KB, 1500x995px) Image search: [Google]

901KB, 1500x995px

>>3016208
[8/10]

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: shibuya-web (7 of 10).jpg (809KB, 976x1500px) Image search: [Google]

809KB, 976x1500px

>>3016209
[9/10]

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: natura-web (1 of 1).jpg (611KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

611KB, 1000x667px

>>3016211
well 4chan thinks the last image is a virus. Have a frame of natura instead

whatever, do your worst. be harsh

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

they seem to be correctly developed , OP. cant say much more, sorry.

>>3016194
They literally look like every other photo people take when they go to Tokyo.

>>3016216
this looks so good for being high iso film.

handheld?

>>3016498
Basically, this.

None of these have anything of interest in them and are not composed in a way that makes them graphically interesting. They are pictures of nothing with no pleasing aesthetic qualities to them.

You deved the film right though.

>>3016506
Do you know how high iso film works? If it was iso 100 id be impressed but not at 1600.

>>3016498
>>3016554

+1

>>3016742
retard.

>>3016194
>>3016208
These two are nice.

>>3016554
I agree but that being said everything is done pretty nicely to this point. These would be very nice as physical prints at say 11x14 or similar size on nice fb paper. I think then the textures and contrast you're trying to show would be better presented then as little digi scans. But as it stands I'd say they warrant a little less then a second glance at best.

Does anyone else have a problem with them bein in b&w, i understand that you used film and shit but i think they would be much more interesting in color with some pp done to them

neopan is the #1 best ever film stock

do you have a source where you're still buying it, or do you just have a stockpile from before they discontinued it? I'm still working thru my last rolls of neopan 400

anyway I think that >>3016498 is pretty much right, but on top of that the entire set is super homogenous. i think one major issue is that choosing to shoot in portrait orientation limits you to shots that emphasize verticality, which leaves you with a limited range of potential subjects (power lines, winding streets). when you stick with that over a series of 10 pictures, you exhaust the possibilities of those subjects and start rehashing the same shots over and over again pretty fucking fast.

>>3016865
Unfortunately it's not the good ol Neopan, it's Neopan Acros which is the 100 speed film that fuji still makes. It's lovely and ultra cheap in Japan, just don't underexpose it or try to push it.

>>3016419
>>3016498
>>3016554
Thanks for the constructive criticism. Hopefully I'll be back in Tokyo in the future and I'll put your advice to use.

>>3016859
I did shoot a lot of colour whilst there as well, though I can't attest to the quality of the composition being any better than what I've posted here. Tokyo is one of the most infinitely photogenic places I've ever been, which is probably why this thread is full of pictures of pretty much nothing than I found interesting.

>>3016806
Hopefully I'll be able to do a darkroom session in the next few days and get some of these printing along with a few more personal images that I didn't share here. They're obviously not pulitzer winners but I think they'll come across a bit better when printed

>>3016216
Natura 1600 is awesome, however I won't pull the wool over your eyes completely. I shot this at 800, so it's one stop overexposed, and I also pulled the shadows and did a bit of noise reduction in post after scanning it. And yeah, handheld at 1/125th if I remember correctly. This was actually a pretty bright scene, since the street behind me was very lit up with neon signs and whatnot

>>3016865
Your last comment makes a lot of sense, as I didn't shoot it as a set. I just took photos while I wondered around, and only after hanging the negatives up to dry did I see that a lot of the pictures were quite similar.

>>3016194
>>3016196
>>3016198
>>3016200
>>3016201
>>3016207
>>3016208
>>3016209
>>3016211
>>3016216
white piggu go home
also these are all atrocious

Read up on composition and level your pics.

>>3018014
nice

>>3018015
bought a bunch of books on composition and darkroom shit earlier today from a charity shop so I'm getting right on it

>>3016216
really uninteresting angle and composition desu. Seems more like a film test or like you just wanted the subject with no thought rather than a thought out composition.
>>3016211
boring
>>3016209
boring
>>3016208
ok subject, static composition
>>3016201
would be significantly better with a subject walking through the frame
>>3016207
p ok
>>3016194
good
>>3016198
bad
>>3016196
feels static

white piggu go home desu tho

>>3018018
You need to stop being so averse to having people in your photos, some of these could be great shots if you filled the empty parts of the frame with a person or point of interest but right now they just feel kind of directionless for the most part and since you aren't composing them in really interesting ways only a few of them stand on their own as good architecture/scene photography. I know I'm being harsh but you're in the most photogenic city in the world so you need to push yourself out of your comfort zone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n70AgNDh6qg

>>3016209
why not take a step or two right so you're in line with the road.

also everything in the distance is all blown out.

>>3016216
Natura is my favourite film is my favourite film keep posting please

File: naturasnow.jpg (2MB, 994x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 994x1500px

>>3018091
Don't really have much more I'm comfortable sharing, but here's one rated at 100. Natura handles overexposure really well

Apologies for the shitty composition but as you can see from the rest of the thread composition isn't exactly my strong point anyway lol

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

>>3018100
Did you shoot that at 100 and develop it normally or pulled it?

>>3018107
Shot the roll anywhere from 100-2000 and had it developed as normal

>>3018108
How does it handle skin tones?

>>3018110
>>3018110
Quite well. The colour of Natura is very soft and pastel like, especially when you overexpose it a bit.

>>3016194
I must concur with my learned peers; white piggu go home.
Crooked, cluttered, non-compositions of pedestrian eyesores, with no spark of life or interest, processed to suit the theme. And missed focus on static subjects? Why?
Your camera might be broken, but I also have no trouble believing you just suck a lot.