Master Shots Vol 2 Pdf

[Francesca Cruiz]

Sorry about my provocative post, but i just don't understand the whole logic when it's a public gallery and it over and over looks as it's only an inner circle of people that gets their photos chosen, despite other photographers are uploading better pictures that will not be chosen.

Best to do your own thing. I haven't looked at the LFI gallery for a number of years but I suspect it will be dominated by certain popular genres and 'looks'. Much of the photography will indeed be excellent but I'm not really sure if there is any point trying to emulate it if that simply means producing more of the same.

If LFI would be independent or not, there will always be a dominance of the actual Vogue or Wave in style. Look how this works in the models scene, this is not about beauty, but about the message around the beauty.

In the LFI magazine you can recognize this in the way the Monochrome and the new S were introduced, sometimes it seems a competition about who can bring the most harsh and raw style of imaging with a certain flavor of poverty, down and out ness, captured with THE most expensive camera's. Wow, what a thrill. Going to Afghanistan with the newest S.

I am also confused. I uploaded an album of minimalist landscape shots from Hokkaido Japan and one album from the carnival in Venice. I thought it was something different from the thousands of portraits of wired people in the street but no feedback. The same pictures got hundreds of likes in non Leica related forums. I am not sure what they are thinking.

Just before I got into Leica, I appreciated the gallery and the magazine. I still appreciate the magazine, but I have noticed the patterns in the gallery selection and have found the quality of some Flickr groups better than the gallery selection. I stopped respecting or looking at the on-line LFI galleries for a few years.

But I have also noticed some shifts in my own style and feeling. I used to be impressed every year by major photographic exhibits, like at the National Portrait Gallery. This year, I've felt like they were worth my time, but not very inspiring and with fabricated or little emotion behind the images. I get more out of some of the best shots posted on this forum.

There definitely is a a slant towards street photography and exotification. I also find the overall feel of the gallery tends to be that of a privileged wealthy person cataloguing the poor and beleaguered, especially of 3rd world countries. And to be honest, I'm a little disturbed by the notion of wealthy people running around with their expensive boutique camera equipment taking photos of impoverished people on skid row or in 3rd world countries.

With regard to "wealthy people" and "impoverished people," that distinction is made contingent upon perspective. Take any one of us as an example. From some people's perspective, we would be considered wealthy; from the perspective of others, we are impoverished.

To be honest, I find photographs of wealthy people boring, pointless and banal (sorry, paparazzi). Same thing with people of my own economic strata and culture; I have no desire to photograph fraternity functions, mall shoppers, family portraits, people's children and/or weddings. The world does not need more shallow photos of shallow people leading shallow lives, resplendent in the latest styles from the GAP, American Eagle and Eddie Bauer. Just saying.

If we are to be barred on ethical grounds from photographing non-european, non-caucasian, non-affluent, non-middle class and non-youthful people, we will be reduced to either not photographing humans at all or producing images that are utterly hopeless exercises in futility.

All what is written here is that what i think too. What i see is that especially classic photography with the aspects on composition, light, timing etc. is not existing there on the gallery. and this was the core which made them popular. For me it looks like a try to come away from this identity with all methods allowed.

A master shot (or short master) is a film recording of an entire dramatized scene, start to finish, from a camera angle that keeps all the players in view. It is often a long shot and can sometimes perform a double function as an establishing shot. Usually, the master shot is the first shot checked off during the shooting of a scene. It is the foundation of what is called camera coverage, other shots that reveal different aspects of the action, groupings of two or three of the actors at crucial moments, close-ups of individuals, insert shots of various props, and so on.

Historically, the master shot was the most important shot of any given scene. All shots in a given scene were somehow related to what was happening in the master shot. This is one reason that some of the films from the 1930s and the 1940s are considered "stagey" by today's standards. By the 1960s and the 1970s, the style of film shooting and editing shifted to include radical angles that conveyed more subjectivity and intimacy within the scenes.[1] Today, the master shot is still a key element of film production, but scenes are not built around the master shot in the same way that they were when professional filmmaking was in its infancy.

reviving this thread to ask another question. recently i have received messages asking that exif data be submitted in the description portion of the m9 master shots upload form. i know this is a requirement for analog/scanned photos, but it has not been for digital: when i submitted photos to the x1 master shots gallery, this did not happen, whether photos were accepted into the gallery or not.

one recent submission was sent to my inbox with a comment along the lines of "no description no master shot". i find this puzzling, as i don't strip my exif data from my photos and use lightroom to process both x1 and m9 photos.

i wondered if it could be my browser (firefox) somehow no longer being compatible with lfi online, but my uploads to flickr seem to survive with all exif data intact. does anyone have any idea what is going on?

They might mean a description of the shot, I.E. Where it was shot, how you processed it. Sometimes the EFIX data is incomplete after processing, i.e no ASA listed in basic finder window and they need to go in to the photo editor to see it.

i think it's the lens information that is the biggest issue. when i export an m9 photo from lightroom, even using newer coded lenses, the lens data is not included. not sure why, but i gather lfi is seeking to include that info.

this is kind of amusing, because when i browse the various master shots galleries on my computer, i am not able to find any exif data for any of the photos, including my own. unfortunate, because some of the images are truly arresting and, of course, i am very curious about the lens used. on the other hand, if i browse an lfi master shots gallery on my android phone or my ipod touch, exif data appears on the screen. maybe the galleries are in transition. it would be nice, however, if there were a better explanation of what is required. "no description no master shot" is a pretty crude way to communicate a divergence from the instructions already on the site - imo, of course.

Next time try adding all the information in the description box rather then rely on them to search it out. A few of the better post process applications guess the aperture for you. I found it's in the ballpark but usually is about one stop closed then the actual aperture.

pentax also hosts a photo gallery. it's a little more user friendly, as at the upload stage it is clear what info is required: if you use lightroom and a digital camera, it will automatically upload the model of camera and prompt you for lens info. lfi is rather opaque in that no real specifics are listed at the outset re required info, as in locale, lens, etc. i also suspect the rules have changed a bit and the stated requirements at time of upload have not. frankly, had i not been going through my personal gallery with the intention of culling photos, i would never have noticed the message about exif info. anyway, for those wondering why their best photos are not being accepted into the master shots gallery, this could be one reason.

As for clearer standards Earful was speaking about, I don't know. I've never had a problem and I fill out the description form. If you don't want to try that then you might be disappointed because I don't seeing them changing their format. Obviously I could be wrong but I don't mind the way it's set up now.

In the end it's the esthetics of a picture, whether they deem it or not, that really matters. Maybe the fact they took the time to reply about the image means they want you to resubmit with the description filled out.

from what i can figure out, you absolutely need to give info beyond what may be transmitted in your exif data if it's an m9. i would assume the same is true for the m8 and s2. for the x1, i have had several photos accepted into the master shots gallery with no description other than the exif data attached to the photo itself .also as far as i can tell, no grumpy messages attached to recent submissions.

the reason i say i suspect there is a transition going on is that i was scrolling through some m9 master shots on my android phone and noticed one description box that actually said, please include description, place, date, iso, etc. i thought it strange, and then realized it must have been such a desirable photo by the curators that they put it in the gallery anyway, despite the lack of data. now i think they may be cracking down more and saying if you don't include the data, we won't even look at it for the master shots gallery. or that's my interpretation.

c80f0f1006