Why Editing is as Important as the Photo Shoot

[BenjaminKanarek]

I decided writing this essay after going through and editing close to twelve hundred (1200) images this afternoon. Why? Because I want to share with you the importance of editing and how it defines what your style is and  what your state of mind was at the time of your decision to make the choices you made. I have observed  that depending on the time of day, the mood I am in and how I am feeling about myself, will have a dramatic effect on the choices I make and the outcome of the final published work. When having to make that very important decision it is important to be aware of the state of mind you are in. If you are willing to make the commitment at the time you are editing, that will be what those who view your image as you the artist photographer will see. They will interpret you and your work based on that juncture in time. That is why I usually go through several stages during the editing process.

1. The adaptation period which is based on the first 10-20 images per series. This is where I observe the images and  get a general feel of what I might expect from the expression of the model, general sense of composition and overall feel.

2. The settling in period.  Where I am finding indicators of where I think a sequence is going and I am starting to define preferences.

3. The marking of choices marked and noted generally from 3 to 5 stars.  I am usually overly generous at the onset, until I see a knock me out shot, where I then go back and mark the now not so great image accordingly.

4. The moving of the selects in to a separate file.

5. A resting period.  I do not look at the images for a few hours before making the final choices.

6. The final selects from a reduced selection from the original selections.

7. The commencement of the post production

The editing process really expresses more about you than what was expressed during the actual photo production.

Photo shoots are frenetic at best and there are a multiplicity of concerns that do not allow me to delve as deeply in to the scenario as does the editing process.  It is akin to shooting a film and viewing the rushes.  My general rule of thumb is, if I have not gotten that “WOW” moment during the shooting of a sequence, I keep shooting till I do.  If I don’t, I know that the only thing that will save that sequence is a good rational or some damn innovative editing and post production work.

The photo shoot and production is not over until the editing and post production is completed.  If you have poorly edited your images the outcome could be catastrophic.  I cannot tell you  how often a good editing job made the difference between an OK acceptably professional job and something very unique and special.  If you saw some of the out takes of mine you would understand why choices in editing are so important.  I could  use all  of the RAW material from the same photo shoot and produce what would look like two totally different photographers.  Moods expressed as cold and detached to intense and passionate from exactly the same source.

That is why I said that the editing of the photo shoot or film is an extension of who you are and were during that process.  Your mind set and emotional state at the time can be seen by those with discerning eyes.

I will end this with a short and rather amusing story.  A wonderful Art Director named Martin Schmollgruber from Madame Figaro Magazine in Paris once said the following to me after I presented my photos from a shoot for the magazine to him, “I see that you have quit smoking Benjamin…”  I said,  “Yes I did.  How did you know that?”  He responded,  “I could tell by your images!”

http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/2009/07...he-photo-shoot/

[teddillard]

Great post, and thought provoking ideas.  I'm going to give it another read...  but wanted to throw in a post I did a while back on the process of editing and shooting, and where the emotional investment takes place, and yes, the difference between shooting film (in particular large format) where you invest, and thus edit before the shot in a way, and digital, where you shoot without investment.  Here's that post, and the key excerpt:
http://www.teddillard.com/2008/05/on-digit...ualization.html


There's an old joke about high-maintenance cars... if you spend a ton of money buying, and then maintaining a car, you're going to either believe that car is the best thing on the road, or feel like a sucker. Shooting most film cameras is much the same... after you've gone to the effort, you have a hard time dismissing it as a poor image.

Let's look at shooting with my little pocket Canon G9. I have it with me everywhere. It makes an absolutely remarkable 16x20 print. I have shot gigabytes with it since I got it, and some of the images are, well, quite good. There are two major things at play here... first, I am shooting everything and anything, pretty much at the drop of a hat. If in doubt, I shoot. Second, I edit ruthlessly.

I am not overly invested in any one image. This frees me to see the images for more what they are... and allows me to pull only the best, and set the rest aside.

After all is said and done, this is really, for me, the most significant change... I am free to explore and imagine, to try and experiment, and to see and learn, and am objective and dispassionate enough to make a good cut.

...once I have made that cut, then I get passionate.

And also...  some advice an art director gave me once, about my fine art work: "Ted.  You need an editor."

Thanks for the post, REALLY excited to see where this discussion goes...

[BenjaminKanarek]

Great post, and thought provoking ideas.  I'm going to give it another read...  but wanted to throw in a post I did a while back on the process of editing and shooting, and where the emotional investment takes place, and yes, the difference between shooting film (in particular large format) where you invest, and thus edit before the shot in a way, and digital, where you shoot without investment.  Here's that post, and the key excerpt:
http://www.teddillard.com/2008/05/on-digit...ualization.html


There's an old joke about high-maintenance cars... if you spend a ton of money buying, and then maintaining a car, you're going to either believe that car is the best thing on the road, or feel like a sucker. Shooting most film cameras is much the same... after you've gone to the effort, you have a hard time dismissing it as a poor image.

Let's look at shooting with my little pocket Canon G9. I have it with me everywhere. It makes an absolutely remarkable 16x20 print. I have shot gigabytes with it since I got it, and some of the images are, well, quite good. There are two major things at play here... first, I am shooting everything and anything, pretty much at the drop of a hat. If in doubt, I shoot. Second, I edit ruthlessly.

I am not overly invested in any one image. This frees me to see the images for more what they are... and allows me to pull only the best, and set the rest aside.

After all is said and done, this is really, for me, the most significant change... I am free to explore and imagine, to try and experiment, and to see and learn, and am objective and dispassionate enough to make a good cut.

...once I have made that cut, then I get passionate.

And also...  some advice an art director gave me once, about my fine art work: "Ted.  You need an editor."

Thanks for the post, REALLY excited to see where this discussion goes...

One more very interesting bit of info I acquired from one of the greatest Art Directors in Fashion, Jacques Michel Verger, who was AD for Depeche Mode Magazine.  One day he was looking at some selects of mine from a shoot I had done for the magazine and he said the following, "...Benjamin, when you think you have come in too close to the subject, Come In Closer..."

I love that advice and will never forget it.

Ben

[MarkL]

Great post, this is a topic that is very much overlooked but so so important. I view almost all of my photography as editing in a sense: out of the almost infinite possibilities I choose a few moments to put a frame around and capture. The second part of the editing process is in a way similar: out of all the frames I will choose some to take forward. Out of those I may even crop down and so choosing just a part of it.

The time element is very important, Garry Winogrand used to leave his editing for huge periods of time to be able to look more objectively at what he shot (at his death left 2500 rolls of unprocessed film apparently!). The longer I leave it, the more ruthless I can be because I'm not desperate that my most recent endeavour should be highly successful.

I remember a street photographer showing a soft and hard edit of a project he'd been working on for 1 year, afterwards he asked a few other photographers to do their own hard edit of his work. Going through each was very interesting; after viewing each himself he questioned whether photographers really are the best editors of their own work. I have read various discussions on editing where the photographer feel emotionally attached to certain pictures even though they may be weaker then others, perhaps it is because we can remember how we felt at the time or because we have memories of the place that the viewer of the photograph will not have. How we deal with that is an interesting discussion.

I'm always interested in seeing photographers' contact sheets (or whatever we have now in this digital age)

[teddillard]

Great post, this is a topic that is very much overlooked but so so important. I view almost all of my photography as editing in a sense: out of the almost infinite possibilities I choose a few moments to put a frame around and capture. The second part of the editing process is in a way similar: out of all the frames I will choose some to take forward. Out of those I may even crop down and so choosing just a part of it.

The time element is very important, Gary Winogrand used to leave his editing for huge periods of time to be able to look more objectively at what he shot (at his death left 2500 rolls of unprocessed film apparently!). The longer I leave it, the more ruthless I can be because I'm not desperate that my most recent endeavour should be highly successful.

I remember a street photographer showing a soft and hard edit of a project he'd been working on for 1 year, afterwards he asked a few other photographers to do their own hard edit of his work. Going through each was very interesting; after viewing each himself he questioned whether photographers really are the best editors of their own work. I have read various discussions on editing where the photographer feel emotionally attached to certain pictures even though they may be weaker then others, perhaps it is because we can remember how we felt at the time or because we have memories of the place that the viewer of the photograph will not have. How we deal with that is an interesting discussion.

I'm always interested in seeing photographers' contact sheets (or whatever we have now in this digital age)

Yes, yes...  exactly.  To me, it's all about investment, personal, emotional, however you do it.  Great comment about Winogrand, thanks!  I can only add, in the past few years I've been doing a lot of writing, and having an editor, especially one that you work well with, is just a wonderful thing...  beyond having another opinion and set of eyes in the process, you also have a lot less pressure on your own shoulders.  (You can always blame the editor...    )