Damaso
Photojournalist
On my blog today I talk about my approach to editing and give an example form a recent shoot. I think that far too many photographers out there underestimate the importance of being a good editor of your own work.
"Next to actually being able to take a photograph editing is perhaps the most important skill a photographer can have. As a young freelancer you will be expected to edit your own material before submitting it and being able to see the strengths and weaknesses of your own work cannot be underestimated."
"Next to actually being able to take a photograph editing is perhaps the most important skill a photographer can have. As a young freelancer you will be expected to edit your own material before submitting it and being able to see the strengths and weaknesses of your own work cannot be underestimated."
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
yes.
56789.
56789.
benlees
Well-known
Isn't that why we photograph? The lens rarely gets what we think it did, for better or for worse. Picking the good ones is just as important as being there. If you are the only editor it might be more difficult than anything else 'cause you have to look at yourself and say "those suck!".
_larky
Well-known
One of my students once told me his first ideas were always the best, his first work was always the best, and he did not need to research.
Instant fail there sonny lad.
Instant fail there sonny lad.
daninjc
Well-known
Perfectly stated. I agree 100%.
I'm also curious to know what you people think of having your work being edited by someone else (after your own first pass).
I'm also curious to know what you people think of having your work being edited by someone else (after your own first pass).
Damaso
Photojournalist
I always joke that a newspaper photo editor will always, always pick the worst photo you give them. Sadly I have found that true more often than not recently.
For me I really get something out of working with an editor who knows my work and is trying to get the best out of it rather than simply using my work to plug a hole. I like complex and layered images which goes against the grain of much of what we see in current newspapers and even magazine work.
I will say that it is always good to have another set of eyes and different perspectives on my photos; when working on a large body of images at a certain point it is almost impossible to understand how a stranger will see the work for the first time.
Finding a good editor to work with is really important. But understanding your own work is a really fundamental part of being a photographer in my opinion...
For me I really get something out of working with an editor who knows my work and is trying to get the best out of it rather than simply using my work to plug a hole. I like complex and layered images which goes against the grain of much of what we see in current newspapers and even magazine work.
I will say that it is always good to have another set of eyes and different perspectives on my photos; when working on a large body of images at a certain point it is almost impossible to understand how a stranger will see the work for the first time.
Finding a good editor to work with is really important. But understanding your own work is a really fundamental part of being a photographer in my opinion...
Damaso
Photojournalist
I was making this point to a private student of mine the other day. Almost never is the first image I take of something the best one. Usually neither is the last interestingly enough. The good one tends to hide in the middle...
richardvanle
Richard Van Le
Damaso, great post. Agree 100% with what you wrote.
A problem that I often see is that people think too much about the hard work that led up to an image ("It took me 2 weeks to get access to photograph" or "I had to climb a mountain to get that view"). They lose sight of whether or not a photograph actually works as a photograph. Often this means having to preface the photo with some long convulated story or some overly descriptive title.
A problem that I often see is that people think too much about the hard work that led up to an image ("It took me 2 weeks to get access to photograph" or "I had to climb a mountain to get that view"). They lose sight of whether or not a photograph actually works as a photograph. Often this means having to preface the photo with some long convulated story or some overly descriptive title.
Damaso
Photojournalist
Exactly! I always say to people I know this photo makes sense to you but does it make sense to someone who wasn't there, someone who doesn't have all the information you have at the photographer. A great image has to be able to be understood by someone who has never been where you were or met the people you are photgoraphing. That's something which is pretty hard!
dave lackey
Mentor
Damaso,
I find editing the hardest and most time-consuming thing of all. Since I do projects, mostly, it is difficult to pick a limited number of images out of hundreds and I find myself changing the entire layout several times. The evolution is necessary for me but is a difficult and challenging process.
The narrative that goes with it is also somewhat difficult coming from a town/city planning/engineering/architectural background. Not that I am not a good writer, it is just that writing is where I am my most critical of my own work.
As far as critiques... I don't bother anymore, but don't get me started on that.:angel:
I find editing the hardest and most time-consuming thing of all. Since I do projects, mostly, it is difficult to pick a limited number of images out of hundreds and I find myself changing the entire layout several times. The evolution is necessary for me but is a difficult and challenging process.
The narrative that goes with it is also somewhat difficult coming from a town/city planning/engineering/architectural background. Not that I am not a good writer, it is just that writing is where I am my most critical of my own work.As far as critiques... I don't bother anymore, but don't get me started on that.:angel:
Last edited:
gho
Well-known
I think editing ones own work down is very crucial and also very educating. Recently I took a series of documentary photographs and found out, that actually 80% are rubbish. Actually that is a very good turn out in my opinion. Normally I would say 99% are rubbish. Editing the stuff down gives a much more condensed experience of the event to the viewer. Personally I call that editing destillation. It is best to have a few very good pictures with an impact. A good photographer should be able to judge that impact by him/herself.
Damaso
Photojournalist
I think editing ones own work down is very crucial and also very educating. Recently I took a series of documentary photographs and found out, that actually 80% are rubbish. Actually that is a very good turn out in my opinion. Normally I would say 99% are rubbish. Editing the stuff down gives a much more condensed experience of the event to the viewer. Personally I call that editing destillation. It is best to have a few very good pictures with an impact. A good photographer should be able to judge that impact by him/herself.
Well said. I also think that editing is hard and time consuming by the way. Not unlike pulling teeth it seems like sometimes. But very very necessary. After all if I can barely stand to look at my bad images why would anyone else want to?
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Damaso: Good words, very true and excellent examples.
I remain convinced that shooting and then critical editing is the only real way to improve your photographic skills. Without the critical editing, you are just doing more of the same.
I see a direct linkage between your shooting skills and your editing skills. Lack of either can bring down everything. After all, the initial edit is getting ready and knowing when to press the shutter.
There is frequently another step in editing after selection of the best images. That is picking which of those best images work together to tell the story or convey the emotion you want. I am talking about the step that comes after you have edited thousands of images down to 50 real good ones. Then you have to select 20 for an exhibit or sometimes 2-3-4 to illustrate an article. I find that to be the most difficult of all.
I remain convinced that shooting and then critical editing is the only real way to improve your photographic skills. Without the critical editing, you are just doing more of the same.
I see a direct linkage between your shooting skills and your editing skills. Lack of either can bring down everything. After all, the initial edit is getting ready and knowing when to press the shutter.
There is frequently another step in editing after selection of the best images. That is picking which of those best images work together to tell the story or convey the emotion you want. I am talking about the step that comes after you have edited thousands of images down to 50 real good ones. Then you have to select 20 for an exhibit or sometimes 2-3-4 to illustrate an article. I find that to be the most difficult of all.
dave lackey
Mentor
peterm1
Mentor
I absolutely agree. Editing takes two forms - chucking out the stuff that is not any good. And working on the remainder to improve it in post processing (dodging, burning, cropping etc and the digital equivalents).
In particular have noticed that there are quite a few who post here, who somehow seem to think its not quite kosher to edit by post processing work. Perhaps because they come at it from the viewpoint of a documentary film shooter. And yet many of the great artistic film shooters (Ansell Adams for example) spend a huge amount of time post processing and printing their work. I regard it as a core skill and I do not have a single image that I post (eg on Flickr) that has not been edited in some way. Certainly only a small percentage make it to this point and the majority languish somewhere seldom to be looked at again.
For me, the objective is not to shoot a camera (as some who I would categorise as camera buffs seem to view it) it is to get an excellent final image that I am pleased with and which tells a story. Anything done to get that final image - from composing and pressing the shutter button to throwing away the 10 versions of the picture that did not work quite so well, to editing the image in photoshop to printing the image if that is what you do, is a legitimate part of the value adding chain.
As with everything, it seems to me the secret of good results lays in having both the ability to conceptualise the big picture (or in this case the ability to see and capture the image) and then in having the ability to do all of the detailed grunt work needed to realise it as a final image.
In particular have noticed that there are quite a few who post here, who somehow seem to think its not quite kosher to edit by post processing work. Perhaps because they come at it from the viewpoint of a documentary film shooter. And yet many of the great artistic film shooters (Ansell Adams for example) spend a huge amount of time post processing and printing their work. I regard it as a core skill and I do not have a single image that I post (eg on Flickr) that has not been edited in some way. Certainly only a small percentage make it to this point and the majority languish somewhere seldom to be looked at again.
For me, the objective is not to shoot a camera (as some who I would categorise as camera buffs seem to view it) it is to get an excellent final image that I am pleased with and which tells a story. Anything done to get that final image - from composing and pressing the shutter button to throwing away the 10 versions of the picture that did not work quite so well, to editing the image in photoshop to printing the image if that is what you do, is a legitimate part of the value adding chain.
As with everything, it seems to me the secret of good results lays in having both the ability to conceptualise the big picture (or in this case the ability to see and capture the image) and then in having the ability to do all of the detailed grunt work needed to realise it as a final image.
Last edited:
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Dave, well I did go to UGA.
(everyone else: inside joke)Actually I have been thinking a lot about my editing skills lately. For a while, I was thinking I really needed to improve my editing. I eventually concluded that shooting and editing were so closely linked that I really needed to address them together. Still struggling to improve.
Freakscene
Obscure member
I've worked as an editor a lot more than a photographer. Your experience suggests that either your purposes and your editors are not the same, that your editor is a bad one (entirely possible) or that you are not a great editor of your own work.
If you're working in an environment where your work will be edited by someone else there is often no choice. And a good editor will only mostly agree with the photographer if the photographer is an excellent editor of their own work.
Most photographers are poor to execrable editors of their own work. They often mistake shots that were hard to get, or with which they have some emotional link as better than ones that show things better, or more plainly, or in a way that's better for their audience. They are very rarely ruthless enough, and even the best photographers are poor at admitting they missed the shot or didn't get enough material. Enthusiastic amateurs usually get caught up with what gear they used or some other aspect of process that's irrelevant if the shot isn't right.
A good editor will work with his/her photographers to make their work better over time, and discuss with them where the hits and misses are and why, ameliorating all of these problems. A bad editor can make things worse, and turn a pretty good photographer into a bad one.
Understanding your work is only a third of the equation. Understanding the publishing environment is at least as important, and that entails the final third - understanding the audience.
Ultimately, your goal is understanding how to work in a way that gets both what you and your editor want.
Marty
Last edited:
Damaso
Photojournalist
Very true indeed. Learning to edit for a photo essay is the next step and another degree of difficulty as well...
Damaso
Photojournalist
My purposes and the purposes of most of the editors I work with are not the same. Most editors out there see images as material to illustrate a text story. I point to some of my most recently published work from Cuba. Here is the story with the images the editor selected and here is a larger take of images. As you can see the editor (mostly) chose the images which would illustrate the story rather than ones that would add information or stand on their own. Given the first paragraph of the story I'm surprised (or not) that the editor didn't go with this one.
Editors have a different job and perspective than photographers and I understand this after 15 years in the business. I guess what I'm disappointed by lately is how visually risk averse most editors (at least the ones I've been dealing with) seem to be when it comes to photography..
Freakscene
Obscure member
I personally prefer the one the editor chose and if I'd been editing the story I would have chosen that one too. The photo you linked above would reproduce really badly on newsprint where the dMax is very low and darktones don't separate well, including in colour magazines/supplements. I really like the clouds and sky, but the wires are really distracting. It could also be of anyone, and for a story making the subject identifiable is a common requirement for the leading shot.
On this I agree entirely, but the photo editors have a lot of pressure on them, and largely conservative audiences. The best way to get adventurous work published is to submit it places where the audience is more accepting of that kind of content, and mainstream magazines are not it.
Thanks - this is a great thread.
Marty
Last edited: