We all do it, but hardly anyone talks about it..

Editing.

Heavy, ruthless editing.

Its really the first step in post production, or as many like to call it these days, "the digital work flow". Do this step incorrectly (or not at all), and your masterpiece will come to nothing - despite the myriad of digital tools, gimmicks, tips and tricks.

The beginning photographer (and we all were at one time) tends to be so fascinated that s/he can point the camera at something and it somehow records the image that almost all of the images are kept and even printed.

As we get over this fascination, we begin to learn to select the better ones in our day's take, usually starting with the discarding of those that are technically poor and, as we gain experience and confidence, we gradually learn to select those that are compositionally appealing, tell a story, or have artistic merit.

So - can we talk? How do you approach editing? Do you actually have an unrealized process that you follow, but never really thought about it? Is it just gut feel - a certain image just jumps out at you and that one becomes a "keeper", but you'd be hard pressed to explain why?

C'mon, lets talk about it . . .

John,

I'm not sure I understand your question...

For me "editing" (I'm talking of the process other wsie know as retouching, which usually consists of cloning, sharpening, blurring, filtering, etc.) is essential, but deinitely not the first part of my "workflow".

And it has very little to do with "culling" or "selection".

In my case selection happens way before the editing: why would I even want to spend time on something that never sees "the light of day". Editing is the very last step (well, before upload or print, but those may never either, and this step sometimes may happen months after the the shot is taken, if at all..

So, did I answer your question, or were you asking about something else...?

Hi John,

It's like all toiletry, we don't bragg about everything we need to do. However, severe selection is the basis for photography.

Photography requires exclusion. The more it is done at the time of the shutter being released the better of course. The mechanics of film forced that part of the chain of production of pictures. With long rolls of 36 exposures and 35mm canisters and auto uptake of film, opened the way for redundancy. We bracketed focus, exposure and composition. All digital has done is open up this leniency to everyone.

Nothing alters the wise advice that one should do things right at the outset.

Peter Krogh in his DAM book goes through this carefully giving a way of reducing your load of keepers early in the process.

Asher

Kill Your Darlings

John Maio said:

Editing.

The beginning photographer (and we all were at one time) tends to be so fascinated that s/he can point the camera at something and it somehow records the image that almost all of the images are kept and even printed. . . .

Click to expand...

I think I qualify as both a beginner and a not-so-beginner. As a former professional photographer, I remember that sorting the keepers from the rest had a lot to do with what was "right" for the client or assignment. Which might be easier than if you are sorting strictly for yourself. But that was 20+years ago. Now, as I am returning to photography in the digital age, I more closely resemble the beginner you describe.

One thing that I have learned to do however, is be a bit quicker to follow the advice of "kill your darlings" often given to writers. That reference to "darlings" I think is meant to describe works that you have a special fondness for, and that have some value, but that don't quite work as a standalone piece on thier own merit or don't fit within the context of a larger group. I've managed to learn the lesson not with photography, but with my graphic design work. I'll try something and pursue it for hours only to realize that it isn't really going to work in spite of the fact that the kernel of an idea is there.

You could say that if you are shooting for yourself, any image is fine if you like it and want to spend the time on it. Speaking strictly for myself, I think I will become a better photographer if I discipline myself to let go of an image that I wanted to work, but in the end really does not. I believe it's part of the process. Mistakes, either in vision or technique can lead to an awareness of oneself and areas that require more attention.

As for the process of elimination, I admit that I most often start with the "darlings" since they tend to be the ones I am most curious/excited about. After copying my shots to the HD, I open the folder in Capture NX and try and view the contents with an editor's eye--an objective and ruthless editor. If the image falls short at first glance, I tend not to (maybe try not to would be more like it) convince myself that I can "clean it up in Photoshop".

I think it was Ansel Adams who said something to the effect that "Six (or was it 12?) significant images a month is a very worthy outcome" (apologies to AA for screwing that up, but you get the idea).

Tim Smith said:

I think it was Ansel Adams who said something to the effect that "Six (or was it 12?) significant images a month is a very worthy outcome" (apologies to AA for screwing that up, but you get the idea).

Click to expand...

Ansel couldn't easily do a wedding then or a even soccer game!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Ansel couldn't easily do a wedding then or a even soccer game!

Asher

Click to expand...

It would have been fun to watch him try though!

Nikolai Sklobovsky said:

I'm not sure I understand your question...

For me "editing" (I'm talking of the process other wsie know as retouching, which usually consists of cloning, sharpening, blurring, filtering, etc.) is essential, but deinitely not the first part of my "workflow".

And it has very little to do with "culling" or "selection".

Click to expand...

Hi Nikolai,

At a newspaper or a magazine the editor is the person who decides what articles and photos go into the current edition, which are not to be published, and which ones go on the cover. This is the editorial process and it is about culling and selection.

Similarly when editing a movie or documentary film an editor again selects what gos into the final product, what is excluded, and what order it is viewed in.

Editing an image in Photoshop or rewriting the first draft of an article in a word processor is also editing.

Hi John,

I find editing the hardest part of photography. And improving behind the lens and taking better shots on average simply makes the editorial process harder. This is one place I like RAW files.

• I do a first pass deleting bad files and saving adequate and good shots (I have deleted shots I should have kept in the past so I liberal in what I keep).
• From there I do RAW conversion on those that catch my eye. And sometimes I review older shots and do some conversions that catch my eye at a later date.
• I then have a huge directory filled with thousands of TIFF and PSD files that I review. And again on this directory of the better shots I edit ruthlessly again.

There are lots of silly things in image collection management tools for rating images, but I hate that. Like some number or letter is going to ever be able to express how I feel about a given image. Just look at the thumbnail and feel. So I have 4 states for an image file:

1. Archived shot. Not particularly exciting but it may have documentary value.
2. Shown on the net but not printed.
3. Printed.
4. Printed and shown on the net.

And one can take all there DAM tools and stick them where they belong. When I truly want to sort images and make serious decisions I prefer to sit down with prints (and my books of prints are regularly undergo the editorial process too).

enjoy,

Sean

Nikolai Sklobovsky said:

I'm not sure I understand your question...

For me "editing" (I'm talking of the process other wsie know as retouching, which usually consists of cloning, sharpening, blurring, filtering, etc.) is essential, but deinitely not the first part of my "workflow".

And it has very little to do with "culling" or "selection".

In my case selection happens way before the editing: why would I even want to spend time on something that never sees "the light of day". Editing is the very last step (well, before upload or print, but those may never either, and this step sometimes may happen months after the the shot is taken, if at all..

So, did I answer your question, or were you asking about something else...?

Click to expand...

We're talking about the same thing. You call it "selection" and I call it "editing" - I guess that's because I sometimes do movie stills, and after rehearsing a scene and doing multiple takes, only one survives the "editing room floor" and makes the director's cut.

It's that process I'm talking about - not the digital darkroom process. What goes through your mind when "selecting" your images.

Already, there are several good responses that describe what I'm talking about, but I'm after the how.

And yes, after doing some 300 odd weddings (which almost absconded with my sanity) I realize that the "funnel" is much wider than with a portrait or landscape, or even a sporting event. For example, I read somewhere that the photo editors at Sports Illustrated went through some 15,000 images their photographic team made at a Superbowl game before selecting just one for the cover. The article highlighted the way they did it (and still met their deadline), but never talked about what was it that made that one photograph the one.

I have my own ideas, and will share them, but I'm interested in yours too.

This is a very worthy topic, and you're right it's frequently overlooked or at least infrequently discussed.

I often have people say to me things like "I looked at your website and *all* the pictures were good. How do you do it?" And the answer is very simple — only show the good ones.

Shooting mostly sports, I expect I shoot differently than many of you do. I shot a basketball game Friday night and a soccer tournament this weekend, in all probably six or eight games, and now I have about 5,000 images to edit. And yes, the first and most important step in editing is culling. About 10% will ultimately survive the cut.

The way I do this, very quickly and reasonably efficiently (and mind you, I shoot RAW exclusively), is with full screen sharpened views of each image using BreezeBrowser Pro's slideshow feature.

One tip somebody gave me several years ago that has proved very helpful to me in this context is what I call the Ten Second Rule, which is simply that whenever you find yourself looking at an image for more than ten seconds trying to figure out whether it's a keeper or not — it's not.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Sean DeMerchant said:

Just look at the thumbnail and feel. So I have 4 states for an image file:

1. Archived shot. Not particularly exciting but it may have documentary value.
2. Shown on the net but not printed.
3. Printed.
4. Printed and shown on the net.

And one can take all there DAM tools and stick them where they belong. When I truly want to sort images and make serious decisions I prefer to sit down with prints (and my books of prints are regularly undergo the editorial process too).

enjoy,

Sean

Click to expand...

Hi Sean,

I also delete what I can inititally but is is a poor way to save space and use one's time.

I am more concenred with picking pictures for a purpose.

I mark images with stars to grade a bunch in a series as to which I will work on further, especially when a lot of images seem good. I learn a lot about my faults this way.

I add key words for further use such as "Textures", shadows" ,"water" for my art projects or else "useful accidents" or "Panos" to complete. Otherwise, pictures are grouped to a project such as a celebration or social event where images need to be delivered for some purpose.

Now re the DAM book and other sets of advice. Peter Krogh's book is not for you if you already know what you are doing and can work it out fine. Especially for someone who understands about media failures, upgrade paths, having backup systems in place and so forth.

The DAM book is well written and does provide and overview which allows some system that will work for most people.

I would hope that photographers take from it what works. Otherwise, having a consultant setting up a customized system for you is a great investment!

Asher

Tim,

Tim Smith said:

I think it was Ansel Adams who said something to the effect that "Six (or was it 12?) significant images a month is a very worthy outcome"

Click to expand...

I think AA was talking about 12 significant images per year

John,

John Maio said:

We're talking about the same thing. You call it "selection" and I call it "editing"...

Click to expand...

Ah, OK, got it. "Culling"
Well, I think it's very different depending on what exactly do you do.
If you shoot a sport event as an event photographer your priorities are the subject to be sharp and hope he/she would purchase a print or two.
If you shoot a wedding - well, you must know what your priorities are after "300 odd weddings"
If you shoot an assignment for the newspaper or a magazine - well, it's not even your problem, since the actual editor will take care of it for you
And the toughest case - IMHO - is when you shoot for yourself, since there is no assignment, no client, or editor to tell you what they like or not. The 100% of responsibilities are yours.
I (very) recently went through about 10,000+ images of mine from the last 12 months to make of few prints. 6 made the top. 40 made second runners. I still think I could've done a better job (I mean could have choosen less than 40, but I was plain exhausted, so I simply decided to print those 40 (the 6 champions were amongst them, I simply printed them additionally in a larger size).
It's a very tough work and I'm not looking forward to do it again any time soon. In fact, it taught me (in the 100th time that I should be more critical and more mindful BEFORE pressing the shutter.

In case you're curious what those 40 were - here you are: http://nik.smugmug.com/gallery/2124049
I leave it as a challenge to guess what my 6 champions were.

Actually, since you can vote on any image... let's do a voting.

I'm not suggesting you vote something "down", but simply vote "up" 6 images you like the most.
I am curious to see if my choice is anywhere close to a "voter's choice".
You can also leave a comment, but please be aware that the comments are moderated and I reserve the full right to approve or delete any comment at my sole discretion...

Be the editors you would like to have for yourself!

Some great thoughts thus far..

Deleted - posted twice

Some great thoughts thus far..

"whenever you find yourself looking at an image for more than ten seconds trying to figure out whether it's a keeper or not — it's not."

"I think it's very different depending on what exactly do you do."

I am primarily a people photographer, and within that broad definition, I concentrate actor's headshots. It is a specialized subset of portraiture for some special reasons:

1. A headshot is not discretionary. A performer must have one to get work
2. In addition to bringing out the real person, I work to bring out the characters my clients want to become
3. With any experience at all, a performer is not afraid of the camera

When I work, the technical side of image making goes on autopilot, and my main effort is in setting up different improvisations that the actor quickly relates to express the look of these characters. Clothing changes and lighting adjustments add to the mix.

So at the end of the sitting, and after eliminating the "blinkeys", "half eyes". deer-in-headlights, etc., we have about 100 images, all of which are technically OK, but we have to cull them down to four - which get the final finishing process.

When leaving my studio, the actor takes along a contact sheet with somewhere between 25 and 35 images after the first editing pass. In addition, I create a web-based slide show of these same images so they can get opinions from fellow professionals they might know in other cities. (positive reinforcement from colleagues is a principal ingredient of the selection process)

Getting down to the contact sheet is the first hurdle.

Some time ago, while walking on the treadmill at my fitness center (not that I'm fit or anything) I noticed how young women on the machine next to me looked at entertainment/gossip and fashion magazines. You've all seen it. I marveled at the quickness of the wrist as they fliped through pages filled with images - even while jogging - while I had to hand on to the machine with both hands. I mean they went through 10 pages a minute! And then I'd notice that they would, just as quickly, turn back 3 or 4 pages because some image caught their fancy before the message got to the wrist to stop the forward page turning! Now these were all images by competent photographers, some in fashion magazines, that must have taken hours to do, and it only took milliseconds to either register and stop the page turning - or not.

So the axiom, repeated above, about rejecting an image that you look at for more than 10 seconds trying to decide on is very valid in my opinion - except that one second is more like it.

To get from those 100 reasonable images to the 25, I suggest to my client that there is an invisible line between us and the monitor - that we play the role of a casting agent and the character we see on the monitor is not them, but someone else! (being an actor makes this feasible - get them to mentally separate themselves)

Using PhotoMechanic, I display only 6 candidates on the monitor at a time and ask "which one do you see first? - "don't analyze it - go with your first impression - which one catches your eye in an instant?" I also instruct them that its perfectly OK if none of the 6 grab their attention - we'll just move to the next matrix, conversely, if they "see" two or three of the six, that's OK too.

Time after time - without consciously counting we end up with a 25% - 35% selection rate. And time after time, over several hundred performer/clients the ones selected are those where the eyes are expressive and open, and the person is "connecting through the camera". What does that look mean? Wow, look at that energy! That character look sinister - wonder what he's thinking?

The whole point here is, like the young woman flipping through images in a magazine, if we can get the casting agent to stop, even momentarily, and pull that headshot out of the big pile and place it into the little pile, I've done my job. The resume and subsequent audition is up to the client - and many of mine are cast - often based on that one second look.

As mentioned, I also strongly encourage the client to get (reinforcing) input from their agent and other respected professionals before down-selecting to the final four. Sure, exposure and color correction, cropping, retouching, and all that stuff is an important part of the finishing process, but the real critical part is that initial selection - or edit.

This is the realm of the psychologist, and deserves further study.

Anyway, I've rambled on too long.

You are invited to take a peek at my website.. The portfolios are under "Headshots"

http://www.johnmaiophotography.com

John,

I looked at your website and feel you're way of working is great! Some of the guys really catch one's attention.

In a way I do this but in reverse.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

John,

I looked at your website and feel you're way of working is great! Some of the guys really catch one's attention.

In a way I do this but in reverse.

Asher

Click to expand...

Understood. I believe every photographer develops a style and edits within his or her style for the desired results. Last evening, I attended a local performance of Beckett's "Waiting for Godot". I've been asked to do stills for the performance and last night was to measure the stage lighting and establish POV's (a little challenging because this performance is "in the round"). I'll do the stills next Sunday.

When I edit for this kind of assignment, a different philosophy enters into the equation for me. I like to capture moments of action which try to make a performance in 4 dimensions (adding sound, of course) come alive in two dimensions. Rather than just documenting what is happening, I'd rather have way fewer "keepers" that, hopefully, bring the play to life.

What about some of you other folks? What genre do you shoot in and what is your thought process in selecting your "keepers" - beyond just good focus, framing and exposure?

For me, my 'editing' happens in the camera.

Although, I live in another world as far as workflow. I shoot large sporting events with multiple photographers shooting dozens of competitors at a time, getting 100 or so images in two minutes. Then having 30 seconds - 2 minutes to chimp and do it all over again - for up to 14 hours straight.

Having had weekends of 181,000 pictures, there is no resonable alternative to go through all of them and have them available for parents within minutes of their performance - other than hiring great photographers who know their gear and know the sport. On average, we'll cull less than 10%, partly due to time, but mostly that they have great gear and anticipate the action to get plenty of keepers.

That is the main difference for each of our different types of work - what qualifies as a keeper. For an SI cover shot, it has to capture the essence of the game/day/moment/etc... For me, it has to be something that a parent wants. It doesn't have to be technically perfect, but something that captures their child in what they are doing, so they can keep the memories for years to come.

So there is no real right or wrong way to edit - any method really comes down to our business model and customer/client expectations are.

Brian.

That's a great point, Brian,

Wedding too, I look at pictures and cringe at the blown out details on a white veil or dress only to have the bride love these pictures the most.

The point John makes about actors head shots is so important. The agents simply allow .25 to 1 second to to see a head shot. So it has to pop out and be engaging like the person is really making emotional contact.

So obviously, the end use defines the purging-selection patterns one chooses.

For you, theres' little choice. Your fingers are going to get numb from this mcuh chimping!

Are the choices made by you in a central place or is it the job of each photographer to chimp their own. Do you use runners to deliver the CF cards?

Asher