KOBERSTEEN ON EDITING PHOTOS

Editing Photographs from Kent Kobersteen

"Most photographers think editing a group of images is some sort of magic, nearly impossible process. It’s really quite simple, but requires degrees of discipline, experience and ruthlessness.

First, several things are needed:

• Raw material (photographs)
• Ability to make decisions
• Criteria based on knowledge of the uses of the photographs (specific magazine or newspaper, book, exhibit, etc.)

To explain what is done is really very simple. You make a really large pile of “bad” photographs, and a really small pile of “good” photographs. “Bad” and “good,” in this case, refer to the appropriateness of given photographs for a particular use – the criteria, above – as well as specific value judgments on the quality of the images from an aesthetic and story-telling standpoint.

Specific photographs may be eliminated because they are redundant with other photographs – either in look or content -- or because they do not meet specific aesthetic, journalistic or story-telling criteria. Specific photographs may be included because they advance the narrative, because they make a specific journalistic or story-telling point, or because they add variety to the mix of images, as well as because they are simply good photographs. Also, specific images may be eliminated or included merely as a judgment call on the part of the editor.

The entire business of editing is very subjective, personal, and is certainly a product of experience and refining on the part of the editor. Only so much of the process can be explained in words. Much of it is intuitive, a product of experience, and defies explanation.

Editing is a gradual process. The entire take on a National Geographic magazine story may consist of more than a thousand rolls of film – over 36,000 photographs. It’s often felt that such an editing task is monumental, if not impossible. It is not. One must simply make decisions, and gradually work the 36,000 images down to the fifteen or twenty that are ultimately published.

This is not to say that the editor goes through the take once, eliminating all but the “best” or most appropriate fifteen images. The initial edit may involve selecting five, ten or fifteen images from each roll. There’s no magic number. Some rolls may have no frames selected; other rolls may have ten or fifteen frames pulled.

But, ultimately, the pile of “selects” shrinks, and the pile of “outs” grows. Many editors will not pull an image unless it “speaks” to them – unless the individual frame is technically superb, aesthetically good, filled with information, and also moves them emotionally.

It is important that the editor maintain a degree of psychological and emotional detachment from the images and the story. Obviously, the photographer was present when every photograph was made. The photographer remembers the difficulty of obtaining access to a given situation, the logistical complications of getting to the place, the sounds and smells at the scene. None of this is relevant unless it is communicated to the viewer of the photograph. To do a good edit it is necessary to be the surrogate of the ultimate viewer of the photographs. This is, quite simply, why photographers are rarely the best editors of their own work. They are simply too close to it, and cannot be expected to be able to accurately determine if the photograph communicates something to the person who was not present when it was shot, or if the photograph merely reminds the photographer of what it was like.

On the other hand, the photographer should be part of the editing process. Who knows more about the photographs than the photographer? At the National Geographic magazine the selection and layout of the photography is truly a “team effort,” with no one member of the team being the “captain.” The ultimate goal is to communicate to the viewer of the photographs both facts and emotions which are both relevant and accurate.

The editing process continues into the layout process, be it laying out a magazine or an exhibit. When constructing the layout some of the images in the final edit may not make the layout because they do not fit into the flow or narrative of the final product, be it a magazine article or an exhibit. Also, a particular image may be included because it provides the “connective tissue” which is essential to the narrative structure.

One thing to keep in mind is that to edit you must be able to make decisions. This sounds very basic and fundamental. But, as with editing writing, the best manuscripts are lean, with little excess verbiage. The same is true of photographic essays or exhibits. In decades of looking at photographers’ portfolios and contest entries, I am convinced that inclusion of a one weak photograph is the single thing that most often harms a group of photographs. Invariably, the weakest photograph sets the level at which the entire group of photographs is perceived.

Also, a viewer should leave a slide show, an exhibit, or the printed page saying to himself “That was great; I wish I had seen more.” If the viewer leaves saying, “That was great, but it was too long,” the photographer has made a huge mistake. Send the viewer away from the table a bit hungry. The impression of the work will be greater.

But, the one thing to remember about editing is that you’re working with what you have. If your criteria are inappropriate for the raw material at hand, you may eliminate all of the photographs. You cannot change the quality of the photographs you are working with, but you certainly can improve the perception of their quality.

In my experience, the best documentary photographers work totally differently when they are editing from the way they do when they are shooting. When shooting, these photographers work on reflex, alone. They shoot rapidly in automatic response to something they’ve seen. When editing, and when putting together the final presentation of their work, be in for a printed page or a gallery wall, they work very slowly. They give careful consideration of selection, relative size, and pacing of individual images. They take time. They try different things and see what works the best for them. They seek the advice of colleagues. They put the work away, and come back to it at a later time.

It’s the beauty of the editing process, and why editing is itself very creative. There are no rules or easy answers. A poor edit can harm a great set of photographs, and a great edit can enhance a less than great group of images."