Every director I've respected spends as much time in the editorial bay as they do on set, probably more, because that's where the story comes together.
Where photographers have issues in editing their own video is the same issues we have in editing our portfolio, we are too invested in the imagery.
The most difficult shot might not fit the story and probably should hit the floor, but since we are so attached to it, we can't help but insert it.
So this may sound trite but to edit you have to get out of yourself and not look at the edit as the dp, director, editor, or client.
Absolutly. I think it's really a key point.
I also noticed that editing is a "god's gift". There are people born with natural capabilities for that, as in every craft and they can shine easily in it, while others
may learn during years and years, know all the rules and they never end to be really good at it.
A good director also has to be involved in the script, along with the dp, probably more involved than the writer.
Writing it on paper and making it come out on film are way different processes and sometimes just don't transfer.
Yeah, that's where I find generally the weakest parts (even in video crews). In the end, an editor can only work with the takes done. Going back to this music video,
watching it, I had "obvious takes" in mind that were "missing". Now...maybe they were missing because they were not shooted. That's the problem. So script
and pre-production are really keys in order to get the takes nailed for the story. (and that's where 4K red can be good to save lack of plans
because we can crop)
What I find that is generally very weak with still imagery background pros, is a very limited sense of plans
and angles in relation to storytelling and a really problematic
and recurrent problem with audio and music matching that is there in 99% of the prods that comes from still world. The cuttings are in general too slow, way too slow,
they tell or too much or not enough, or out of context (specially when rythm is needed) and they are more preocupated with this sacro saint
"image quality" and color corrections. They lite quite well, they color quite well but they have hardtime when it comes to motion lenguage and keep the buzz according
to the story intended, instead it's shy and too much time on similar takes.
Then, there is another issue wich is "trying to do it too well" under pressure and that's when things get bad and cutting end to be boring for too much conservatism
and desire to not failure. Precisely, the worry of not failing makes the failure guarantee.
It does not happen in high-end video or cine crews because they are used to big chalenges and pressure and it's done within a "daily routine". It happens more
to still crowds because they aren't confident enough and they want to make it good, forgetting the necesary fun and distance.
I still find that probably your best editing (published, don't know the unpublished) is the car race with the 5D2. And I think it's because you kept it fresh, fluid, organic,
and no pressure to client X or Y. So in the end, it's your intuition and not reason(able) that was involved. You had fun
Ps: and it's funny, in the end, we can discuss gear, lenses and so on, but I never watch a movie with the "image quality" in mind. If it's a 5D2 or a Red or Aaton or Gopro.
It really doesn't matter. What yes matters is the audio and the cutting.
A bad audio and a bad cutting would completly ruin the experience, while a Red vs Alexa would be completly irrelevant.