I can spend about 90 minutes on a project from the time I come in (2pm) until I absolutely have to work on the newscast. My co-editor knows what I’m doing so he watches the show’s rundown and makes sure he’s on top of everything. We get the 5:30pm newscast done and I can take a quick lunch and then work on a project for about 60 more minutes until I absolutely have to work on the next newscast. We get the 9pm newscast done and then I have another 90 minutes to work on project before I go home (10:30pm is the end of my shift). No overtime, no loss to the daily product and all done without putting any of my own time in. I just found 4 hours to work on a project in one day. My co-editor didn’t have to pick up any of my ’slack.’ In fact, I was busier because I was working on a project and the show. But I wanted to have all this time so I found it. I did work on this project over a two day period. I probably could of found a few more hours if I had needed them.

Managers love when you can find time and still get the daily product done. The staff at KWGN is one of the leanest groups I ever worked with. We are the definition of ‘limited resources.’

As to your question of the types of stories to share. Thank you for the ideas. I’m going to try and have all sorts of stories here.

Shawn.

It took you five hours to edit this story?

That is a lot of time. A fine story of all nat sound but…five hours is more than most newsrooms can afford to give anyone for this short of a story. almost an entire shift of work if a person is working an eight hour day. While you were doing this, what were the rest of the editors doing in your newsroom? Did they too have that long to craft a story or were they picking up the slack so you could have the time to be this creative? Do you think a manager will agree with you that this is a good, cost effective, use of limited employee resources?

I’m not trying to be argumentative. I’m trying to understand your thinking about what is good editing and how to get it done under real world newsroom working conditions day in and day out without adversely affecting the production of the entire newscast.

I’m all for seeing creative work. I notice you believe a story, most often is better with more people involved, yet here there is no reporter.

Fine, it’s a nat sound story. But in todays world of television news I’m not sure what you created justified the expense. Either to the station or the viewer.

Could you do more to share stories and editing that have more important issues involved instead of features? It would help make this site have a little more value to the day to day work most of us do.

Thanks

Thank you for taking the time to do this and please keep up the good work.

—— You’re welcome Nathan. I hope I can keep this intesting.

Are you strictly an editor, or do you also shoot some?

—— I’m just an editor. And I disagree with the person who shoots the story in the best person to edit it. Bringing in someone else to the story add more.
I love natural sound stories but aren’t stories with a reporter better told most of the time? It’s because two people are working together on a story. I think the same thing of a natural sound story. Two people are better. Two sets of ideas. I typically talk to the photographer about what he shot and how he/she thinks the story should be told. Their imput is very valueable to me. Also, as and Editor I’m not as connected to the story and won’t force shot just because they are cool. There is other reason of course but those are my primary reason.

The only negative thought I have about the package is that I really…almost hate the closing shot…. I can’t understand the framing in the least bit. The fence posts lead my eye to a big pole in the middle of the frame that separates two unintelligible words “land” and “ranc.” …….How about ending with a close up of a target being knocked down?

Dave and I talked about the closing shot. He felt he didn’t get a very good closing shot. Dave was called to cover and tornado in Northern Colorado and had to leave this shoot earlier than he thought he was. I decided to go with it anyway. Yes you are correct, the eye is led to the big pole in the middle. I decided there was enough in the frame for the viewing to understand where you were. I thought the fact that the car was in the shot lent to establishing you are again and the entrance to the ranch. Thank you for your comments.

——– I took me about 5 hours to edit it. I did not shoot it. Dave Wertheimer shot the story.

How detailed are your tape logs?

——– In this case I log everything in Avid. Actually I rarely do tape logs anymore for natural sound stories (I stil do it for stories I write). Instead I log in Avid. I use locators (F3) and make notes as I go. So I write the text of the soundbites and make notes of shot and natural sound moments I think I’ll use. This is one thing I like about Avid more the Final Cut. You cannot log anything as you capture in Final Cut. At our station we have both.

How much of the package can you see in your head (or on paper) before you start the actual edit?

——— This story I didn’t see anything in my head. I built a skeleton of all the sound I want to use first. Then I figured out how I wanted to start the piece and built the opening sequence. I bounced around alot after that. If I found a shot and knew where I was going to put it then I would put it in. I edit a lot by feel. This that shot feet right in that spot.

Are you strictly an editor, or do you also shoot some? I typically assume that the person who shoots a story is typically the best person to edit the story. I’d be interested to hear your take on that.

The story keeps a very consistent pace throughout. That is not easy to do! It makes me wonder how long you had to piece this together. For me, incredible editing is usually just a matter of how much time I have. Nothing is ever perfect, so give me a little more time, and it’ll be that much better.

The only negative thought I have about the package is that I really…almost hate the closing shot. I know that it is somewhat similar to the opening shot and is supposed to wrap things up and bring them full circle, but all it did for me is confuse me. The shot is so complex and confusing that it did not bring closure to the story for me at all. I can’t understand the framing in the least bit. The fence posts lead my eye to a big pole in the middle of the frame that separates two unintelligible words “land” and “ranc.” Then even the “US National Swat Championship” sign is partially blocked. Mix that in with the slow zoom out and the car driving off and there is just way too much going on. How about ending with a close up of a target being knocked down?

How long did it take you to edit this piece? Did you shoot it too?

How detailed are your tape logs? How much of the package can you see in your head (or on paper) before you start the actual edit?