I often find myself thinking of editing in two modes: additive and subtractive. They are opposite approaches to try to achieve the same goal, and it seems editors all have opinions about which is the right strategy. Essentially additive editing and stringing “the good stuff” together, whereas subtractive is more about stringing all your raw footage together and “removing the bad stuff”. (I should note that I’m speaking from my own experience discovering these concepts and independently defining the terms for myself.)
It may sound like a minor distinction, but to me, this choice of process speaks volumes about who the editor is in that moment. Additive editing feels confident and concerned with the pursuit of a specific, existing vision. And it’s faster. Subtractive editing feels like a deeper listening to what the footage is saying, and holding on to many potential permutations. It’s a slower and sometimes meandering process. Ultimately, to me, the two modes seem to fall along the convergent vs divergent thinking paradigm (additive being divergent and subtractive being convergent).
A quick search online led me to a discussion board filled with editors confidently promoting “additive all the way”. Maybe deeply pro-additive editors are simply the A-type personalities to preach advice on discussion boards? When editing documentary footage, I always find that I want to see everything (if logistically feasible) and engage with a subtractive process at first. Then after that process, decisions can be made, and after maybe 2 or 3 passes, it starts to offer diminishing returns, and I can eventually switch to additive mode to fully construct the scene with a more focused intention.
That moment of when to switch from subtractive to additive is different from every project, but it’s always a significant turning point in the overall process of completing an edit.