Editorial normally has a
photojournalistic feel to it, tells a story, often used to illustrate a concept or idea designed around the contents of the publication. Photojournalism is a form of editorial photography, though the distinction is that it often involves a news story.
As an example for editorial photography for a magazine like
Zink, it would use models to illustrate their fashion, glamour and beauty theme while
Better Homes and Garden would have images of say someone working in their outdoor green house. Both are technically telling a story but in their proper context, editorial.
BTW, most publications, like
Zink,
Nylon, and others have what's called an
Editorial Calendar that they let their
A-list photographers know, well in advance, so the photographers can submit their
editorial shoot for that calendar topic. Then the
editorial decision process begins.
The photo editor/creative director chooses from all the editorial shoots received and it's those chosen photographers that get published,
usually paid nothing but the glorification of a
tearsheet. They are not chosen or rejected based on who the photographer is, and sometimes on what the photographer shot, but on how well the shoot matches the editorial content for that magazine, that month. These photographers, chosen or not, hope their editorial tearsheets will lead to commissioned (paid) assignments with magazines like
Vogue,
Baazar,
Elle,
W, Vanity Fair,
Glamour,
Cosmopolitan, etc.
This is how you pay your dues, as an editorial photographer, if you want to become someone like Bruce Weber shooting for Vanity Fair. Vanity Fair is considered the launching pad for many editorial photographers including, Edward Steichen, Cecil Beaton, Bruce Weber, Helmut Newton, Mario Testino, and Annie Leibovitz to name a few.
Remember,
major magazines are putting together either their May issue right now, not their February issue (March and April are done and at the printer and/or pre-press) as most publications are three months out--that's why they shoot swimwear fashion catalogs in South Beach and other areas of "warm" Florida during the winter months.
One could argue that a Playmate layout in
Playboy is editorial glamour photography as another example, while just a sole image of a model at the beginning of a story (text) is just another glamour photo in the same magazine.
Take this image directly below, it has commercial use, say to sell a skin product, stock use, to illustrate a story about self-esteem as an example, editorial use, to illustrate a story on, "Beauty in the 21st Century." Without the context of a publication, some would argue it's glamour, some beauty, some nude, some will even say it's a picture, not a photograph. But it's the photographer who was there that truly knows, and the editor who utilizes the image in their publication--BTW, this image, recently shot, is going to be published full page in Sept., more on that when it happens.
Another example how editorial can shift, is a series of images of a bride on her wedding day for
Bride's magazine illustrating her glorious day to tell that story would be editorial, perhaps even mixed with fashion editorial if the story revolved around the bride's dress and her bride's maids dresses. In the same magazine, you could have a
bridal shot, originally shot as that and not as an editorial shot, but then the photographer submits it to
Bride, makes the cover, now it's an editorial (cover-shot), bridal shot.
Editorial photography is often considered a form of commercial photography if the story is trying to sell you something. As an example, if the shoot was a model for a liquor ad, the shoot is commercial (to sell liquor), but if you then took the same images from the shoot to illustrate the model and her tastes for top-shelf liquors and used those images to illustrate a specific story, say, "Best Bourbons," then it's editorial. And if you took the same images and used them to illustrate the same model with a drinking problem, or young girls with drinking problems, then it's a "features article" and the images are considered
photojournalism in an editorial context.
Similarly, if you say took a shot of a romantic couple sitting on a park bench in love and placed it in a stock portfolio for royalty-free stock, then it's a
stock shot. If the stock agency sells it say a condoms manufacturer to sell condoms, then it now becomes a commercial shot, though it's more commercial if it was commissioned originally as a commercial request through an ad agency. Take that same stock image, sold to say
Newsweek to illustrate a story, "Love in America," then it's editorial (sold as commercial stock for an
editorial but used in an editorial context).
There are fine-lines, the thing to ask yourself, is the shot of commercial or editorial or perhaps both, value? If the subject matter is say a fashion model shot for Victoria Secrets catalogue, then it's commercial fashion, take the same series of photos for a story in
W magazine, then it's fashion editorial.
Don't you love it? It's all up to the
content,
context, and
usage normally to distinguish between all the genres of photography, ultimately if you shot it, un-commissioned, it's up to you to determine, does it have a commercial value? Is it stock? Is it useable for editorial, etc.? Sometimes images fit several categories, not just one.
Just my thoughts, and since I spent so much time writing this, I think I'll tailor it for my blog since I'm behind on that
all the best, and thanks for being a initial part of this community, rg sends!
What is it?
Re: What is it?
The Truth of it All..
Re: What is it?
