What makes this "editorial"?

[kewk]

I was browsing some local photographers portfolios and I came across this Editorial Photographer - Los Angeles Photographer Ed Carreon . I am curious if any of you can explain to me why he categorizes the images in this section as "editorial". To me they just look like standard portraits.

[swampler]

Maybe the usage. One of the images there said it was for an ad campaign and did not say "editorial," so maybe the editorial ones were either for a news/magazine story, or were NOT for an advertisement?

[kewk]

Originally Posted by swampler

Maybe the usage. One of the images there said it was for an ad campaign and did not say "editorial," so maybe the editorial ones were either for a news/magazine story, or were NOT for an advertisement?

That is what I had assumed. That it was the usage of the photos that he classified them as editorial. I had asked because I had always thought of editorial as a style rather than how the photo was used.

[swampler]

Well, I've heard that selling prints is considered an editorial use, but selling mugs, t-shirts, etc with an image on it was not. I have no idea how that would hold up in court, but for all the sports guys selling prints, myself included, I hope that's true.

[MrB]

This definition lifted from Wiki:

Answer


Editorial photography refers to the pictures in a magazine that aren't ads. The photographs that go along with the articles - even the cover of the magazine. Some photographers shoot only editorial type work, others shoot both editorial and commercial.
Commercial photography is essentially advertising photography - or photography for brochures, annual reports, things like that.
Editorial photography does not pay nearly as well as commercial, but with editorial, you usually get much more creative freedom, and you get a credit line. You do it to add to your portfolio - then show the portfolio to get commercial work.
Let's say you want to be a fashion photographer. Would you like to shoot a layout of photographs for Vogue? Even if you only got paid a few hundred bucks? Of course you would. Then you show those pictures to potential commercial clients - they are impressed - and you make real money shootiing for them. It's far easier to get your foot in the door of lucrative commercial accounts if you have editorial tearsheets. Shooting editorial work might not pay the bills, but it will be a very good investment in your future.3

[Songman45]

Originally Posted by swampler

Well, I've heard that selling prints is considered an editorial use, but selling mugs, t-shirts, etc with an image on it was not. I have no idea how that would hold up in court, but for all the sports guys selling prints, myself included, I hope that's true.

I'm with you Steve. Maybe we'll be let off several hooks if we are selling for editorial use.

And so I'll take this uninvited moment to rattle about several terms being thown about with no real foundation. Maybe the idea sounds good so people grab on to words and lay claim to them. Frankly I think some savvy photogs came up with a few buzz words and a real marketing stratedgy and maybe hit a home run.

The first word that bugs me is "Portrait" this would be a rendetion of a person in which some portrayal of same is made. Doesn't a portrait tell something about a person's personality, stage in life or accomplishment? Maybe the confusion started when copy machines and printers began using "Portrait" & "Landscape" as names for paper orientation. Before, we used to just call them Horizontal or Vertical, less confusing that way. Do all people pictures have to tun up and down and all scenic pictures have to run sideways? Obviously, this wording choice added yet another unnecessary definition to perfectly good words. Since there are 2 choices for paper orientation, "Portrait" and "Landscape" perhaps now some people think there are only two kinds of pictures which go by the same name. That's why I read, "I took portraits of a flower the other day". Does "portrait" mean more special than snapshot? Or did that flower have a personality which was captured in the photo?

Photojournalism- It used to be a profession now its a style. Its a fairly hip style too. Hey, PJ is about newspaper style picture taking. Its fast, spontainious un-posed, and not structured. That's really good news if you are a photographer with no skills for posing and are cluless of the art and science of photography. It lets you off the hook. Oh and as for the other end of the situation? PJ means the kind of pictures put in the newspaper, IMPORTANT things! Speak of ego stroking. "Hey thse look just like the kind of pictures you see in the paper. I feel like such a princess, celeb or star" Some people really think they'd look good on the cover of a check-out stand tabloid.

Editorial- This must be a step up from PJ; afterall, its a different section in the newspaper than the news. Aside from the conventional editorial photography, which seems to be totally dismissed any more. Its one more type of photography that when applied to certain people inflates their importance. So, if you want a photo session that makes you appear to be some raving success like a head of state or, officer for a corporation choose the Editorial Guy.

"So, you want that Portrait, Portrait or Landscape? And watch the PJ if its biased too far left or right we'll have to change it to an Editorial. And you may not be worth millions, and we might not make you look like a million, you'll feel like a million and it'll only cost you hundreds and I'll fell like a million too"

Steve