Ed Endicott Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 I have always thought of "editorial" photography as press related photography. The stuff of magazines, newspapers, etc. Lately, I have seen various photographer websites of non-newsworthy or non-documentary related photography that had labels of "editorial" photography. The images were more conducive to what I would call "advertising" photography. Should editorial newsworthy/documentary photographers label themselves as "photojournalists"? Should advertising photographers label themselves as "editorial" photographers? What say you? What would you use for SEO purposes on your website? How do you make the distinction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russell Watkins Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 I've always thought of "editorial" as "stuff that goes in magazines* but not to sell anything other than the magazine". So the portrait of Lady Gaga above the piece about her latest album in Rolling Stone, even if she is wearing the latest Manolo Blahniks, is an editorial shot. If exactly the same shot was used in an ad for Manolo Blahnik's Spring Collection, it would be an advertising shot. The same shot used in the brochure publicising Lady Gaga's not-for-profit homeless polar bear orphan charity? Commercial photography. I think it's the end use rather than photographic style that determines what "type" of shot it is. *or webzines or newspapers or colour supplements... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Baker Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 And what of 'advertorial' - that magazine space containing what appears to be a spread of reportage that is actually selling the reader a product and which makes Alamy sales often confusing. The lines can be blurred. Rgds, Richard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.