i been researching,but still kind of confused

[swmocity]

What's the difference between editorial photography and commercial photography

 

[c.cloudwalker]

from WikiAnswers:

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.

 

[Samanax]

From what I understand, editorial photography should be honest edit free images (minor edits are okay, but usually done by the photo editor, not the photograper).

Commerical photography is a free-for-all, anything goes, make-it-look-good-so-we-can-sell-the-product kind of situation.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

From what I understand, editorial photography should be honest edit free images (minor edits are okay, but usually done by the photo editor, not the photograper).

Commerical photography is a free-for-all, anything goes, make-it-look-good-so-we-can-sell-the-product kind of situation.

Editorial photography is illustrative in nature. It is not news and you can edit it. An example of that is the reunion photo of the cast of the show "Saved by the bell" from which Screech was removed.


PS = That was People magazine I believe.

 

[Samanax]

Editorial photography is illustrative in nature. It is not news and you can edit it. An example of that is the reunion photo of the cast of the show "Saved by the bell" from which Screech was removed.

Oh, okay. So I must be thinking of something else...photojournalism is different from editorial photography. Gotcha.

 

[UUilliam]

Im not sure but i think i heard somewhere that you dont need a model release for editorial images (not sure though) maybe someone will correct me on it, Sorry i don have any sources.

 

[swmocity]

So if i were doing a TFCD type shoot,would that be commercial?...I'm not selling anything I just basically promotion.I'm just trying to building a portfolio that's all

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Im not sure but i think i heard somewhere that you dont need a model release for editorial images (not sure though) maybe someone will correct me on it, Sorry i don have any sources.

What? Never heard of that and I still have all of my model releases.

 

[choudhrysaab]

i never knew ... but now i do =)

 

[Village Idiot]

So if i were doing a TFCD type shoot,would that be commercial?...I'm not selling anything I just basically promotion.I'm just trying to building a portfolio that's all

No. It all depends on how you use the photo. There's nothing that says at the moment you press the button, the photo is an editorial photo or a commercial photo. It totally depends on how you use the photo. I have a photo that I sold to a company that's using it in an advertising campaign. That's commercial. They're "exploiting" the photo to make money. I could turn around and sell the same photo to a publication that's using it in an article that's not directed at selling goods or making money and then it would be considered editorial.

Now, if you're taking photos for the purpose of selling them to stock agencies and ad companies, then that may be considered commercial photography, but you could still turn around and sell the photo to a magazine that's doing an article on models and if would be considered editorial use.

Im not sure but i think i heard somewhere that you dont need a model release for editorial images (not sure though) maybe someone will correct me on it, Sorry i don have any sources.

What? Never heard of that and I still have all of my model releases.

In the USA, you don't need model releases for images that are used in editorial pieces or artistic works.

 

[KmH]

At any rate, model releases are a concern of the publisher. They are who would get sued, not the photographer. There are situations where the publisher and the photographer are the same.

In the case of a stock agency, they want a model release or property release for any image with recognisable people or property, just so they can offer the image to the widest range of potential clients.

Since the photographer is right there when an image is made, it makes sense for the photographer to get the properly executed release then and there.

By the way, there is a 3rd catagory of photography: Retail.

 

[benjikan]

from WikiAnswers:

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.

Perfect..I was about to answer and you did it for me...