Author Topic: Editorial Photography? (Read 3745 times)

Jewels143 · « **on:** July 01, 2013, 21:13 »

I've been in the Stock photography business for a few months now, and I've sold about 20 some photos so far. One part of the business I don't know much about is Editorial Photos. What exactly are they? I think they are newsworthy photos, but do you get paid for these? And if so, how much usually? (higher or lower than average photos) I'm having a difficult time researching this myself on my stock sites, and I wonder what I'm missing out on. Any information or shared experiences concerning Editorial work would be great. Thanks.

Have a good day, Jewels

grsphoto · « **Reply #1 on:** July 01, 2013, 22:54 »

Editorial images are images with people in them, doing people things, that you don't have releases for.

Example would be a crowd at a rock concert.

To be accepted on sites you have to have very specific captioning. The images have to be treated the same way a hard news image would be.

These images usually make much less then full released images, since they can only be used in a editorial way ( think news paper) and not to sell a product.

This is an example of an editorial Image I have that sells, but not much
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-128225966/stock-photo-malacatoes-loja-ecuador-feb-custom-x-race-on-riverside-malacatoes-southern-ecuador-feb.html?src=same_artist-128225972-3

Donvanstaden · « **Reply #2 on:** July 01, 2013, 23:53 »

Thanks Jewels, I was wondering the same thing... so it's basically a way to get around selling images of people that you don't have a model release for... sneaky, sneaky.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #3 on:** July 02, 2013, 02:54 »

Not really. There has to be some sort of news connection and it should be a real event, not something staged. Microstock is not really for "hard news" events, because the approval process is too slow and the market too small to make sales worth the effort.

gillian vann · « **Reply #4 on:** July 02, 2013, 05:11 »

I have some regular sales with flood images (these images have private property in them that should be released), and Anzac Day images (I shot them generically so as to be global "remembrance/memorial day" type images. DT also pay a $5 bonus for "newsworthy" images, which may be the only money they make, but so far has helped contribute to my BME (got a few through that month).

I do see some sites allowing branded product as 'editorial' but i've had no success with that. Every site has a different rule as to what they determine to be "editorial"

steheap · « **Reply #5 on:** July 02, 2013, 07:15 »

I only blatantly advertise occasionally, but for only $4.99 (summer special) you could have all these questions answered in one easy to read book...

Steve

ShadySue · « **Reply #6 on:** July 02, 2013, 07:34 »

Quote from: Jewels143 on July 01, 2013, 21:13

I've been in the Stock photography business for a few months now, and I've sold about 20 some photos so far. One part of the business I don't know much about is Editorial Photos. What exactly are they? I think they are newsworthy photos, but do you get paid for these? And if so, how much usually? (higher or lower than average photos) I'm having a difficult time researching this myself on my stock sites, and I wonder what I'm missing out on. Any information or shared experiences concerning Editorial work would be great. Thanks.

Have a good day, Jewels

Editorial does not have to be news, there is also the textbook market, illustrating articles in mags/newspapers, guide books (much wider needs than 'beautiful people on the beach) etc.
Price on any sites I know of is exactly the same as other photos. IME they sell as well as my other pics from iS and better (from fewish sales) on Alamy. Other people do not have the same relative stats, but a very high percentage of my found in-uses from iS are in an editorial context anyway, even of photos that don't need to be labelled 'editorial'.

Some agencies can be quite 'strange' about needing 'permission' in certain places. iStock famously sometimes/often require 'permission' in writing for editorial photos in places that no Property Release is needed for non-editorial photos. I don't pretend to understand that.

steheap · « **Reply #7 on:** July 02, 2013, 08:28 »

The reason for the written permission is that in some countries (including the US I think), you can stand on public land and take a picture of a scene with people and a protected work of art, say, and sell that as editorial. However, you can't automatically assume that you can go onto the private land and take the same shot and sell it as editorial - as a real example, I took some images inside the catholic cathedral in Washington DC - they were being offered as editorial, but the church became aware of it and asked me to take them down as they had been taken on private property.

Steve

ShadySue · « **Reply #8 on:** July 02, 2013, 08:35 »

My question is really about the need for permission for editorial in places where releases are not required for the main collection, e.g photos taken on public property which already has many examples in the main collection.

wordplanet · « **Reply #9 on:** July 02, 2013, 16:52 »

Both DT and iStock wouldn't let me post editorial images I took indoors at an event even when I offered to send them my press credentials for the event. The images have been selling on SS for years (they had them exclusively for two years since they helped me get the press pass through On the Red Carpet). The event wasn't all that exciting but I was able to get some good editorial stuff that has been used in a few books - from one on Acting to a few Fodor's Travel guides - and they still sell years later.

To answer your question, Editorial images can be anything from straight news, to portraits of well known people, to travel scenes (with and without people) to insects and other natural phenomena that can be used to illustrate either news or feature articles or something in a book. It's not a way to get in a portrait that you don't have a model release for, unless that person happens to be in a beautiful travel destination doing something that a travel publisher would be interested in.

I wrote a blog article a while back entitled "Is this travel photography?" which shows that the editorial uses of your photographs can be surprising - it even discusses the photos I mentioned above. I hope you find it helpful - here's the direct link:

http://travelstockphotos.blogspot.com/2012/06/im-often-surprised-at-where-my-stock.html

RedPixel · « **Reply #10 on:** July 12, 2013, 18:21 »

"Editorial does not have to be news, there is also the textbook market, illustrating articles in mags/newspapers, guide books (much wider needs than 'beautiful people on the beach) etc." - Great point, Sue!

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet about editorial stock photos is that they're of editorial quality. For editors, that often means the photos are very high quality, and "print ready" (though obviously editorial stock photos can be used in print or online).

When you start exploring the world of editorial stock photos, you may find that some photographers have gone after a niche market and become the source for editorial quality stock photos of a particular theme. Over the years we've become known for our architectural photos - as such publishers and editors know they can find great kitchen and bathroom interior stock photos on our site. There are pros and cons of moving towards a niche with editorial stock photos - we try to provide enough of a variety that any visitor to our stock photo site can see the variety of editorial photos available, but certainly we're contacted most about architecture stock photos.

Here are some examples of editorial stock photos - newbielink:http://redpixelimages.com/Medium-Size-Files_c207.htm [nonactive]

zeamonkey · « **Reply #11 on:** July 13, 2013, 03:09 »

None of my editorial images are news images. Just older images that I never got a release for back then. Percentage wise they sell as much as my commercial images and one of them sells daily (ski photo). Never had a rejection of any editorial images except for DT and it was just a suggestion to re-submit as commercial since they didnt think they needed MR.

Carl · « **Reply #12 on:** July 13, 2013, 05:45 »

Editorial is a small part of what I do, but I'm giving some consideration to doing more. Some editorial images would be for general use, i.e., travel articles, textbooks, etc. An example would be my images of the mysterious Coral Castle in Miami - http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=%22coral+castle%22&search_group=#id=92037167&src=_32w8FDsEK3wXMSBWAA6IA-1-1

Then there are the newsworthy images such as the images I took recently of the media circus in front of the courthouse in Sanford, Florida, covering the Zimmerman murder trial - http://depositphotos.com/28000583/stock-photo-Media-Circus-in-Sanford-Florida.html?id=28000583

DP inspectors give priority to editorial imagery because of its potential curren-news value, and they approved my images related to the Zimmerman trial in less than 24 hours. They're still waiting in the que at SS.

After the trial is over and the media are feeding on something else somewhere else, the images will still be valuable because of their historical and documentary character. I took similar images of the media circus during the Tracy Anthony trial, and they continue to sell. Nothing to write home about, but it was worth the trouble to shoot. It would not be worth it if I were from out of town and had to cover travel expenses.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Editorial Photography? (Read 3745 times)

Jewels143

grsphoto

Donvanstaden

BaldricksTrousers

gillian vann

steheap

ShadySue

steheap

ShadySue

wordplanet

RedPixel

zeamonkey

Carl

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors