photography

[raymond morrison]

I am currently doing my critical analysis in my third year of my photography degree, and would like to see the responses people have to the question: what are the fundamental differences between the genres of editorial photography and documentary?

Also: Who decides the categorie that a photograph should fall into? Is it the photographer, the audience, the publisher or the critic?

[GPS]

Who told you there are "fundamental differences"?

[medform-norm]

And I was never aware that such fine distinctons between genres were being made. What counts as 'editorial photography' anyway? This is the first time I hear the word. Could you supply us with links to propagators of both 'genres'?

[John Flavell]

You might want to re-think the categories of peeple involved the process:

1. Photographer
2. Subject
3. Critic/audience

[MIke Sherck]

I suspect that this is one of those academic things which only really matters to your grade. I suggest that you find out what your instructor's views on the topics are and parrot them back to him or her.

[John Brownlow]

Ignore the glib answers.

The chief aim of editorial photography is to illustrate something for publication. The chief aim of documentary photography is to document something. Sometimes the two aims coincide and sometimes they don't. As for who decides, it's the person who's currently being asked the question. IE you.

[Ralph Barker]

You are likely to get a fairly wide range of responses to these questions, Raymond. My take would be that "documentary" has "standards" that are largely based in journalistic criteria that don't vary much over time, while "editorial" "standards" will vary substantially over time - both based on what is popular or trendy within a specific audience demographic, and the style of the particular publication. Differences in photographers' personal styles or "visions" will fall within those broader parameters.

While I have the impression that you are referring to "publisher" as being the publication, or the entity behind the publication, I think you'll find that an editor will make the determination of the suitability of the images for the particular genre. The "publisher" within the organization is typically concerned only with the associated business issues.

Similarly, although the photographer may make the initial determination of genre classification based on their intent ("I'm going to shoot some editorial material" or "I'm going to shoot a documentary"), an editor will typically make the final determination prior to publication. Critics will usually opine on the material only after it is published, and audiences are generally far less concerned about matters of classification.

[Robert Skeoch]

I think the difference is the same as the old joke.
What do you call a news reporter without a job?
A journalist.

What do you call an editorial photograph that can't get published?
Documentary.

Just poking fun.

-Rob Skeoch

[Nick Morris]

Hello Raymond.
I'm not formally trained in photography, but I have done significant reading and study. My understanding of the difference is the same as John Brownlow. Photos in annual corporate reports would be an example of editorial photography. Dorethea Lange, Walker Evans, W. Eugene Smith, and Paul Strand produced documentary studies. An example would be Smith's study of the mecury posioning in Minamata, or Paul Strand's books of his village studies in France, Italy, etc. Another way of looking at it would be that with editorial photography, the photos support the text; with documentay photography, the text supports the photos.

[John Kasaian]

IMHO, the terms Documentary and Editorial differ in that the subject of Documentary work is deemed significant enough to "document" without any intent other than to record for the viewer's information, while Editorial work is produced or portrayed as part of an agenda, such as selling goods and services, political or psychological manipulation.