Editorial, fashion, glamour can someone tell me what is the difference?

<p>I was thinking about it for the last few days and I like if anyone can briefly tell me or post images as to what is the difference between this kind of pictures. Glamour, Fashion, editorial.<br>

I was looking at <a href="../editors-picks/2010/editorial-photography/">http://www.photo.net/editors-picks/2010/editorial-photography/</a> and there seems to be a bit of everything, provably I fail to see a clear topic. What is each category supposed to look like? Are they pretty different from each other?</p>

<p>Let's see; do I dare be the first to answer this, and risk getting stomped on? Sure. I think it has to do with purpose, but there certainly is overlap. Editorial is shooting for the purpose of publication (magazines, etc.). Fashion is focused clothing, makeup, style, couffure, haute couture, etc., for the purpose of showing, selling, or demonstrating the fashion. Glamour, to me, is a highly styled portrait-like photography that is focused on the model or subject.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Michael is right. Almost. "Editorial" is a term used by publications to define/label their USE of images. In other words, editorial use images are used by the publication's editor to illustrate concepts, articles, etc. NOT advertisements. In a sense, editorial use is quite the opposite of advertisement use (which is all about using an image to promote a specific PRODUCT or SERVICE).</p>

<p>Now, fashion is both a definition and a subject. Fashion photography is concerned with the display of clothing (and other fashion accessories), either with the use of models or even without them. Therefore, a fashion photograph would focus on the clothes of the subjects and would most likely be used to illustrate the clothes themselves (and not, for example, the character of the model or anything else...) However, a fashion photograph MAY be editorially used to illustrate, for example, the evils of starving yourself to death just so you can fit into that tight dress, by portraying an ultra-thin emaciated model.</p>

<p>Glamour is mostly about the purpose of the image itself. Also called boudoir photography, it is usually intended to be sensual (without necessarily being sexual or explicit) and portray the subjects in intimate moments. It is all about personal beauty and is not intended to sell/ promote or illustrate anything other than the subject itself (even though, in this day and age, can anyone really doubt that this is selling as well...?)</p>

<p>I hope this clears things a bit...</p>

<p>Most people think of "editorial" in the context of commentary and opinions like one would see in the editorial section of a newspaper and that causes confusion. In photography editorial has a very broad meaning which essentially includes everything but promotional and endorsement use also known as "commercial" use. That term also causes confusion because many people think of commercial as merely involving commerce or business (i.e. being paid for using photos) rather than promotional/advertising/endorsement use for businesses or causes.</p>

<p>The distinction is used to determine whether permission is needed of the person in a photo to display a photo. In commercial use, one can be held liable for one form of invasion of privacy called appropriation or its cousin concerning right to publicity if they use someone's likeness in an image for commercial use. "Editorial" and "commercial" like described above as opposed to the more commonly known definitions used outside the photography world.</p>

<p>Interestingly, Magazine covers are generally considered as commercial, yet, one of the winning images is part of a magazine cover or, at least. presented as such. Courts have allowed book or magazine cover use without permission on 1st Amendment grounds when the book is about the individual or the magazine contains an article on the individual when the photograph is used in way that accurately represents the content of the publication. Whether that was the case with the winning image, I don't know. The above is also a U.S. standard so such use may be editorial in the country of publication.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree with most of what Marious says but not "Glamour is ... Also called boudoir photography." Glamour, in my understanding, is generally a shot where the subject is an amateur or professional model and the purpose of the picture is to make her (usually, but can be him) look beautiful. Often with stylish clothes, but the photo is of the model, with the clothes being secondary. Boudoir is a term of art for a photo of a woman (never seen boudoir of a man, but could be) either nude, semi-nude or in lingerie in a pose/setting intended to look procative like some of the more tame Penthouse photos. The subject is typically a paying customer who is having the photo made to please her husband/boyfriend or for personal reasons, not a professional model (though a photographer could obviously hire a model to building up his portfoloio).</p>

<p>I shoot boudoir, and it's broader than that. Literally "boudoir" means bedroom, but there's "soft boudoir" which generally would not be considered provacative by today's standard. The key to boudoir is that it shows a glimps into something personal. Normally it has more meaning to one person (such as a husband) than others.</p>

<p>An example of a soft boudoir would be a woman in a night gown (not really that revealing) combing out her hair in front of a vainity with the bed in the background. It almost tells a story and is less cutesy than pin-up. A sexier boudoir maybe similar to Playboy of yester-year or some Stuff/Maxim photoshoots of today. Or even some tame Penthouse, though I've not covered that area.</p>