Editorial vs Corporate
It’s yet another in the “not another executive with folded-arms series”.
I was on my way back from a lovely magazine shoot recently, complete with home-grown garden goodies for my belly – more on that story after publication – when my fave “Sunday” called and asked me to shoot an executive for the business pages.
An image had been supplied, and this is where the post title comes into play, but it wasn’t suitable. There was nothing wrong with it per se. It was correctly exposed, in focus, and not an arms-folded shot! Everything you’d expect really as it was taken by a pro (a pro I actually know, and whose work I like), but it hadn’t been taken for editorial use. I’m assuming it was a “filer”, an image kept on file for when a image needs to be sent out quickly to a publication, or it could have been for a corporate website or brochure. Not quite right for editorial use in a quality broadsheet though. The background was too dark background, and was a studio or cloth backdrop and so was too plain.
Suits me quite nicely then, thank you very much, I’ll do something more in keeping with the publication’s style:
Generally if it’s at all possible, I like to shoot and supply a left, a right, and a vertical (maybe even a left and a right of those too), each with a different background. A left and a right refer to which side of the image the subject is on, or which side the are facing. Some publications always like to have images of people facing “towards the fold”. On occasion it’s possible for them to flip the image if it doesn’t face the right way, but care needs to be taken then if there is any text or branding in the image. I’ve seen images that have writing in the background that is reversed, like looking in a mirror. Not very professional looking and something that should be picked up by a sub-editor, but sometimes they slip through!
TTFN
