What even is “Editorial” Wedding Photography?

I am not really one for worrying much about “branding” (I’d rather be shooting or in the woods than worrying about that!) but one term I toss around when describing my work is “Editorial.” And unlike other brand words like “natural” or “documentary” or “classic” some people don’t actually know what Editorial means, or how it’s different from “classic” wedding photography.

Editorial as a term comes from the magazine and film world. To publish a story in a magazine like, say, Vogue, it needs to have a strong narrative, expertly executed images, masterful lighting, a variety of shots to move the story forward, cohesion among those chosen shots in terms of lighting, edits, and style, and then after all that it needs to look absolutely effortless. You don’t want models to look like they’re modelling, you want them to look cool, natural, easy, relaxed, and did I mention cool?

I used to be the Lead Photography Editor at a travel magazine, and so it was my job to curate large galleries of images down to just a dozen and ensure they told a strong story when laid out side by side. I often got talented but disjointed submissions of images from photographers and I had to use my skills to pull a story from it. (It amazed me how photographers could take so many gorgeous photos but lack a cohesive story among them as a whole. I don’t want to know what a place looked like, I want to know what it feels like to be there! But I digress.) So, it makes sense that I naturally bring an editorial eye to my work and my final products.

So then, what is editorial wedding photography? Maybe it helps to compare it to classic wedding photography:

Most classic wedding photography is focused on getting the “must-have shots”: the first kiss, the family formals, the cake cutting, and a few portraits. It often follows a checklist. The results are usually clean, well-lit, and smiling—great for documenting the facts of the day. (And for some people, that’s absolutely perfect, and in no way do I mean to slander that style and approach. Nope, everyone has a perfect photographer for them and each pairing is totally valid.)

Editorial wedding photography goes deeper. Yes, it includes what happened, but it also pushes to include how it felt and most of all what it all meant. Visually, it unfolds more like a short film, establishing a narrative and using various techniques to move the story forward. It’s atmospheric, a bit emotional, and resonant. However, as mentioned, the final product also comes across as effortless. If it was only emotional and intentional, that would be “fine art” photography. No no, I want you to look cool af, relaxed, easy, natural, and most of all I want you to look like yourselves. Just the best, most polished, slightly stylized version of yourself but ultimate still yourselves.

So, to summarize a bit. Editorial wedding photography uses the tools of excellent light, thoughtful and creative compositions, attention to detail (hair, dress, straps, ties), motion and movement, atmosphere and mood, sense of place, use of establishing shots and detailed shots for variety, candids and documentary style shots, and expertly executed images to unfold the story of your day in a way that comes across as effortless, relaxed, and stylish. Behind the scenes, there is guidance from me on what I call starting poses” so that you feel at-ease and relaxed and beautiful, plus what I call “cheerleading” from me to coax you into genuine moments, from belly laughs to lingering misty-eyed hugs.

What Editorial Wedding Photography includes:

• establishing shots

• detail shots and attention to detail in general

• atmospheric shots of the venue / area of choice

• candids and quiet moments as they unfolds

• creative compositions to complement classic shots

• thoughtful lighting

• use of movement and motion

• a mix of wide and medium and tight shots

• guidance behind the scenes so the couple feels at ease

• effortless and relaxed and cool resulting images

• an elevated, cinematic, visually layered final gallery

• clients still look like themselves, act like themselves, and see their true selves and their real lived experience reflected in the images

What Editorial Photography does NOT include:

• stiff, overly structured poses

• expecting couples to know how to look and act like models

• negatively micro-managing your experience in order to get ‘perfect photos’

• resulting images that look great but don’t feel like you.

• taking up vast hours of your very short day just for the sake of ‘perfect’ photos

Examples:

Some editorial is structured for elegance, like these two. I tidied up the backdrop, selected a nice chair, and gave them both posing advice for this slightly bougie, old-school feel to match the library they got married in. But after everything was set, I told them to “act too cool to be here right now” and the resulting image was structured but cool, with no distracting elements in the background to take away from their moment, plus they are bathed in beautiful light since I directed them to look towards the window.

In many cases my job is to find the good light, see a great composition, and just coax the couple into a natural moment. In this case, I wanted to get the atmosphere of the sprawling woods and distant mounts, with hints of the trees we were already near, the drop of the cliff - but I had to balance all those desires with bright sunlight, so I decided to stagger their bose on a diagonal. If they were facing me, they’d have shadows and squints. I set them up safely away from the ledge, fixed her gown to look smoothed out, gave them some time to talk, and waited for the right moment. When the groom fixed is hair, that was the shot for me! It feels casual, cool, and at ease, while his smile at her is nodding to their joy for one another, and meanwhile I am getting the stunning backside of her dress. So this is an example of a lot of set up, but then a natural moment unfolding within it.

Other times, I want to capture the details but in a creative and thoughtful way. There are more classic detail shots to be had, even macro (ultra close up), but in many cases I want the details to be highlighted by the people who these details matter too. In this case, I had the groom play with the rings instead of a more classic shot like the rings in their boxes. I consider this editorial because a) he wasn’t naturally playing with the rings b) he wasn’t sitting in good light. So I moved him, and then I played with the lighting until the shadows were basically black and it gives this fine-art look to the shot. How he played with them was up to him - I didn’t intercede. I just set up the concept and then had him fool around and this was the result. Again it’s so cool, so casually elegant, so symbolic. I love it!

Hopefully now you can maybe see why I chose this word to describe my style. I bring a background of documentary, journalism, portraiture, and travel to the table, it makes sense sense of place and a strong narrative are important to me. I am not just fine-art (intentional, thoughtful, artistic images), nor am I just documentary (hands-off, all natural moments), nor am I just portraiture (highly posed, well lit images that highlight a person), nor am I just classic (all the expected shots from a ‘shot list’), nor am I just travel (Images with a strong sense of place). I’m the sum of all those parts!