Your Photo: Our Critique

Anmol Tandon submitted this image taken with a Canon Powershot G3, with no other data available. Anmol has captured the Eiffel Tower up close, and while we have all seen photos of the famous landmark from top to bottom, this photo gives you a much better feel for the detail. Despite being a night shot, the digital noise is not bad. If the plan was a nice symmetrical shot of the detail, a step back would have given Anmol more to work with in terms of cropping or straightening the image and centering the tower in the frame.  Another step to the left would also have helped with the symmetry. If showing the amazing detail of the structure up close was the plan, this works. The blue lights are slightly overexposed, a smaller aperture could have helped give the lights a twinkle effect instead. Overall this is a nice image and one that does capture a viewer’s attention. 

—Melissa Macatee
Contributing Blogger

This photo gets three and a half stars on the PopPhoto Flash rating system.

The PopPhoto Flash rating system.
*= This part of the camera is called the lens
**= Don’t quit your day job
***= Good, but not yet great
****=So close you can taste it
*****= Yes, a thousand times yes!

Want us to critique your shots? Send 'em to us!

Comments

[troutmask]

I think the point of these critiques is that they're so bad so as to drive traffic here for people to comment that they're so bad. Just like how I'm doing right now.

I'm going to submit one of a guy being punched in the crotch.

I'll make sure it gets tightly cropped for a surefire 4star rating.

[Tom Thumb]

The the lighting display which adorns the tower at night is copyrighted by SNTE, the company who mainitains it. Technically speaking, both amateur and professional photographers aren’t allowed to publish photographs of the Eiffel Tower at night without permission from SNTE.

jus sayin

[Tom's editor]

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/fast-company-staff/fast-company-blog/eiffel-tower-repossessed

Relax "Tom". It is to prevent the commercial use of the tower, as seen at night.

[Tom Thumb]

So your assertion is that displaying an image of the tower clearly taken at night and displayed on a website in such a form as to drive viewers to a page accompanied by advertising space is not a commercial venture?

I got an idea, why don't we ask SNTE.

[Tom Thumb]

In order to further illuminate (pun intended):

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/fast-company-staff/fast-company-blog/eiffel-tower-repossessed

As a result, it's no longer legal to publish current photographs of the Eiffel Tower at night without permission. Technically, this applies even to amateurs. When I spoke to the Director of Documentation for SNTE, Stéphane Dieu, via phone last week, he assured me that SNTE wasn't interested in prohibiting the publication of amateur photography on personal Web sites. "It is really just a way to manage commercial use of the image, so that it isn't used in ways we don't approve," said Mr. Dieu.

You’ll notice that monsieur Dieu stipulated “personal websites”.

[Kathleen Davis]

The difference here is between commercial use and editorial use. It's a question that's come up a lot and has been addressed in Pop Photo before by several Photo Copyright Lawyers.

The gist is this:

You can take photos of just about anything (people on the street without getting a model release, public buildings, etc) and use it for editorial or fine art purposes. You can not however use many images for commercial purposes (as in an ad to sell a product). Content on this website as in the magazine counts as editorial use.

For more about the photo use and copyright check out the websites of attorneys Bert P Krages (www.krages.com) and Carolyn E. Wright (www.photoattorney.com)--they both have written books on the subject. Also look for a special article "5 Things you Didn't Know about Photo Copyrights" in the September issue.

[Tom Thumb]

I keep a copy Krages’s handy little pdf in my camera bag and have been reading the latest postings on photoattorny for some time now. I submit that having an image of the tower, regardless as to if it is in the form of editorial content or not , appear next to advertisements is something all publications should shy away from. Maybe if more did, then we wouldn’t see the erosion of our rights as photographers progress as rapidly as it has over the last several years. The posting of the image on 1x.com would be entirely appropriate as there is zero advertising on their site.

Am image of the Paris skyline that incorporates the tower would be alright in any way shape or form, but a close-up of the base of the tower alone with no other elements than the copyrighted lighting is, in my view, an infringement.

Based on your statements, you wouldn’t mind if I made a close-up of one of your images with no other recognizable elements and submitted to this site for critique, would you? Of course, if I did the image would immediately become the property of HFM.US to do with as they please including any alterations and sub licensing. Would it float your boat to see your copyrighted material altered and thrown all over the interweb in any fashion the new owner saw fit?

Those that don’t mind infringing on the rights of others should be the last to squawk about the infringement of theirs.

[Justin]

Wow. What a legal dilemma. Thanks I won't be taking any pictures of the tower. Well that said I agree with troutmask, in that Melissa doesn't have a clue on how to critique a photo, but I've been saying that for months.

This photo does nothing for me. It's a great vacation snap shot with no thought at all. Either back up and center the photo or get in tight.

Melissa can you give anything lower than a 3. Like say a 1 for this photo.

[Kathleen Davis]

Commercial use is using an image in advertisement or on merchandise. You can not take photos of copyrighted products, places, buildings, or people without their consent and use it for commercial purposes. You can however use photos of copyrighted products, places, buildings, or people without their consent for editorial use (such as in publications like newspapers, magazines, and websites) For example a newspaper can run an image of a man walking past a McDonlands sign without getting the permission of the man or the fast food chain, but Burger King can not use that image. 99% of publications run advertisements, but running advertisements next to editorial content and being an advertisement are two very different things

As for the rights of the photographer, they own the copyright to any image they take, you cropping and submitting the image the another photographer took and passing it off as your own by submitting it to a publication would be considered misuse. But if a photographer submits their own photo to our website, publication, or many others they often (according to the publication's terms of use) are allowing the company to use their photo in other ways in the future, while still maintaining the copyright themselves.

[Elvis Milic]

I would not call this 3.5 star shot and I further couldn't care less about French law. What a concept, place a building in the middle of a city, and then forbid people to display thier ability to photograph (ability is lacking in this shot as the camera did the best it could in the hands of its user) that building on a website is moronic...imho

[Tom Thumb]

As part of my work, I have to keep up with issues like the one we’re discussing here and I know that decisions in similiar have fallen on both side of the fence. As a result I make it a point to keep any trademarked or copyrighted materials out of any of my images that are created for a client or that have the potential for a future sale that would/could include commercial use.

As far as maintaining the copyright to any image that one submits to your site, what further good is it when they grant to HFMU.S.…

…a perpetual, worldwide, irrevocable, unrestricted, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, copy, license, sublicense, adapt, distribute, display, publicly perform, reproduce, transmit, modify, edit and otherwise exploit such Communications and any ideas or original materials contained in such Communications, in all media now known or hereafter developed. This grant shall include the right to exploit any and all proprietary rights in such Communications including, without limitation, any and all rights under copyright, trademark, service mark or patent laws under any relevant jurisdiction. You waive all rights you may have to inspect and/or approve of any use by HFM U.S. of any material or idea submitted by you in any Communications. You waive all rights to any claim against HFM U.S. for any alleged or actual infringements of any proprietary rights, rights of privacy and publicity, moral rights, and rights of attribution in connection with such Communications.

http://hfmus.com/hfmus/terms_and_conditions

[D.Smyth]

I'm iunteresting in thye picture, not the legalities.
It would have been much better if it had been a longer shot. It might also work if the camera had been pointed up, introducing some perspective distortion.
As it sits, it's uninspiring. In fact, it's not even centred. One other thing that might save the picture in its present form is a human figure, perhaps in one of the windows. This is a point and shoot snapshot., not a photograph. Some thought might have produced a much better image or at least several images from which the best shot could have been pulled.