TP: What do you know about critiquing ???
Printed From: Dyxum.com
Category: Dyxum Community
Forum Name: Knowledge Base
Forum Description: Improving photo techniques & getting more from Dyxum
URL: https://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15243
Printed Date: 16 June 2025 at 01:56
Topic: TP: What do you know about critiquing ???
Posted By: CTYankee
Subject: TP: What do you know about critiquing ???
Date Posted: 25 April 2007 at 15:36
|
Now that the Critics Corner is up and running ... let's hear from some of our members who might know a thing or two about critiquing.
One of the things I think is common is that people who are asked to critique something think they're being asked to suggest improvement. Often, a photo can't really be improved, or the person who took it may think it's the best it can be, but needs to see it through other peoples eyes. Sometimes you have an emotional attachment to a photo because of subject matter that makes you blind to how others will view it. Other times, you might think of a way to make a picture better, but really, there wasn't a great picture to be taken at that place or time. And then, sometimes you look at a picture and it's immediately obvious to you how you could improve on it (in your opinion, of course !) I guess the point I'm trying to make there is that CC should include suggestions on how to improve pictures, but also honest reaction. That little bit is what I've picked up from a couple of people I respect (Mike Johnston, of course, and an artist named Norman Rich who used to post on dpreview). Beyond that, I'm pretty inexperienced at critiquing. So let's hear it ... what do you know about critiquing ? What have you read ? What links do you have ? Note that the intent of this thread is simply to educate and that may spill over into the CC forum; it is by no means an attempt to tell people how to critique. Already, CC is turning into a really nice feature on this site, IMO. ------------- CZ16-80 | 28-75D | 28/2 | 85/1.4 | 70-300G | 400G |
Replies:
Posted By: brettania
Date Posted: 25 April 2007 at 15:58
|
What's wrong with the I know what I like, and I don't like that, school? ROFLGO Seriously, critiquing does involve a little "hanging out" on a few different levels. But if you don't try to do it, you never learn -- ultimately you may cap your own photographic development at a certain point and never go beyond into unfamiliar territory as some of our members here do so well (rules are there to be broke!). I have normally just made minor crits such as on the rule of thirds, angle of view, choice of lens. Partly because I don't want to be too discouraging. But the new forums have made me think harder about why and what I like in some shots, and in doing so I appreciate them more and learn more. On a personal level, when I got my first macro, it changed my view of the world -- I would peer into the hearts of flowers, looking for insects, and think about breaking off a few dead ends just to improve my pics. We all need that sort of thing to happen from time to time and that is why I sometimes say to myself "it's a one prime lens day" -- and force myself to look for angles and shots that suit the lens. Hope I have explained this in a way that is understandable -- I have tried to do so in as plain a words as possible. -- brettania (edit #23) As to reading, I have a Tom Ang book and Michael Freidman's ebook on the 7D as well as about 10 others. I have read or scanned some 30,000 to 50,000 posts in the time since I got my 7D. I found some suggestions by John Down Under at DPR very helpful when I was starting in the digital world. - ------------- http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/posting-images-and-links-faqs_topic28010.html - Posting Images and Links | http://tinyurl.com/oz62mfp - Posts awaiting answers |
Posted By: hazard
Date Posted: 25 April 2007 at 16:13
|
I think that you touch on the IMHO most important part (and hardest) of giving critique: describing what you see in the picture. How you reacted and what you reacted to.
The first step in understanding the "language of images" is to hear a lot of other peoples reactions to an image (wether you feel the same or not is unimportant). The next step is to train yourself in describing your own thoughts about an image (as always: teaching is the most effective way of learning). When you get good at that, you can use the skill in reverse and get an image from a wanted reaction. Technical tips and comments are naturally not bad, but if you get to the stage that you can figure out what you want the picture to look like, the technical parts are the easy ones and just requires concentration and thoroughness. Just my $.02, and IMHO etc. /Andreas edit: spelling |
Posted By: CTYankee
Date Posted: 25 April 2007 at 16:52
|
Brettania, the schools of thought on critiquing that I've read are about taking time to look at a photograph and then evaluating what you saw; not so much about your emotions, whether it fits in with your own style, but trying to gauge the photographers intent and then seeing whether or not he/she achieved that intent. For example: I can appreciate a lot of the post-processing I see here - some of it is very effective in achieving what must be an obvious intent (others less so) and I think that is probably more valuable to the photographer than 'it's not my style' or 'I don't like it'. It always amazes me to hear music reviewers critique new albums that range from a rerelease of Sinatra to hip-hop to some Venezuelan band I've never heard of ... I only know what I'd like to listen to :) But the reviewers learn about the band; learn a little about where they're coming from, how they've grown over the years, and try to objectively evaluate the album. It's a skill - I mean, they're paid to do it, after all, and we're just a bunch of regular guys spending a few minutes talking with friends on our favorite forum ... so that's a far-off, lofty goal. But I'm always open to learning more about how people look at and appreciate others' work.
BTW, a thought occurred to me ... I think we have a natural tendency to suggest improvements when critiquing because we're all photographers here ... this is what we do. Imagine someone asked you to critique a painting (or a musical recording, or some other piece of art in a medium that you don't "do"). How would you critique that ? ------------- CZ16-80 | 28-75D | 28/2 | 85/1.4 | 70-300G | 400G |
Posted By: Bob J
Date Posted: 25 April 2007 at 17:00
To Van Gogh: "Vincent, you really should sort out the perspective on that chair!.." :-) Bob ------------- RBJ ~ http://tinyurl.com/h7uhozk - Moderation on Dyxum |
CTYankee wrote:Posted By: Dynaxdude
Date Posted: 25 April 2007 at 17:08
|
I think there is more than one approach to criticism. You can look at the technical qualities of a photograph (the easy bit) and suggest ways to improve it. I mean everybody on this planet is very good at being negative and pointing out whatever is wrong. Pointing out what's good and suggest actions for improvement is something far less people are able to do.
The other approach is an emotional criticism. What do I see, does it tell a 'story'(which even applies to abstract photographs), how does it make me feel. Now that is a very personal matter. Both for the photographer and the critic. On the other hand you can comment on the fact whether the photographer has succeeded in getting the concept across to the viewer. Mostly this can be concluded when comments veer off in a completely different direction (apart from the usual topic wanderering). This sort of criticism is something you might never agree on. It's true for all 'art forms'. I've seen paintings that after reading about their meaning just made me think: 'ah... well.. if you say so..' (and I have an art school background!) Something I haven't figured out yet is: should you separate the two? Can you separate the two? -------------  http://webalistic.com - picz - http://cams.webalistic.com - stuff |
Posted By: CTYankee
Date Posted: 25 April 2007 at 17:22
|
Please take this in stride - a http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html - satirical article by Mike Johnston that pokes fun at all of us.
------------- CZ16-80 | 28-75D | 28/2 | 85/1.4 | 70-300G | 400G |
Posted By: omerbey
Date Posted: 25 April 2007 at 17:51
|
this is a very good talking point IMO.
apart from photo reading, the critique of the photo requires an important input, which is the intent of the artist/photographer. everything that helps the maker accomplish his/her task, is good. everything that hampers it, is bad. this also has to do with the viewer, unless the spectator is the direct target, he/she should know about the target audience while criticizing. however there are things which makes things hard for critiques. For example: "I thought it was interesting" "It's a snapshot" "I did as I felt" "I don't think anatomy is that important" and etc. In such cases, critique can not be formed in a healthy manner, because there is either none, or very weak point of reference. Success is strongly about perspective. For the critique to be useful, it also needs to be successful in terms of target appeal. If the target of critique doesn't understand or care for the critique, it is useless. The target of the critique is rarely the maker of the piece though, but not in our case :) -- Photo reading, or image reading is another important aspect, which tells about the image. The spatial, auratic, mimetic, tactile effects, or geometric values, proximity, contrast, simplicity, repetition, alignment and such effects. Every image can be read this way, even a random capture from a cctv system. The reading is important the way it forms a feedback for the artist. When the artist understands what he/she can expect from the viewer when he/she can act accordingly. -- There's also the technical critique and critique of the story told part, in which I doubt if there'll be any trouble for people here :) And lastly, the artist himself can gather data from the reactions of the spectators. The success is for him to decide. "it's nice" "it's grotesque" "I don't like the shadows" etc. all helps. |
Posted By: omerbey
Date Posted: 25 April 2007 at 18:00
| CT that article is a great example about the reference points. The joke aside, the critiques talk about things that have little or nothing to do with the intent of the images. |
Posted By: CTYankee
Date Posted: 25 April 2007 at 18:14
|
Omer, I've come to realize how important intent is in art appreciation. From my VERY limited understanding, intent is sort of tied to vision, creativity, etc. and you can believe a given artist has astoundingly original vision, or just a gimmicky idea, and "judge" the intent on its own merit. Then the "craft" comes into play ... how well did the artist realize his intent. I think where a lot of the difference lies between good critiquing and reaction by average Joes like me is that I have a hard time appreciating how well an artist realized his intent (or practiced his craft) if I don't appreciate the intent in the first place. And good critics seem to be able to separate themselves from that.
------------- CZ16-80 | 28-75D | 28/2 | 85/1.4 | 70-300G | 400G |
Posted By: omerbey
Date Posted: 25 April 2007 at 19:04
|
exactly, but you put it together better than I did. :)
I remember having this conversation with you before if I'm not mistaken? |
Posted By: damian.bradley
Date Posted: 25 April 2007 at 20:35
|
Well having spent half my undergraduate university career in Film Studies, we basically had three different types of classes: film theory, film history, and film production. IMHO these categories apply to decontructing and critiquing photographs as much as they do film. There is overlap between the categories, but they all help in our understanding of images.
Film (and photo) theory is the study of what the image means...how we as viewers interpret it, what the different aspects of the photo mean to us and to others. This interpretation can range from the colour, texture, framing and aesthetics to content and social context. The way the photo emphasized colours and textures can tell a lot about what the photographer wants to emphasize. Subdued, smooth, cool tones or an angular, saturated, hot image. Do these colours and tones add to the depiction of the subject matter or detract? And lets not forget about framing: How is the subject framed, and how does this portray said subject? What else is in the photo besides the subject? Do these other subjects add to or detract from the main subject? Also, sometimes it is what is NOT in the frame that can say a lot about the photo or the photographer. Context is also very important, although it is difficult to step outside our own cultural ideology. For example, a controversial of a bullfight was posted in a DPC a while back. In some cultures, it is seen as entertainment, while in others it is seen as cruel. Cultural context. Where and how a photo is displayed can be just as important as the photo itself. Directly related to theory is the 'production' value of the photo. Sharpness, bokeh, lens choice, focal length, exposure, etc etc. Obviously the technical aspects of the photo affect the overall aesthetic, but could the photographer have used the tools more appropriately? Would a longer lens have provided better isolation, or extracted a bit more detail which would have helped the photographer's goal for the photo (if indeed you have figured that one out already!) Do chromatic aberrations detract from the subject or does ringed bokeh ruin a background? Or was this done on purpose? Lastly is history...something we don't deal with much in the digital era. Our own knowledge of the history of photography and the images we have viewed will shape the way we see today's images. What was the social climate like when the photo was taken? It has captured an image in time and space, and our perception of that moment will be different today than it will be in ten years. Just another reason to go out and print those shots before your hard drive crashes, or JPG's go out of style in the next decade. So much along the same lines of other posts, photos can be critiqued on many different levels. Aesthetic, technical, and social is all fair game. Which road you take depends on the specific photo and the critic her or himself. ------------- Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's lens // http://dbradley.smugmug.com - Portfolio |
Posted By: brettania
Date Posted: 26 April 2007 at 03:01
I am not sure if you are lecturing me, hectoring me, or agreeing in part with me, or expanding on what I have said. LOL. IMHO you have used longer and more words to say pretty much what I was saying, because I always take into account perceived intent, and ultimate realisation. I thought that was a given. TBC -- or the never ending story. - I add that I am a former journlaist for one of this country's more esteemed weeklies, which includes reviews. I used to write a lot about classical music and musicians, and would speak to them about their artistic ambitions, strengths and weaknesses. Often after interviwing them I would attend a concert and this would affect how I wrote up my interview. I never liked full scale reviewing at the time. But I now feel that I could have done it a few years ago, as I had built up an extensive CD library and could easily critique the seven different versions I have of Mahler's 2nd, or I could do a side-by-side of three complete sets of the Mozart piano concertos. I once interviewed Robert Craft, Stavinsky's alter ego, and went to the concert where half the programme was conducted by the old man himself. Recently I heard via wireless a Rite of Spring played by the Auckland Sinfonia under a no-name conductor and thought the whole performance was better than the one I heard back in the 60s, and had I been taking notes rather than typing forum stuff, would have been able to explain why. I have worked as a coordinator of a major company's annual reports and both come up with the photographic themes and directed both the art director and the photographer on how to realise both my own and the company's requirements. I would sit in on many of the photo sessions. One of these reports won an award. That's a very good way to learn how to critique. - ------------- http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/posting-images-and-links-faqs_topic28010.html - Posting Images and Links | http://tinyurl.com/oz62mfp - Posts awaiting answers |
Posted By: smills
Date Posted: 26 April 2007 at 03:46
|
One place that I think that gets photography critique mostly right:
http://www.radiantvista.com/dailyCritique/ Now granted, these are essentially one person's (Craig Tanner) opinions, but I think he does a good job of balancing what works well and what can be improved. Some may not like his style ('in a perfect world' gets repetitive fast), but I feel like I've learned a lot from his critiques, even when I disagree. |
Posted By: DavidB
Date Posted: 26 April 2007 at 04:09
|
It's interesting to read brettania's comments on how his background has influenced his methods and views toward critiquing. In some ways I can relate to it, both as I was often the person doing the critique, and the person on the receiving end. And I am sure brettania has been on the receiving end of criticism for his reviews as well :)
I once was so outraged at a local art/drama critic's review of a fellow artist's watercolours in our local daily newspaper that in a letter to the editor, I noted that at the end of the day, the artist's work was still hanging on my wall, while the reviewer's was out at the curb in the blue box (recycling bin). Previously, I had written that as it was commonly known that this critic hated popular musical theatre, if the newspaper sent him to review one, they were sending a paid assasin, not a critic. (A few years prior to this, I had been chair of the board of a popular local summer theatre, and in that role, had to bite my tongue when these reviews appeared.) I have spent most of my career as an illustrator, art director and creative director, eventually operating my own advertising/communications agency for 15 years. I had to very quickly develop a thick skin for clients who, to say the least, weren't always tactful in their criticism. When you make your living in creative work, you either take the attitude that you are either going to learn from this criticism, and grow your work (and attitude toward rudeness), or you could get pretty defensive and bitter. I chose the former. As I became an art director and creative director (at the age of 23) supervising more creative staff, this became increasingly important, as sometimes after I had met with a disappointed and critical client, I would have to take the message back to staff in such a way that it would positively motivate them to take a different approach. I couldn't afford to say "Nice job, the client just didn't get it," we had to move on (even if that was true). So I guess in summary, I can say that constructive criticism can be a learned talent, especially if moving forward in (or even keeping) your career can benefit from it. ------------- davidbannister.zenfolio.com a900, a77, RX100 III, 16-50 2.8, 20 2.8, 24 2.8, 28-135, 50 1.7, 100 2.8M, 200 2.8G, 1.4 & 2x TC. |
Posted By: dogears
Date Posted: 26 April 2007 at 04:22
Whoa! This is so cool! :) edit: keeping with the topic, I'm still on the 'art' side where I just think I like or not like a picture. Am still learning a lot on 'critiquing' and the new look/rules of the photo forums is a great help on this regard. Thanks! ------------- http://shutteredlight.blogspot.com - woof! |
Posted By: omerbey
Date Posted: 26 April 2007 at 04:25
|
in business it's easier IMO. I too earn(ed. I quit recently) my living as an art director / project leader.
my criteria in success are: is the client happy are we happy will the other people in the business have anything against us in that order. being a starving artist is the true freedom though :) |
Posted By: DavidB
Date Posted: 26 April 2007 at 04:34
|
Good criteria omerbey. ------------- davidbannister.zenfolio.com a900, a77, RX100 III, 16-50 2.8, 20 2.8, 24 2.8, 28-135, 50 1.7, 100 2.8M, 200 2.8G, 1.4 & 2x TC. |
Posted By: CTYankee
Date Posted: 26 April 2007 at 15:07
Ahhh ... I took your "what's wrong with what I like & don't like followed by ROTFLGO" as proposing a simpler alternative and not poking fun at that approach ! So now I think I was agreeing with you, just without realizing it at the time ! ------------- CZ16-80 | 28-75D | 28/2 | 85/1.4 | 70-300G | 400G |
Posted By: revdocjim
Date Posted: 26 April 2007 at 16:11
|
I don't know anything about critiquing art. But there may be some overlap with this topic and my particular field. I am involved in theological education and my area is homiletics (preaching). In preaching classes we always do a lot of sermon critique and I have found that it pays to be very disciplined in how that is done. The basic guidelines I teach my students in critiquing sermons may be applicable to some extent.
1. What did I hear? What were the basic components of the sermon? (words, phrases, images etc.) or: What do I see? What are the components of the photo? 2. What is the structure of the sermon? How are the components put together? or: What is the structure of the photo and how are the components put together? 3. How did it play? i.e. what type of sermon was it? Narrative, imagery, reason... or: What type of photo is it? How do the components interact with each other? Action, dreamy, abstract... etc. 4. Where was the sermon's energizing center or vital thrust? Where did I feel the energy? or: What is the center or thrust of the photo? Where is the focal point? 5. How was I moved by this sermon? or: How was I moved by this photo? 6. What costs and benefits do I see in this sermon's strategy and play? or: What are the costs and benefits of setting up, shooting, croping and post-processing this way? 7. What would happen if... (Suggestions for possible improvement) or: exactly the same question. 8. What do I hear that is distinctive in this preacher’s voice? or: What do I see that is distinctive in this photographer's photos? 9. What other matters may be significant for fruitful discussion? or: exactly the same question. The main point of this method of critique is that the sermon is carefully observed, analyzed and unpacked in the first 5 steps and it is only after that is finished that comments about what was wrong with the sermon or how it could have been improved are addressed. My experience has been that students not only appreciate this kind of critique, but that it leads to a lot of helpful insights. Of course we don't have the time to treat every photo with this kind of care; but perhaps some of the basic principles could be applied. For what it's worth... ------------- http://revdocjim.smugmug.com/ - Gallery A7S, A7Rii, Batis 18/2.8, 25/2 Sony 35/2.8, 55/1.8, 90/2.8M, 24-105/4, Minolta 135STF, 200/2.8 http://goo.gl/vMcLcr - Blog |
Posted By: H20boy
Date Posted: 13 June 2007 at 21:23
|
I am with dogears, I don't have any professional training, learned or formal 'education' concerning good and bad art, I just look at a photo and it either grabs me or it doesn't, but at varying degrees. I too often miss some other 'critiques' such as an object in the background, a poorly clipped limb (like at the knees) , or something similar.
I look at a photo, and evaluate it, in this order - (1) Subject and background in general... does it stir anything up inside me, or is it just technically sound. (2) Rule of thirds compliance, if it qualifies... like if a dog/bird is running/flying into the frame, instead of out of it, stuff like that. I try so hard in my own composition, this critique is becoming second nature. But the rule of 1/3rds doesn't always apply, and if I don't actually think about it, it must be good enough for my eyes. (3) Colors... if not perfect above, does the colors help raise it's perceived value. (4) Sharpness and OOF areas... again, another technical aspect which sometimes increases the enjoyability (i made up that word just now) of a photo. Good and bad OOF areas also hurt my viewing pleasure, and therefore my perception of the picture. Too much depth of field goes along here too... in which this case, too much is not ALWAYS a good thing. lol. So in summary, I too, like Sanjuro, don't know anything about critiquing, sadly. ------------- Matt - TX l Maxxum-m42 adapter - that's it :( l My http://matt.zenfolio.com - Galleries |
Posted By: Bob J
Date Posted: 25 June 2007 at 01:19
|
I guess the first thing to do when trying to critique a picture is to look at it and see what reactions (positive or negative) it instils in you – If you get nothing from it either way, then maybe it is not a good time to try critiquing – be prepared to stop there and maybe come back to it later (sometimes seeing something that someone else has written in the interim can help).
If the overall impression the picture leaves you with is negative (and you are allowed to not like the picture) then look to see if you can spot what elements of it give you those negative feelings, and whether you can spot any saving graces (sometimes you might not like the subject, but may admire the way it has been composed). If you like a picture (and if you do that can be the best starting point), see if you can spot the individual elements that make it strong for you – look for compositional elements like use of rule of thirds, diagonals, symmetry, pattern, colour, tonal range and technical ones like point of focus, depth of focus, exposure etc. Don’t be frightened to swot up on these, as this can be a great learning experience. From there you might like to think about how the picture could have been improved or just treated differently – a different crop, placing the main subject in a particular part of the frame, using spot exposure, altering timing of the shot, changing the viewpoint (for instance by crouching low), or changing the way the picture is post-processed. Once you have considered the above, think about which bits you want to write about (you don’t have to write it all every time). Think whether it will be helpful to the person asking for C&C and only go ahead if you think you have something constructive to say. Remember when you write the critique that the objective is to help, rather than look clever yourself. Be careful in the language used as English is a second language to many Dyxum members; the use of emotive terms may focus their attention on those alone, detracting from other things you have to say and may bring an overly defensive reply from them. ------------- RBJ ~ http://tinyurl.com/h7uhozk - Moderation on Dyxum |
Posted By: flyingscot4
Date Posted: 28 March 2010 at 00:47
|
I love this subject.
A late friend of mine taught art and photography at the Layton School of Art in Milwaukee, WI. His name is Gerhard Bakker. He lectured and critiqued photographic art internationally and is the recipient of the highest number of "merits" given by the Professional Photographers of America (PP of A). One of his lectures dealt with critiquing a piece of art. There were ten points in his presentation, but only two made a really lifelong and lasting impression on me and I would like to pass them on. They are the first and last points in his presentation. The first is short and simple: Does the piece of art have total and immediate impact? The last point is shorter: Is the impact lasting? These two points have guided me more than any others in my life. In unison, they provide the answer to the question, "When can you break the rules of composition?" |
Posted By: brettania
Date Posted: 29 January 2012 at 08:49
|
Anyone got any fresh ideas to add here? ------------- http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/posting-images-and-links-faqs_topic28010.html - Posting Images and Links | http://tinyurl.com/oz62mfp - Posts awaiting answers |
Posted By: happyjack
Date Posted: 29 January 2012 at 09:20
|
Having listened to judges critiquing at our camera club with some of the judges being leading lights in the Photograhic Society of NZ, I an still puzzled at some comments and their awqarding of points. Some seem to be focused on cropping, others not so much ; eg my photo of a Sossusvleu dune, the Landscape judge didn't like the small strip of land and some trees below the dune base - highly commended. The 2 end of year judges gave it Honours, A judge would cricise a photo for some feature and mark it down. Later another photo with the similar "fault" would be given honours as maybe other elements overcame it. We are always told at the club, if we have confidence on our photo do not be disheartened by the critique as another judge may love it. It all so subjective. If I offer an opinion on elements of a Dyxum photo I try to look at it as our judges would - and then sometimes ( often?) think later what a jumped up prat I've been  .One comment from judges that stuck out for me: Would you hang it on your wall, and for how long would you leave it there? I guess that was also Flyingscot 4 put more elegantly. Howard ------------- 7D turned A77,77M2,MIN 50/1.4,MIN100/2.8macro,Sig10-20,F4-5.6,SAL70-300G,18-250,CZ16-80,SAL70-200/2.8,75-300,24-80/2.8SAM, TAm 150-600G2 http://www.howardjack.zenfolio.com/ - My ZF |
Posted By: maewpa
Date Posted: 29 January 2012 at 10:08
Well, I'm very glad I didn't comment about this back in 2007 or I'd probably be very embarrassed today....  i.e. it takes time to learn how to critique at all effectively and the job of improving is never done. Other thoughts - not necessarily fresh! You need to try to understand the shooter's intentions to some extent or your comments will miss the mark. Likewise,it is good to estimate a shooter's level of experience or your comments may be both useless and unhelpful. Some people don't like critique - their funeral, but each to their own and I would try to respect that ... but not too much - if they post in Open Views or a similar forum they should maybe expect it unless they state otherwise. Critiquing is as much about finding what you like as what you don't like - and that is often the most difficult part for me, especially when I am short of time. In a similar vein, there is a very fine line between constructive and destructive criticism; and a very fine line between constructive criticism and rose-tinted criticism (aka "white lies" or the "what do you think of my new haircut syndrome"). But there is nothing wrong with encouraging people either - it's good.You don't have to critique to say what you think about a picture. Especially if it is a genre that you like, an expression of your thoughts might be useful/ helpful (aka "I love #6 but not sure about #1"). In fact a photo forum needs these posts to survive. Critique is a learning experience for both sides, and it is a dialogue. If someone makes a comment that you think misses the point or is wrong, a counter-critique - with the same rule of avoiding pure negativity or defensiveness - is the ideal way to respond; or an explanation of your actual intentions. All well-intentioned critique should be respected. A critique is always a personal opinion and it may be a good idea to liberally use phrases like "to/for me", "personally" and "I could be wrong, but...". I could say more, but I look forward to hearing what others have to say, and I am repeating some of what has gone before as it is. ------------- Paul aka maewpa |