Posted by Charlie Baugh on December 3, 2011 at 2:08 PM
In posting comments and critiques, is truely honest comments the best way to respond to images? Honesty sometimes hurts the image creator. Sometimes it hurts friends of the image creator.
Before we say that friendliness should be formost, doesn't that possibly diminish honesty?
Are some members entitled to a pass on honest critique?
In posting comments and critiques, is truely honest comments the best way to respond to images?
I think most folks who post an image for critique are seeking honest comments by default, Charlie.
Honesty sometimes hurts the image creator. Sometimes it hurts friends of the image creator.
This may or may not be true. It really depends upon the sensitivities of those reading the comments and the way in which the comment is written. I had a supervisor who could chew me out up one side, and down the other, and I would walk out feeling good about myself, but had learned a profitable lesson.
I think we should all remember that comments are about the work, not about the person who created it.
Are some members entitled to a pass on honest critique?
Not in my humble opinion. Again, if someone asks for a critique, I believe they expect honesty.
--P
Posted by Kent Staubus on December 3, 2011 at 5:45 PM
I try to be honest but in a diplomatic way. I always point out the good things along with the things I'm not crazy about.
If someone doesn't know what it is to improve, odds are it will take them a longer time to learn. We do a favor by giving an honest and balanced opinion.
Kent in SD
Posted by Mark Stahlke on December 3, 2011 at 6:58 PM
I think honesty is important but so is tact. You can say the same thing brutally or tactfully.
For example:
"This image is terrible because the shadows are blocked up."
"This image would be improved by opening up the shadows."
Both comments say the same thing - the shadows are too dark. The first comment could easily be construed as hurtful. The second comment is helpful. I know that's a crude example but I think you get the idea.
Posted by Richard Ditch on December 3, 2011 at 7:43 PM
As my signature often states: “Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom.” - Thomas Jefferson
For a critique to be useful it must be honest. To improve, a person must know what needs improvement.
If people want Attaboy comments or praise from their friends I don't think they should be posting on a critique site; instead they probably should limit their posts to social networks.
Sometimes it hurts friends of the image creator.
I don't understand this.
Are some members entitled to a pass on honest critique?
Definitely not. But I do think competent experienced photographers are entitled to a bit more thought before being criticized. Someone who has repeatedly posted high quality images doesn't need a lecture on how to use a tripod or a suggestion to use the cloning stamp when one of their images doesn't meet the standard they've set for themselves with past image posts. In such cases I think it is sufficient to point out the shortcomings.
Posted by Stan Rose on December 3, 2011 at 8:45 PM
Comments have to be honest, why would anyone comment in a 'dishonest' fashion?
I think the real question is the one Mark alludes to--how much tact to use. I think most folks who comment in a public forum were raised with the philosophy of "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say it at all". My personal philosophy is more along the lines of "You've gotta be cruel to be kind" I've mellowed though in my approach, cause i hate to see grown men weep
Personally i have thick enough skin that i'm perfectly ok with you telling me my image is 'terrible' if that's how you honestly react to it, after all i've got about 10,000 images on disc drives that i'd probably characterize as 'terrible' so it wouldn't surprise me if one or two slip through the cracks! But I recognize that not everyone feels this way, so i try my best to be more 'helpful' than 'hurtful'.
One of these days i'll launch the website "brutal-image-critique.com" and we Simon Cowells of the World can beat each other up.
Posted by Carol Hyman on December 4, 2011 at 12:14 AM
Charlie, You do have a knack for raising salient questions.
I think Mark's comments are to the point.
And a I recall, the directions for making comments state to find something good to say about the image, as well as what could be improved either in the image or the next time the person is out shooting a similar scene.
I also think it helps to state, I think or In my opinion,
Coming down from on high as though you are the most perfect thing since sliced bread, doesn't cut the mustard!
and lastly, if you can't say what you have to say in a tactful manner, pass the image. There's no criteria that you have to post a comment on every image.
That's my opinion and my 2-cents on this conundrum.
Regards,
Carol
Posted by Paul DeCesare on December 4, 2011 at 1:50 AM
Honesty is paramount. How you deliver the truth by the words you choose are important, and once in a while we see a bit sharper of a delivery than is necessary, but that shouldn't change our desire to hear the truth. That's one of the best features of this site. If we want sappy praise, there are other sites for that sort of stuff.
Sometimes it's hard to word a phrase without sounding a bit harsh, and that's where the smileys can help, or even a lol. Tone inflection isn't always easy to portray in a text forum, but the burrs can be smoothed down a bit with a little thoughtful editing IMO. Just please don;t anyone stop giving their truthful opinion especially if someone asks for it.
Are all of you mindless creepy gutter-drinking slugs getting my drift?????
Posted by Jim Bullard on December 4, 2011 at 11:16 AM
There's an old joke that goes, the definition of diplomacy is when you look at a woman whose face would stop a clock and you say "When I look at you , time stands still".
Seriously though, I think it depends on context, While I don't offer gratuitous critiques it is understood that when we post to the galleries or forums here we are looking for constructive comment. As others have noted there are ways to frame your comments which are less likely to be taken as a personal attack. OTOH there are some whose self-image is so tied to their work that any criticism is taken as an assault which brings me to a SiFi story I once read in which the narrator had crossed a dimensional barrier into another world. In that world the entire code of laws was "Do not annoy others and do not be too easily annoyed". Perhaps that should be paraphrased "Do not offend others with harsh critiques and do not be too easily offended by the critiques of others" for use on NPN.
Posted by Charlie Baugh on December 4, 2011 at 11:18 AM
Very good responses from all here, I feel, and Carol I had already thought that Marks post was a very good one. As to my raising salient questions, it is because there sometimes seems so obvious a question in my mind on an issue that I know most are inclined to ignor because of hurting some.
And Paul I feel there is more than a little "sappy praise" piled on for some here in NPN. It gets quite sickening at times.
Charlie
Posted by Charlie Baugh on December 4, 2011 at 11:45 AM
I'd like to pose a somewhat different question about honesty in responses to some images. Do you feel that there are times when an image elicites a critical thought but the response posted is "sappy praise"?
Are there some NPN members because of long membership, established friendships, perceived authority, part of management, etc., that may be given no critique when something about their image would elicite an honest critique if it was posted by another?
Posted by Stan Rose on December 4, 2011 at 12:31 PM
Absolutely, Charlie--it's simple human nature. I scratch my head sometimes when i see members load on the sugar coated stuff when i'm reasonably certain they aren't putting much thought in it. If i pointed that out to them, i'm sure they would deny it and they'd just have a lower opinion of me for pointing it out--so why bother? I just do my thing and let the chips fall how they fall.
If you ask me, many if not most of those who get the 'preferential' treatment happen to be experienced/talented photogs, and a good number of them also have the tendency to post almost completely positive comments on other photographers' posts who may not have the same experience or credentials. So, it works like this: I'm (the 'sappy praiser') here trying to get better and get recognized for being a good photographer, and along comes Joe Cool photog and he tells me my shot is the 'cat's meow'. This makes me feel good about myself and raises my confidence (which is a good thing, confidence breeds success). So why the heck would i now turn and tell Joe Cool that his latest photo masterpiece is "sub-par" or needs some work?? You can bet that would be the last time i'd hear any positive feedback from Joe Cool. And the last thing my ego needs is to be told (couched in tactful language, of course) by my mentor that my photo "sucks". On the flip side, if even the slightest negative comment gets assigned to one of Joe Cool's shots, he feels his reputation is instantly degraded and the perceived value of the workshops he/she offers grows lower. Which is why Joe Cool usually offers very positive feedback to the people who comment on his shots. It's a give-take relationship, and simple psychology. I'm betting you won't hear from any of those folks in this thread, Charlie
When I was a mod here, i would post mediocre photos and end up with twice as many comments as i would have if I weren't a mod. I'm also aware that by commenting on a lot of photos, i end up with more comments. I don't think there's anything wrong with the latter, there's nothing wrong with 'returning the favor' of critiquing someone's photo. The main thing to recognize, Charlie, is that you aren't going to change human nature, so don't get caught up in the 'sappy praise' thing. Worry about the pollutants in our air and water 'sickening' you--the comments on NPN are not nearly important enough to be worried about
Posted by Charlie Baugh on December 4, 2011 at 12:49 PM
You have a special talent, Stan. There is no beatification in my beliefs and I'd guess not in yours. Here's to more like you in the future though.
I've had my say and didn't *directly* insult anyone. I'm done.
Posted by Stan Rose on December 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM
Oh, i hate you Charlie cause you really get me going
But i have to add the following:
If you think of the greatest artists, how much of their work can you visualize? When I think of Van Gogh, for example, I can only picture about a half dozen paintings in my head, those are the ones that cement his reputation for me (my fav is the crows over the corn field--menacing and disturbing, my kinda stuff! ). When i think of A Adams, I can only picture maybe a dozen shots off the top of my head (Moonrise, Wonder Lake, Half Dome, Snake River Overlook, Yos Falls, etc) If i were to even sit down and go through all of his work, I still might only find a couple dozen that i would consider 'flawless', the ones that made Adams the king of Landscape Photography. Everything else is worthy of critique. If I looked at my own portfolio, I'm only totally happy with maybe a half dozen of my shots, at best. So, personally, i would think that about 99.99% of the comments in the galleries should have some aspect of critique to them. Instead, im guessing that number is probably closer to 25%. My own comments are probably in the 80% range, so even an ogre like me falls a bit short in the critique department
What do "you" hope to achieve when you comment on an image?
If you can truthfully answer this question (to yourself) you will know how to offer the critique.
I think this is going to vary very widely from person to person, as I think it has to. I think we have the only guidelines that can be given (comment on something you like as well as the things you think could be improved), and people follow these guidelines to varying degrees. Personally, on the receiving end I need both, but they both don't have to come from the same person at the same time.
On the commenting end, what I hope to achieve is encouragement and suggestions regarding anything that I do see that might be done or tried differently, based on what I've learned here. But encouragement doesn't have to be as big a part of other people's intentions in image critique.
One aspect that we don't always consider is that sometimes image critique is not the extent of people's relationships. I have been personally helped via email by multiple people, and that wouldn't be evident in image critiques. If I know a person has cared enough to put time into my development I read an image critique by that person through that filter.
I'm too oblivious to many things to be able to address the other aspects of this thread, and the thread may be addressed mostly to experienced photographers, I'm not even sure. But I wanted to address this subject from the position of a still-not-so-experienced photographer.
Posted by Andy Richards on December 4, 2011 at 5:28 PM
My membership was up in November and I had a very difficult time deciding whether to re-up or not. In the end, I decided that the benefits given the relatively low cost were worth it, without regard to the critique issues. But it was the critique issues that almost made me not.
I have been watching the Landscape critique forum for several months now, and have recently tried to give critiques (following Jim's guideline to give 5 for every post you seek critiques on). On my last post, I even solicited "rigorous" critique (Stan, where were you ). My concern is that I think Stan's estimate of 25% true critique (if I read his comment right) is LOW. It seems like there is very little comment that doesn't fall into the "I really like it" and "very nice" range. I also think there are a lot of very talented shooters here who are posting images that you really cannot do anything to improve on. Its great to see them and its great to know there are so many very talented shooter here.
But . . . . . When I post an image for critique, it is usually an image that I am ambivalent about, or I know there are problems with. I really want some "constructive" comments on what is "wrong" with the image and what I can do to improve it (other than sell my gear and take up bowling ). I don't see the critique forums accomplishing that lately.
I am not personally concerned with my feelings or my friends feelings, or for that matter any pro out there whose feelings might be hurt. I, too have a thick skin and if you are a successful pro, you better have a thick skin. My own philosophy is that you can worry about your feelings, or you can improve and they are probably mutually exclusive. I want to improve.
I do agree with the comment about tact. I moderate a forum on another site and I have recently started a critique thread. My rules are that if you comment, you have to say why. "That image sucks" or "you are clueless" may be absolutely true statements, but they do nothing to help us improve. "Beautiful," "nice" etc., have the same effect as far as I am concerned. I want to know why and what either works or doesn't work.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on December 5, 2011 at 10:50 AM
Andy, I offer the following observation in a constructive fashion for all who are reading this so I hope it's received that way. If I click your "Gallery" icon below and read what you included in most of your photos, most of them read like this;
Taken off a small foot bridge in the Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
Nikon N90s
Tokina 300mm
Kodak Elite Chrome II
Some of them only include a list of gear used.
Unless you specifically ask for feedback, including limited commentary like this with your photo will only leave us wondering what you're looking for. Your most recent photos where you ask for critique seem to be eliciting the kind of response you're looking for. If you really want to get the ball rolling, you could say something like this;
"I'm really on the fence about this one. In some ways I like it, but in other ways it just isn't doing it for me. Is it the light, the composition? What can I do to make it better?"
The best way to get a photo critique thread kicked-off is to include a short self-critique of the photo and ask a fewq specific questions. This is a great way to signal that you're looking for constructive critique and not just an ego stroking.
I truely love NPN and am happy being a part of the community.I personally love a good pat on the back as most of us do but I need to learn as much as I possibly can to improve my skills. I appreciate HONEST critique tastefully said that is. I belong to another site that is extremely and sometimes brutally honest, yet I have learned to put my ego in a box when posting there. I take all suggestions to heart, then listen to my own and learn all that I can.It hurts sometimes but we don't always see the big picture so to speak so it helps to have other eyes, other input. I also remeber that art is a personal thing with no right and no wrong way sooo... That being said, I post now expecting to get back many suggestions and I try most of them and see for myself how the image feels to me.
Posted by Andy Richards on December 5, 2011 at 3:35 PM
Hi Jim: Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, you are right. I am not sure I appreciated the need to be clear about wanting critique earlier on (the example you used is one of my earlier posts) -- and was, I think, posted on the regional gallery. More recently, at your suggestion, I have asked specifically for critique -- and have gotten more constructive comments. So I agree 100% that my previous posts (and others like mine) are not really clear about what we want. I will try to make mine clear from now on as I believe it is an excellent point and suggestion.
Well, one more point here. I do try to critique the photos I see when I have something to say about them. However, some of us are much less skilled at seeing the "flaws" in these better shots, even though there may be some. If I am not skilled enought to see a flaw I cannot comment on it. Therefore I would fall more into the 25% area but only because that is where my skill lies.
Posted by Stan Rose on December 5, 2011 at 6:09 PM
Jim, I agree with most of what you said--but one thing i've noticed is that if you offer a critique of your own image (like, I think it might be a bit too dark but not sure...) all of a sudden you will get everyone agreeing with you (yeah, its a bit dark...) when if you hadn't have offered the self critique the viewer may not have noticed or cared. I prefer to let people come to their own conclusions (and Walt, anyone is skilled enough to say what they like or may not particularly care for in an image). Lack of confidence in your own work breeds a lack of confidence in the viewer's perception of your work (more psychology...ugh)
Jim, I agree with most of what you said--but one thing i've noticed is that if you offer a critique of your own image (like, I think it might be a bit too dark but not sure...) all of a sudden you will get everyone agreeing with you (yeah, its a bit dark...) when if you hadn't have offered the self critique the viewer may not have noticed or cared. I prefer to let people come to their own conclusions (and Walt, anyone is skilled enough to say what they like or may not particularly care for in an image). Lack of confidence in your own work breeds a lack of confidence in the viewer's perception of your work (more psychology...ugh)
All very interesting, Stan.
As far as your note to Walt, though, I'm not sure that a critique is the same as saying what we like or may not care for in an image. I said to an NPN member once that I really didn't understand why sometimes I think I see something but no one comments on it, so that must mean I'm wrong about it, and he said in most cases I'd probably be right about it. So both of you are saying that we should go ahead and comment on things even if no one else does, but that seems like a quick way to make a fool out of yourself as far as NPN is concerned sooner or later. I wish there was an answer to that.
Posted by Andy Richards on December 8, 2011 at 9:51 AM
Barbara: I have done informational seminars, worked with clients on subjects they know little or nothing about, and for the past 6 years, been an adjunct professor at the local university. I have also had the great pleasure to "mentor/tutor" a couple of brand new, "beginning" photographers in the past several years.
I have a favorite saying: "there is no such thing as a stupid question" (the corollary is, I think, "the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask"). I will go out on a limb here and say that it if you are being positive and honest, there is no way to make a fool out of yourself here (anybody who believes you are a fool for either commenting on something you see, or asking about something you don't know about is being self-centeredly closed minded, IMO).
It seems to me that the very [i]purpose[i/] of "critique" is to learn and grow in our technical skills and in our artistic "seeing." If you are looking at any of my images, ANYTHING you see or think is fair game! At the end of the day, a photographic image is about visual impact and everybody's views, IMO, add to the experience.
Discussion
23 repliesBefore we say that friendliness should be formost, doesn't that possibly diminish honesty?
Are some members entitled to a pass on honest critique?
I think most folks who post an image for critique are seeking honest comments by default, Charlie.
This may or may not be true. It really depends upon the sensitivities of those reading the comments and the way in which the comment is written. I had a supervisor who could chew me out up one side, and down the other, and I would walk out feeling good about myself, but had learned a profitable lesson.
I think we should all remember that comments are about the work, not about the person who created it.
Not in my humble opinion. Again, if someone asks for a critique, I believe they expect honesty.
--P
If someone doesn't know what it is to improve, odds are it will take them a longer time to learn. We do a favor by giving an honest and balanced opinion.
Kent in SD
For example:
"This image is terrible because the shadows are blocked up."
"This image would be improved by opening up the shadows."
Both comments say the same thing - the shadows are too dark. The first comment could easily be construed as hurtful. The second comment is helpful. I know that's a crude example but I think you get the idea.
For a critique to be useful it must be honest. To improve, a person must know what needs improvement.
If people want Attaboy comments or praise from their friends I don't think they should be posting on a critique site; instead they probably should limit their posts to social networks.
I don't understand this.
Definitely not. But I do think competent experienced photographers are entitled to a bit more thought before being criticized. Someone who has repeatedly posted high quality images doesn't need a lecture on how to use a tripod or a suggestion to use the cloning stamp when one of their images doesn't meet the standard they've set for themselves with past image posts. In such cases I think it is sufficient to point out the shortcomings.
I think the real question is the one Mark alludes to--how much tact to use. I think most folks who comment in a public forum were raised with the philosophy of "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say it at all". My personal philosophy is more along the lines of "You've gotta be cruel to be kind"
Personally i have thick enough skin that i'm perfectly ok with you telling me my image is 'terrible' if that's how you honestly react to it, after all i've got about 10,000 images on disc drives that i'd probably characterize as 'terrible' so it wouldn't surprise me if one or two slip through the cracks! But I recognize that not everyone feels this way, so i try my best to be more 'helpful' than 'hurtful'.
One of these days i'll launch the website "brutal-image-critique.com" and we Simon Cowells of the World can beat each other up.
I think Mark's comments are to the point.
And a I recall, the directions for making comments state to find something good to say about the image, as well as what could be improved either in the image or the next time the person is out shooting a similar scene.
I also think it helps to state, I think or In my opinion,
Coming down from on high as though you are the most perfect thing since sliced bread, doesn't cut the mustard!
and lastly, if you can't say what you have to say in a tactful manner, pass the image. There's no criteria that you have to post a comment on every image.
That's my opinion and my 2-cents on this conundrum.
Regards,
Carol
Sometimes it's hard to word a phrase without sounding a bit harsh, and that's where the smileys can help, or even a lol. Tone inflection isn't always easy to portray in a text forum, but the burrs can be smoothed down a bit with a little thoughtful editing IMO. Just please don;t anyone stop giving their truthful opinion especially if someone asks for it.
Are all of you mindless creepy gutter-drinking slugs getting my drift?????
Seriously though, I think it depends on context, While I don't offer gratuitous critiques it is understood that when we post to the galleries or forums here we are looking for constructive comment. As others have noted there are ways to frame your comments which are less likely to be taken as a personal attack. OTOH there are some whose self-image is so tied to their work that any criticism is taken as an assault which brings me to a SiFi story I once read in which the narrator had crossed a dimensional barrier into another world. In that world the entire code of laws was "Do not annoy others and do not be too easily annoyed". Perhaps that should be paraphrased "Do not offend others with harsh critiques and do not be too easily offended by the critiques of others" for use on NPN.
And Paul I feel there is more than a little "sappy praise" piled on for some here in NPN. It gets quite sickening at times.
Charlie
Are there some NPN members because of long membership, established friendships, perceived authority, part of management, etc., that may be given no critique when something about their image would elicite an honest critique if it was posted by another?
If you ask me, many if not most of those who get the 'preferential' treatment happen to be experienced/talented photogs, and a good number of them also have the tendency to post almost completely positive comments on other photographers' posts who may not have the same experience or credentials. So, it works like this: I'm (the 'sappy praiser') here trying to get better and get recognized for being a good photographer, and along comes Joe Cool photog and he tells me my shot is the 'cat's meow'. This makes me feel good about myself and raises my confidence (which is a good thing, confidence breeds success). So why the heck would i now turn and tell Joe Cool that his latest photo masterpiece is "sub-par" or needs some work?? You can bet that would be the last time i'd hear any positive feedback from Joe Cool. And the last thing my ego needs is to be told (couched in tactful language, of course) by my mentor that my photo "sucks". On the flip side, if even the slightest negative comment gets assigned to one of Joe Cool's shots, he feels his reputation is instantly degraded and the perceived value of the workshops he/she offers grows lower. Which is why Joe Cool usually offers very positive feedback to the people who comment on his shots. It's a give-take relationship, and simple psychology. I'm betting you won't hear from any of those folks in this thread, Charlie
When I was a mod here, i would post mediocre photos and end up with twice as many comments as i would have if I weren't a mod. I'm also aware that by commenting on a lot of photos, i end up with more comments. I don't think there's anything wrong with the latter, there's nothing wrong with 'returning the favor' of critiquing someone's photo. The main thing to recognize, Charlie, is that you aren't going to change human nature, so don't get caught up in the 'sappy praise' thing. Worry about the pollutants in our air and water 'sickening' you--the comments on NPN are not nearly important enough to be worried about
I've had my say and didn't *directly* insult anyone. I'm done.
But i have to add the following:
If you think of the greatest artists, how much of their work can you visualize? When I think of Van Gogh, for example, I can only picture about a half dozen paintings in my head, those are the ones that cement his reputation for me (my fav is the crows over the corn field--menacing and disturbing, my kinda stuff!
If you can truthfully answer this question (to yourself) you will know how to offer the critique.
I think this is going to vary very widely from person to person, as I think it has to. I think we have the only guidelines that can be given (comment on something you like as well as the things you think could be improved), and people follow these guidelines to varying degrees. Personally, on the receiving end I need both, but they both don't have to come from the same person at the same time.
On the commenting end, what I hope to achieve is encouragement and suggestions regarding anything that I do see that might be done or tried differently, based on what I've learned here. But encouragement doesn't have to be as big a part of other people's intentions in image critique.
One aspect that we don't always consider is that sometimes image critique is not the extent of people's relationships. I have been personally helped via email by multiple people, and that wouldn't be evident in image critiques. If I know a person has cared enough to put time into my development I read an image critique by that person through that filter.
I'm too oblivious to many things to be able to address the other aspects of this thread, and the thread may be addressed mostly to experienced photographers, I'm not even sure. But I wanted to address this subject from the position of a still-not-so-experienced photographer.
I have been watching the Landscape critique forum for several months now, and have recently tried to give critiques (following Jim's guideline to give 5 for every post you seek critiques on). On my last post, I even solicited "rigorous" critique (Stan, where were you
But . . . . . When I post an image for critique, it is usually an image that I am ambivalent about, or I know there are problems with. I really want some "constructive" comments on what is "wrong" with the image and what I can do to improve it (other than sell my gear and take up bowling
I am not personally concerned with my feelings or my friends feelings, or for that matter any pro out there whose feelings might be hurt. I, too have a thick skin and if you are a successful pro, you better have a thick skin. My own philosophy is that you can worry about your feelings, or you can improve and they are probably mutually exclusive. I want to improve.
I do agree with the comment about tact. I moderate a forum on another site and I have recently started a critique thread. My rules are that if you comment, you have to say why. "That image sucks" or "you are clueless" may be absolutely true statements, but they do nothing to help us improve. "Beautiful," "nice" etc., have the same effect as far as I am concerned. I want to know why and what either works or doesn't work.
Unless you specifically ask for feedback, including limited commentary like this with your photo will only leave us wondering what you're looking for. Your most recent photos where you ask for critique seem to be eliciting the kind of response you're looking for. If you really want to get the ball rolling, you could say something like this;
"I'm really on the fence about this one. In some ways I like it, but in other ways it just isn't doing it for me. Is it the light, the composition? What can I do to make it better?"
The best way to get a photo critique thread kicked-off is to include a short self-critique of the photo and ask a fewq specific questions. This is a great way to signal that you're looking for constructive critique and not just an ego stroking.
I hope this helps!
All very interesting, Stan.
As far as your note to Walt, though, I'm not sure that a critique is the same as saying what we like or may not care for in an image. I said to an NPN member once that I really didn't understand why sometimes I think I see something but no one comments on it, so that must mean I'm wrong about it, and he said in most cases I'd probably be right about it. So both of you are saying that we should go ahead and comment on things even if no one else does, but that seems like a quick way to make a fool out of yourself as far as NPN is concerned sooner or later. I wish there was an answer to that.
I have a favorite saying: "there is no such thing as a stupid question" (the corollary is, I think, "the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask"). I will go out on a limb here and say that it if you are being positive and honest, there is no way to make a fool out of yourself here (anybody who believes you are a fool for either commenting on something you see, or asking about something you don't know about is being self-centeredly closed minded, IMO).
It seems to me that the very [i]purpose[i/] of "critique" is to learn and grow in our technical skills and in our artistic "seeing." If you are looking at any of my images, ANYTHING you see or think is fair game! At the end of the day, a photographic image is about visual impact and everybody's views, IMO, add to the experience.