I don't spend a lot of time in the critique forum, more on the post your photos. When I comment on the post your own photos, I usually actually offer some quick and simple critique. I try and be encouraging and then politely suggest some improvements. Often it's about cropping or composition, which are easy to do quickly.

An interesting thing. I find that my critiquing of others' photos improves my perspective on my own photos. ie. why don't I try that suggestion myself!

This is one of the more polite forums. dpreeeview for example, is a sesspool. I'd rather have it a little on the "weak" side of critical and still upbeat and friendly, than jarringly pointed. I'm not really answering your question directly....

[Imcalfin]

Back when I was coaching basketball, one of the most interesting things I learned was that the guy who is the best coach is not the best basketball player, or even the guy with the best understanding of the game*snip*

This applies to lot of other fields as well. Art critique being one of them.

[TaoMaas]

Most of the time it takes effort to offer suggestions and sometimes people *really* don't want to hear what they did wrong.

Perhaps it's not them who has a problem, but you. A critique isn't just pointing out what's wrong with a photo. It's also about pointing out what's right. I had a workshop with an extremely good photographer years ago and learned some valuable lessons in how he went about judging the portfolios of the people in the workshop. Some people were showing pics that I thought were pure crap. But this instructor always found something postiive to say about the pictures. Then he would show the photographer what they'd done wrong and offered ways to improve the same picture. One particular photo stands out to me. It was the type of picture my grandmother would have made. Just someone framed dead center in front of somewhere they'd been on vacation, with the person being way too small in the frame. I rolled my eyes at the pic...but the teacher said, "I like the expression you've captured on this person's face? Who is this?" The student replied that it was their sister. The teacher said, "She's obviously very comfortable around you because she seems very natural. If I were you, I'd keep shooting her because she's a great subject. However, if you had brought her up closer to you and moved her off to the side a bit, you would be able to see that wonderful expression you captured, but she also wouldn't be blocking that beautiful landscape behind her." I had to admit that he was right. He not only saw what was wrong with the picture, but also acknowledged everything that was right about it.

[jaytee]

Perhaps it's not them who has a problem, but you. A critique isn't just pointing out what's wrong with a photo. It's also about pointing out what's right. I had a workshop with an extremely good photographer years ago and learned some valuable lessons in how he went about judging the portfolios of the people in the workshop. Some people were showing pics that I thought were pure crap. But this instructor always found something postiive to say about the pictures. Then he would show the photographer what they'd done wrong and offered ways to improve the same picture. One particular photo stands out to me. It was the type of picture my grandmother would have made. Just someone framed dead center in front of somewhere they'd been on vacation, with the person being way too small in the frame. I rolled my eyes at the pic...but the teacher said, "I like the expression you've captured on this person's face? Who is this?" The student replied that it was their sister. The teacher said, "She's obviously very comfortable around you because she seems very natural. If I were you, I'd keep shooting her because she's a great subject. However, if you had brought her up closer to you and moved her off to the side a bit, you would be able to see that wonderful expression you captured, but she also wouldn't be blocking that beautiful landscape behind her." I had to admit that he was right. He not only saw what was wrong with the picture, but also acknowledged everything that was right about it.

I think you really nailed it, and since you have some great pictures on offer, it really backs up the wise words! As for my two cents, I think the critique here is too often more rude than constructive.

[rbefly]

Well, it might seem like I'm merely playing the devil's advocate here, but I honestly believe there's more venting than rational discussion going on in this thread. If a poster takes the time to load a photo in the Critique section instead of Post Your Photos, I have to surmise they want some meaningful feedback. OK so far?
Not "Nice capture"
Not "Great shot!!""
And certainly not the thundering silence of zero replies, which happens quite often.
I notice that my post is the 20th in this thread: If HALF the posters here took the same time and energy to write a critique in that Forum, somebody would get lots of feedback and probably, some useful opinions. Instead, we have rants about the folks who DO take the time to offer opinions, advice and support.
Is every critique perfect? Does every one offer gems of wisdom? Does every person who replies have a degree in THAT EXACT type of photography? Or a professional portfolio chock-full of of award-winning shots in that same technique? Is every reply written and phrased the way WE would phrase it? Do we agree with every reply?
No, to all. If those are the standards needed, there will be lots more zero (or meaningless) reply posts. I guess the best we can hope for is an honest, polite and constructive evaluation and suggestions for improvement.
That a critique is just an opinion, based on some photographic knowledge and experience, but not a World-class expert or professional expertise, should be a given. I'm no Steven Spielberg, but I surely know the difference between a great film and one that's headed straight to the bargain bin. As photographers, we have collectively looked at millions of still photos, usually with a fairly critical eye. To a greater or lesser degree, we all know good from bad and could at least offer some helpful comments. Instead, we (myself included) post and rant here. But I do offer critiques in that Forum when I feel qualified, and honestly hope everyone reading this, will take the time to do the same.
JMO, YMMV
Ron

[stormtech]

Well, it might seem like I'm merely playing the devil's advocate here, but I honestly believe there's more venting than rational discussion going on in this thread. If a poster takes the time to load a photo in the Critique section instead of Post Your Photos, I have to surmise they want some meaningful feedback. OK so far?
Not "Nice capture"
Not "Great shot!!""

This was my point in my earlier post - when I take a look in that forum once in a while, 3/4 of the threads on the first page are exactly like that - "Nice Capture" and "Great Shot" etc. Those threads with responses like that are usually just a photo posted without any questions or request for critique. That is why I came away thinking it was no different that the Post Your Photos thread.

[magkelly]

If they ask for it giving even a hard critique is not a bad thing. But there is such a thing as tact too. There's being honestly helpful and there's being condescending and negative and super critical too. Not everything about a photograph is about technique and sometimes people only see the technical flaws and they come completely down on that and seemingly couldn't care less about the merit of the contents, the message the photo might be trying to portray. I've actually seen a lot of really great photos where the technique could have been a bit better, sure, but it was still a terrific darned photo despite that. Good technique is important but it's not everything and I really hate it when people miss all the good stuff because they are too busy pixel peeping and just shoot down someone who's photo actually has some artistic merit despite that. Technique can always be improved upon, but a true photographic eye, that's just not something all people have. Me, I don't care nearly so much about the photo being 100% correct in terms of technique as I care about the person's eye and the content of that image. I like it both ways, but definitely I'd take a less perfect photo over a boring one any day...

[TaoMaas]

Not everything about a photograph is about technique and sometimes people only see the technical flaws and they come completely down on that and seemingly couldn't care less about the merit of the contents, the message the photo might be trying to portray.

Very true! I'm a videographer/editor by trade and I once had a situation where I was trying to put together a promotional spot for the tv station where I worked. I was working with video shot during a breaking news situation. I had shot a lot of stuff that was in focus, steady, exposed right, etc... But it all felt a bit sterile and detached. Someone else, who wasn't really a photographer, had grabbed some behind-the-scenes shots. They were blurry, unsteady, and over-exposed...but they had captured the feeling of the situation much better than I had. That day, I learned the point that you're making...that's it's not all about the technical stuff. Almost all photos have good points and bad points. If we only point out the negative, we're only giving a half-answer. Elsewhere on this board, someone is asking about some photos he has submitted for consideration as stock photography and all got rejected. The reasons given were fairly short and blunt. Those critiques may have been accurate for all I know, but the photographer learned next to nothing from them...not specifically what he did wrong nor what he did right.

[nomadkng]

Very true. There are some folks on here where I don't think I have EVER seen one of their images in ANY thread, yet they comment on things!!!

Lauren, in defense of myself, I've never posted any of my work here for one simple reason. I prefer to sell it elsewhere and my concerns of copyright infringement outweigh the need to post my images here to "prove" I know what I'm talking about. For this very same reason I don't post on Flickr, Webshots, Facebook, etc etc. I'm so mercenary, I won't even send my family my "saleable" images, they get some of the "decent" ones to vicariously enjoy my work, or they can always go to my website to see the "keepers"...lol. I'm just too paranoid of the "right-click and save as" types out there that think they are entitled to have my work as a screensaver or worse yet, on THEIR brochure without compensating me.

If Pentax Forums wants to start a SECURE gallery, much like the showcase gallery, but one where through a moderation process someone could post say 5 images of high quality as a portfolio, with all images grouped together with name/ID etc,, with links to their own website and possibly a cart for other to purchase etc,, then I'd be happy to submit some images. I may not have NatGeo credits to my name, but I think my 30+ years of expertise and positive feedback (ie sales) grants my license to critique. Do I do it often? No, because it does take a lot of effort and thought, to not only address issues but formulate a response in a helpful manner. And quite often no matter how hard you try, you still piss someone off.

I do understand the "What gives you the right to critique a photo?" concern. I have been a member of a few sites where members critiqued members and many times after looking at the portfolio of someone who had given me a harsh review thinking, "WTF? What makes you think you can criticize me when your can't even keep the horizon straight on half your images??

But it also may be a case that the poster has valid reasons for NOT displaying their work on this particular site. Ole had an interesting idea about getting a panel of volunteer critics. Maybe that could work, if for example the critics received a feature page and promotion etc, Maybe some kind of compensation for taking the time to actually critique images

[jpzk]

I finally decided to get back to my thread for some input from my part and thank everyone who took the time to reply.

After reading the posts, I was unsure whether I would reply myself because most of what I thought about a "critique" had already been said.

Nonetheless, my view of "critique feedback" is when I would gain from it, even if the critique is harsh.
But I also think that whoever would critisize my photos would have to be someone with enough experience for the type of images I would present.

nomadkng had a good post summarizing what I thought.

JP

[philbaum]

. A critique isn't just pointing out what's wrong with a photo. It's also about pointing out what's right. .... He not only saw what was wrong with the picture, but also acknowledged everything that was right about it.

Very true. If we only focus on what's wrong with the world or the photographs, we get a lopsided picture. Its often far more effective in improving our work to identify the good points and to keep those traits in future pictures.

This was my point in my earlier post - when I take a look in that forum once in a while, 3/4 of the threads on the first page are exactly like that - "Nice Capture" and "Great Shot" etc. ..

I belong to a photo club that has sort of a daily blog, but better, going. Most comments are like you mentioned. I just wanted to say that those general comments are also useful. I often put up pictures to see which ones attract interest. Those without any comments, even general, are always suspect to me. Those with 7 or 8 general comments are at the other end of the spectrum. I like to sell photos at 2 small shops in my area. So its important to me to get feedback, even general comments, to help identify those that have "legs" - my terminology.

... Good technique is important but it's not everything and I really hate it when people miss all the good stuff because they are too busy pixel peeping and just shoot down someone who's photo actually has some artistic merit despite that. Technique can always be improved upon, but a true photographic eye, that's just not something all people have. Me, I don't care nearly so much about the photo being 100% correct in terms of technique as I care about the person's eye and the content of that image. I like it both ways, but definitely I'd take a less perfect photo over a boring one any day...

That's so true. As i said above, i often don't put maximum effort into processing any image unless i have good confidence that i'll use it for a possible print and sale. So i'll send pics up to the club's photo site to see what reaction i would get from it. There was this one member who would nail anyone for not having a level horizon while i could care less at that point. God forbid that you send any hdr picture because she would always state that she disliked hdr as if everyone didn't know that already. While i always was more interested in the general appeal of the "story" or essence of the image. Also, i came to realize that at least 1/2 the club was pretty conservative in their tastes - as in don't rock the boat in any manner.

If one is out there to sell pictures, one had better have something more interesting in their pictures than the average snapshot.

Another thing to keep in mind is that we are not paying any of those doing the critiques in any way. To criticize the content of their unpaid critiques, is a bit unfair. I've often thought of taking a collection of my pictures to a professional photographer, in my area, with the idea that i would pay him a fee for looking at my work in total and telling me what was good about them, and what could be improved on. This would be a one to one experience and none of this internet posting stuff that is so limiting. I'd be willing to pay an hourly rate for that kind of information, if the professional was someone that had credibility to me. I have a style, believe it or not - so i'm not interested in someone teaching me their own personal style. But i am interested in identifying and fixing weaknesses i may have.

[arnold]

Very true! I'm a videographer/editor by trade and I once had a situation where I was trying to put together a promotional spot for the tv station where I worked. I was working with video shot during a breaking news situation. I had shot a lot of stuff that was in focus, steady, exposed right, etc... But it all felt a bit sterile and detached. Someone else, who wasn't really a photographer, had grabbed some behind-the-scenes shots. They were blurry, unsteady, and over-exposed...but they had captured the feeling of the situation much better than I had. That day, I learned the point that you're making...that's it's not all about the technical stuff. Almost all photos have good points and bad points. If we only point out the negative, we're only giving a half-answer. Elsewhere on this board, someone is asking about some photos he has submitted for consideration as stock photography and all got rejected. The reasons given were fairly short and blunt. Those critiques may have been accurate for all I know, but the photographer learned next to nothing from them...not specifically what he did wrong nor what he did right.

This brings me to a suggestion:
There is more than one element to any picture. I suggest that a critique follows a more objective structured format that will help reduce subjectivity.
The two main categories for evaluation are 1) Technical quality, and 2) Content
Sub categories of 1) would include framing, lighting angles and maybe post processing.
Sub categories of 2) would include emotional impact, historical interest, artistic interpretation (this could apply to abstract as well) and sense of life. By sense of life I mean that the picture is uplifting of the soul or shows man at his worst. A historical picture that is unpleasant to look at may still be artistic and have emotional impact.
These are just suggestions that can be expanded on to serve as a guide for those who have something to say.
Personal opinions are also worth while if they are expressed as such. For example, I don't care for flowing water that looks like cotton wool, narrow depth of field as an end in itself, and over processing - which means if I can see it, it's too much.
To cap this; with a structured list to use for critique, we may put more life into the what should be one of the most important threads we have.

[Sagitta]

I avoid critique sections in general because I'm (generally) happy with my work, whether its considered good by others or not, and also because most places (I honestly haven't poked in the one here too often) are shock full of people who'll rip apart a great pic then heap praises on someone who's Instagrammed another shot because "Weirdly Colored Cross Processing" somehow = SKILLZ.

EDIT: Maybe the 'photo critique' forum should be renamed the 'photo advice' forum - it's a bit more of a two-sided term and helps convey what should be happening there.