Jim Plogger Loc: East Tennessee

:thumbup:

jcsnell Loc: SW Ohio

I have thought on this for quite awhile and hesitated to post for fear of being misunderstood. I will be the first to admit that many of my photos are not the greatest, but I have learned in 35 years of photography what a good photo should be.
My thought is that we are doing a disservice to our fellow "Hoggers" when we tell them how great their pictures are when they are over/under exposed,out of focus etc.I realize we have many levels of photographers in our group, but we should be trying to help one another become better. When we tell someone their pictures are good when they are not we are not helping them.We should be able to offer constructive criticism without being mean or "self righteous" but encouraging others to be better. Just my opinion, thanks for letting me ramble.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

I agree with you. But I think the point of the post is that some people cannot manage to criticize “without being mean or ‘self righteous’." In fact some seem to enjoy responding to an honest question with disdain and sarcasm. They are sometimes more interested in showing how smart they are than in providing useful assistance. This has derailed many useful threads as people react to the troll. I must confess I am guilty of allowing myself to be bated into this on occasion.

One can be honestly critical and civil at the same time.

Moles Loc: South Carolina

Like Mark Twain said: "He's a great guy, but I mean that in the worst sense of the word."

AZNikon Loc: Mesa, AZ

My experience is that about 90% of the comments I receive are positive and helpful, but because of the 10% that are accusatory, snobbish, or just rude, I think twice now about posting anything. At this stage of my life I feel no need for negativity.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Ah, it just needs to be put into better perspective, perhaps?

If the person giving a critique is modest due to not exactly being a deity, "kind words" is appropriate. But for those at the highest levels, that lack of recognition is an insult!

Consider that Moses, after receiving the 10th Thou Shalt, says "Thank you Oh Lord for your kind words." There would have been a ball of fire, loud thunder, a blast of wind and some other later prophet would have brought mankind the Ten Commandments.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

xxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxcc
Perhaps I ought have clarified the perspectives on which my post was based:

Kindness is an undeserved gratuity delivered from the altruism and largesse of the viewer of the image, it is, implicitly, un-earned by the photographer.

Deserved praise is earned by the photographer, the maker of the image recognized as laudable.

Dave in SD

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Some that are negative are also helpful.

Certainly not if they are "accusatory, snobbish, or just rude", but even positive comments can be that, and negative comments aren't necessarily that.

Lots of positive comments aren't really helpful at all, and at least some that are very negative are absolutely helpful.

DebAnn Loc: Toronto

It's that damned English language again. Certain words do have various connotations. The word "nice" comes to mind. When you say something is nice, it's often thought of as just OK, not excellent. You could say "really nice" I guess. Anyway, you know what I mean.

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

Well Dave, reading your post begs for me to ask myself what was Dave's purpose in this post. Why did Dave find it important to state what he did? It obviously has to do with critiques posted in the Critique section and in my opinion differences in various individuals critiques of the same photograph. If this be the case then I say those individuals have lost the purpose of this section. It is not to feature their own ego, but to assist those who are trying to improve their own skills. In that sense those doing a critique become teachers and should adopt the standards of good instruction. Truthfully evaluate in a positive manner which encourages the photo submitter to try other methods or techniques within their limits to improve their skills. Take the submitter's photo at level of that person's development. A first grader's work cannot be compared to a high school seniors math comprehension. As a teacher yourself, you must have witnessed the destructiveness of teachers in the break room discussing their student's failures for the intent of effecting the next teacher's methodology as the student is past up the grade level.

So a "kind" comment is never wrong unless it is given through sarcasm. Just my thoughts on your post as it relates to me. Thanks for the post Dave. Leon

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

I think a response can be either positive or negative and still be "kind," depending on how it's delivered. Obviously a positive response (as in, "nice photo") will be taken as a kind response, but a negative critique can also be kind. For example, someone posts a photo and someone else posts that while the picture is nice, it could be improved on by a certain technique or techniques that would make the image really pop. The OP then may understand that this is good information for the future. If presented in the right manner, what may be taken as a "negative" response could be taken as a kind response. Obviously, a blunt criticism, like "You need to learn how to control bokeh," would not be taken as kind. And I don't believe a gushing response to an obviously poor image would be taken as kind, either. Kind is as kind does.

In the end, Dave, your point is well taken and appropriate.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

xxxxxxxxxxx

And thanks for your response, Leon.
As I noted, my original post was offered with some trepidation that it might be easily misinterpreted, and belattedly wished it had been accompanied by my follow-up post.
In the context of a number of PMs and emails from several Photo Critique Section participants I became aware that some critics regretted that their objectively offered critiques and praise had been dismissed as merely"kind".
Recognizing that "kindness" , per se, is uniformly a desireable human trait, any suggestion that the adjective "kind" may have any possible less-than-desirable connotation is fraught with hazard. Hence my trepidation. But that trepidation was not, obviously, sufficient to dissuade me from trying to point out the distinction at which my follow-up post was aimed.

I should add that there have been instances in which, having offered some of my own images for critique in shows, contests, and here in UHH, I have been treated with kindness by some critics...and their thoughfulness was appreciated. Kindness is always preferable to imperious distain! But when my images have met with objectively justified praise, I am at pains not to characterize such thoughtful, objective praise as "kind".

To tnose who may have been confused or offended, such was not intended. I hope my follow-uo clarification has helped.

Best regards to all,
Dave

Elliern Loc: Myrtle Beach, SC

:thumbup: :thumbup:

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Hi, Elliern,
I think I hear you coming from the mindset that there are two kinds of critiques: "kind" and "unkind"

There is no call for any unkind critique. And "kind" critiques can, and should, embody as much in the way of constructive criticism as possible.

It is the more experienced critics who, having delivered high praise to a deserving image and have objectively and professionally supported that praise, who object to their thoughtful and positive critique as being, merely, "kind".

Dave

AndyCE Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Well said! I haven't posted many photos, (a few) and the replies on what I could of done better (so far) have been civil.
Andy