# Can a critique be positive and critical at the same time?



## Senor Hound (Jul 13, 2008)

There are a few threads where people post their critiques of someone else's photo(s) in a somewhat (imo) tactless way.  They don't say what they like about the photo, only what they dislike, and even then they present it in a way that seems very negative to some.

Then, I saw someone say "Be harsh with your critique, cause it helps me learn."  This baffled me.  I replied and said you can maintain a critical eye without being mean, harsh or rude to the OP.  But the whole thing peaked my curiosity.

So, do you think when critiquing a photo you can be nice and critical at the same time?  Or do you think this is not possible?  Its my personal belief that its quite easy to be both, and those who don't make the effort to be kind and courteous only do so because they like to be negative towards others (it makes them feel better).  But I also cannot comprehend any reason to act this way towards someone else, so I'd like to hear the argument for this sort of behavior.

Also, the argument of, "I shouldn't have to," doesn't make sense to me, either.  You don't have to critique a photo at all, yet you do.  If you don't care about the OP, then why are you posting a critique in the first place?  How do you care enough about a person to want to help them out by means of critique, yet not care enough to present your opinion in a way where they'll actually take your advice?  Its almost like the people who do this are just being rude because it makes them feel better (like some sort of e-bully).  This argument seems very selfish, all the way around.

Anyway, I just don't get any of it.  If someone would help clarify this for me, I'd appreciate it.


----------



## LaFoto (Jul 13, 2008)

You might have found out by now, Señor, that that is what I TRY to do anytime I either critique or only just comment on anyone else's photo here.

I feel that I best ask questions.
Make the poster think and wonder - and ultimately come to their own conclusion. 
I feel that is a way to pass a critique AND not be rude at the same time.

And then rudeness seems to be "in the famous eye of the beholder" as much as beauty is: some can take more, some can take only considerably less. Some personalities are cut out for harsher wordings, some need things to be put in nicer ways. You personally don't deal well with harsh wordings (nor do I, for that matter), so anything a little more on the rough side will affect you more than it might affect others.

It is hard to pass out any kind of critique when a photo is already being presented with the introduction "I LOVE this photo". I mean, if that is the case, then why not continue to simply love it? Why provoke the danger of getting one most beloved work shredded, and believe me, if you LOVE something, critique WILL sound harsher than it would if you were more or less neutral about your work.


----------



## K8-90 (Jul 13, 2008)

I think know what post you are thinking of...

Like you, I believe it is simple to be "nice", or at least polite, and critical. In fact, I think that it is the only way to really make your comments helpful. People, or at least myself, naturally become defensive and unresponsive when feeling "attacked".


----------



## Garbz (Jul 13, 2008)

"You're photo sucks in every conceivable way, but you're getting better!" - how's that? Although if they're not getting better either then I doubt you can have a positive critique.


----------



## flygning (Jul 13, 2008)

You can still deliver the dreaded "your photo sucks" in a polite way.  "You should concentrate on improving [insert one subject or 100- doesn't really matter]" is much more helpful and puts the photographer in a less defensive state of mind than straight away telling them there is no hope.  

People asking for critiques on their photos, even if they love them, are still here to learn (for the most part...).  I personally love every 'keeper' shot I get, but I'm also here to learn what others like and appreciate, and I know not all of my 'keepers' are good enough for the public eye.  Getting useful critiques helps to learn that difference.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 13, 2008)

Certainly! I, as I'm sure many here know, pass out a good deal of critique. I always try and point out what I feel are the strong points of an image as well as the weak points. What I think is also important, besides just saying "You focus is wrong" is giving the person some suggestions on how to correct that.

I think overall, most of my critique has been well received, so I think (perhaps somewhat immodestly) that I'm on the right track.

There are some images for which the poster has requested critique that I stay away from, usually because I have the feeling (right or wrong) that what the person really wants to hear is "Ooooh what a wonderful image" when it has major technical flaws. As LaFoto mentioned, when the OP says, "I love this photo" or "this is my best work yet", it's hard to get around that.


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 13, 2008)

Senor Hound said:


> Can a critique be positive and critical at the same time?



yes


----------



## Jedo_03 (Jul 13, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> yes


 
Is that a friendly "yes" - it looks a little abrasive to me...
Jedo


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 13, 2008)

Jedo_03 said:


> Is that a friendly "yes" - it looks a little abrasive to me...
> Jedo



It was very friendly!


----------



## Jedo_03 (Jul 13, 2008)

Mr Hound
it is absolutely possible to critique someone's work without being rude...
Think outside of photography for a moment - of how many teachers there are in this world teaching thousands of subjects to millions of people. And i'm not thinking kiddies in school...
At work, I'm in a constant teaching mode - to post-grad students, peers, work colleagues in other disciplines, patients, relatives, carers............. And i would hardly expect to be respected if i opened my response to their questions with "Well... in answer to your lame, no-hoper question...."
I won't go on and on... but that is WORK... and at WORK people expect professionalism. *This* is the wwwinternet... we are not at work... On a forum like this I think the gamut is "we are all equal - but some are more equal than others". No - I'm not being cheeky... fact is that there are photographers on this board at all skill-levels of their craft... and what a beginner or a layperson thinks about a particular photograph is often quite different to what a serious amateur or professional thinks... In addition, people have different ways of being able to express themselves. Some are succint... some verbose... some dominant... some submissive...
Penultimately - we are anonymous... Apart from beer-joints and boozy night spots, the internet is probably the only venue where people "talk" to each other "in the face". The mods are the internet equivalent of "bouncers": they keep the peace.
Last - to answer your question: critique that is *constructive* is what you are looking for - like we get at work (where people turn their backs before they roll their eyes).
Jedo


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 13, 2008)

Hehehe Shcool's a good one... I wanna see a teacher say to a student: "Hey look, lovely! You got three out of a hundred right!!! What a wonderful student." 

But all seriousness aside, those galleries are busy! There's easily 100 new threads a day posted there and only a small percentage of the people posting also comment in other threads AND there's just not enough time for the people who do offer constructive critiques to always make sure it sounds positive. What ends up happening (at least since I've been here) is that if the photo contains obvious mistakes it ends up on page 2 with zero comments. To me that's much worse than a gruff or slightly negative sounding crit.

So, what I usually try to do is look for the ones that make it way down to the bottom of page one or onto page two with zero replies and then I swoop. If it's OK or good I'll bump it for them, if it's poor and they don't have an ultra high post count I'll write a quicky crit. I assume everyone follows their own threads pretty close and knows that no one commented on it in 2 or 3 days.

I try to make mine sound more positive by trying to remember to say "How to make it better" ot "What >I think< it needs" rather than what they did wrong or why it's poor. I may not always remember but I try.

Also something for noobs to remember is that anytime someone takes the time to write anything at all that contains advice of any significance,  it's likely because the critic cares enough to do so.

--

But I have a question...  I keep seeing these threads (like this one) popping up and yet I have never ever seen a thread where there were unkind, harsh or even brisk words contained in it. So, do these even actually exist?


----------



## Robin (Jul 13, 2008)

Constructive criticism is specific and offers advice on how to improve. 

I do try to say something positive in my critiques but even those who don't, I don't believe they are necessarily being unconstructive, rude or "mean".  

As an example, I went to a photography school and every photo you hand in gets analyzed and picked apart by not only the instructor but also your fellow students. One time, one of my fellow students said about a photo of mine: "It's just.... boring." Nothing else, just "it's boring". It's the only time I took offensive to what someone has said about a photo of mine because I found it unconstructive. She didn't tell me what exactly made it boring or how I could have changed it to make it more interesting, therefore her comment didn't help whatsoever. It was a useless comment designed only to hurt me. I don't take offense to criticism, even if nothing positive is mentioned, as long as it's constructive. 

So, if someone wants to only tell me what is wrong with my photos and not say anything about what is good about them, that's fine, as long as they are being specific and offering ways to improve and therefore being constructive.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 13, 2008)

But also those can be the best ones. Or best for you. They may not know why it's boring. They just know that it is. Saying so without the drivel of explaining why is more impactfull. Then you spend the next 6 hours racking your brain trying to figure it out. You probably think of 10 things that the person _could have_ meant. 

See better for you. 10 instead of one.   (seriously tho!)

At least that's how it works for me. And yes, I hate the person the whole time.  (well.. not really "hate" but you know...)


----------



## Dmitri (Jul 13, 2008)

Bifur stole my thought! The worst criticism is seeing that huge '0' in the replies column after some time.

That said, of course there can be positive criticism. I don't know why someone would want to be rude in a critique, unless they have a personal vendetta against the person, or if they are just rude people in general.

Don't know. I try to be encouraging and helpful as I can


----------



## Tyjax (Jul 13, 2008)

My profession is andragogy.  I have been a teacher/instructor for about 10 years now. I love it. If you want to be good. If you want to help people help themselves then you better read Dale Carnegies little volume. 

No you may not ever care if you are "Winning Friends and Influencing" people. But if you have taken the time to divest of your knowledge then surely you would like it to be taken to heart? If you want what you said to make ANY difference than you WILL use the sandwich technique. 

That being said, if you are just critiqueing to make your self feel important, make your self feel good about your work or just pushing others down so they are lower than you, go ahead and JUST be critical. 

No matter how "good" you are I know I can find a proffesional that is better than you. Either functionally or subjectively. i.e. how many millions has your art made?  

That isn't the point is it? This is peer review. PEER. We offer helping hands to those interested in self improvement. Those coming here for advice and review have the right I think to expect some level of respect and to expect that the normal rules of pleasent civilized behaviour be observed. 

A smile, an easy answer, the pat on the shoulder. THESE are the lubrication of the prickly and rough paths of human interaction. 

So, yes sir, you can be critical AND be civilized. 

And there are always those that have no intrest in walking a minute in anothers shoes. 

Someone stop me before I type another word. Geez. out.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 13, 2008)

There are different levels of critique for different levels of achievement.
The higher up you go the tougher it gets - and the tougher you'd better get.

If someone gives just the verbal equivalent of a pat on the back or a kick in the teeth then it means nothing more than that they are not really engaging with your work, they are just blowing hot air to strike a pose. And this is most likely because, despite their posturing, they know no more about Photography than you.
If anyone wants my opinion on anything, I'm out chasing squirrels.


----------



## invisible (Jul 13, 2008)

I personally like ALL the mistakes in a photo to be pointed out (so I can learn), but not in a way that makes the photographer look like useless garbage. 

Harsh critique doesn't have to be rude. Being polite when critiquing is what makes a person look like someone helping others improve and not just a pompous ass. (By the way, politeness is a cruelly underrated quality, which is mind-boggling considering it's free and tax-exempted.)

Nothing groundbreaking in this article, but it summarizes what common sense indicates is the way people like their photographs critiqued.


----------



## Robin (Jul 13, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> They may not know why it's boring. They just know that it is.


 
If she were someone who knew little to nothing about photography or art, I would agree. But this was a fellow student, someone who already had one degree in fine art and was now very competent in photography. She'd been in countless group critiques and I knew she had the ability to accurately analyze an image and express why she found something wrong with it.

Plus, I happened to know she thought I was in general just not a good photographer (overheard her one day) so I got the impression that this one time she felt she didn't want to waste time on me analyzing what made it boring or what could make it better so she just gave a generic and unconstructive "it's boring".

You might think this just makes me bias against her but it didn't - even after I knew she thought I was a poor photographer, I continued to gladly take on board any constructive criticism she might give me. It was just the one comment that I found very unconstructive and useless. She even gave a little nervous laugh after it, like she knew what she was saying was slightly crossing the line.


----------



## Dmitri (Jul 13, 2008)

invisible said:


> Nothing groundbreaking in this article, but it summarizes what common sense indicates is the way people like their photographs critiqued.



Thank you for posting that article! I admit I'm one of the 'two word' people. Usually it's because I either like or dislike a photo and I don't know why. But I will definitely try to be more helpful with my replies.


----------



## MikkiStreak (Jul 13, 2008)

Being new to the forum, I've seen several posts where respondents came across as "attacking" and I'm surprised because all it does is make them seem like moody buttheads.  It's such a huge deterrent to new people who are sincerely trying to learn/improve.

When I ask for "harsh" criticism, I'm simply asking to not hold back and only pick 1-2 things.  If there are 10 things wrong with the shot, I want to hear what was wrong and/or how it could have been done better.  But, by "harsh" I am *not* asking for generalized snotty, negative comments that do nothing to help me improve.

I guess I look at it like this---- even if I didn't like the photo, I can offer something positive/constructive about it by evaluating the technical merit (are the highlight, shadow, midtones properly exposed? is it clear what the subject matter is?  is the use of color/bw appropriate?).  There's nothing wrong with saying the image is liked/disliked, but I think there needs to be something offered to help the shooter develop their skills.

I also think that karma will come and bite these people in the butt.... either it will affect their business (if they are 'pros') because someone, somewhere will read their "jerk" comments and not want to hire them; or they themselves will post an image that opens the door to someone else tearing them down in the same manner they did it first.


----------



## Easy_Target (Jul 13, 2008)

Yes it is entirely possible to be positive about a photo yet critical at the same time. 

Not mentioning what the (the critiquer) felt about the photo is pointless. If there's no opinion provided as to why the person reached that opinion, then there's no value to the critique. There's no point in critiquing to begin with.

I have said "be harsh" during critiques before, perhaps you may have misinterpreted? I know some of my classmates would sugarcoat things and/or speak about their dislikes in a roundabout way during critiques. That annoyed the living hell out of me. I think that perhaps the person you're quoting meant for everyone to be honest and not go about their criticisms in a roundabout manner, rather than "be mean about it."


----------



## Miaow (Jul 13, 2008)

I think critique can be done nicely and still be constructive - some people need to learn to say things tactfully I think though or sometimes things can come across ruder than maybe they intended.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 14, 2008)

Can someone show me where any of these actually exist here at TPF?

I've either never seen one or can't recognize it.

--
And it's not as if we would be pointing fingers. The person may not even know they're doing it. And if they into direct critique like that it would just look like a critique of the critique.  The is the 3rd thread in less than a month on this topic but after reading about 1,000 photo threads here I haven't seen even one I thought was rude.


----------



## Robin (Jul 14, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Can someone show me where any of these actually exist here at TPF?
> 
> I've either never seen one or can't recognize it.


 
I think I saw one but it possibly got deleted? Other than that, I haven't really seen any so I too would like an example of what people are refering to so that I don't accidentally do it!


----------



## MarcusM (Jul 14, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Can someone show me where any of these actually exist here at TPF?
> 
> I've either never seen one or can't recognize it.
> 
> ...



Here's a good example right here that I remember recently. The original tactless comment was #3. Unfortunately the original photo is gone but I think the comment speaks for itself:
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=124963&highlight=san+diego

And here's another, #6 (If that's not a perfect example of a rude comment, I don't know what is)
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=122152&highlight=wack

 (the search function here is actually pretty good, I'm surprised I found these right away)

I know there are plenty more I've seen but don't remember what they were or how to find them.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 14, 2008)

Hmmm... So basically little one-liners.  Digs or meaningless reactionary comments. 

Not really critique of any kind.  Or like I thought this thread was about, something more like:

_"These are total beginner pics! All your shots are centered, and 1/2 are over exposed. Oh my eyes! You need ALLOT more practice. Maybe get a book or something!!!"
_​

And etc. Well those are easy enough to ignore. You don't even need thick skin.



*EDIT:* I'm not excusing comments like you linked to by any means! Just that they carry no weight. They are for sure inappropriate.


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus (Jul 14, 2008)

MarcusM said:


> Here's a good example right here........


I love it when someone tries to make a point, only to show their true intentions. Post #12 of the first example in this case. Certainly exemplifies the appropiate methodology of a proper response in my mind.  

The fact that someone can show extreme immaturity in responding to a posted photo does not exempt the following responder from acting in the same manner.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jul 14, 2008)

Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:


> I love it when someone tries to make a point, only to show their true intentions. Post #12 of the first example in this case. Certainly exemplifies the appropiate methodology of a proper response in my mind.
> 
> The fact that someone can show extreme immaturity in responding to a posted photo does not exempt the following responder from acting in the same manner.



what? Marcus spoke to him firmly to knock him back in line..... he later confesses to being rude... this is likely to Marcus setting him straight.... there is nothing wrong with this....


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus (Jul 14, 2008)

So by calling the guy an asshole, the tone is set. Is that a proper way to get the offender to realize his mistake? More likely than not, the little hairs stand up on the back of the neck. Chances are that any further comments made by Marcus will go by the wayside to that poster, regardless of how chivalrous his initial intent.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jul 14, 2008)

Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:


> So by calling the guy an asshole, the tone is set. Is that a proper way to get the offender to realize his mistake?




I'm not sure if there is any saving a person who posts a critique in a gallery like this :



Diabolus said:


> This looks like it was snapped from a water soaked $10 dollar 7-11 camera.
> 
> Edit: After much thought, did you take this through a periscope?



The galleries are for learning and these kinds of comments should get a user banned.  

I understand your point of an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind but.... I don't think Marcus lost his eye on this one....


----------



## MarcusM (Jul 14, 2008)

Thanks for standing up for me, dearleader.

I do admit, one of my biggest flaws has always been keeping my mouth shut (err..hands from typing?)

I stand by my statement now that it's there, I think I called it like it was, but like my wife tells me sometimes I shouldn't let my anger at certain situations get the best of me, and I should just keep my thoughts to myself.

I just have a passion for trying my best to do what's right and fair for everyone, and when I feel someone is being blatantly and purposefully harmful or demeaning to others, it's hard for me to hold back.

EDIT - In my defense, notice I didn't even reply to this statement? I just let it go...



Diabolus said:


> Don't get your panties in a bunch Marcus... I was a bit rude. :hugs:



EDIT PART II:

Crap - Senor Hound, sorry to hijack the thread, but I do think it is relevant.

But to the original question, to answer quite simply, yes it is possible to critique and be positive at the same time. I always try to point out the positives of a photo as well as the negatives as nice as I can without trying to sugarcoat. I try to offer what knowledge and experience I have, because often times mistakes I see are mistakes I've learned from with my own photos. Been there, done that type-thing.


----------



## Chiller (Jul 14, 2008)

:taped sh:​


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus (Jul 14, 2008)

MarcusM said:


> .... and when I feel someone is being blatantly and purposefully harmful or demeaning to others, it's hard for me to hold back.


So calling someone an asshole that offers an different point of view from you is not demeaning?



MarcusM said:


> EDIT - In my defense, notice I didn't even reply to this statement? I just let it go...


But yet, the tone has already been set by your retort. Wiggle as you like.......

Mind you Marcus, I am not having a go at you, but only pointing out the fallacies, to all that read this post, that are inherent within us all. I am no better than you and quite likely to make the same pointed discourse. I merely suggest to you that in the future, when you select a thread to prove a point, that you are a bit more discriminate to one that doesn't bite you in the ass.


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus (Jul 14, 2008)

While I'm at it........  This is such a troll thread........  Why does this OP keep getting by with all these passive aggresive tendancies without any admonishing?  Seemingly, the only purpose this person enjoys is to stir controversy in the many, many threads generated by this individual.

I shall now go back to my bridge and live happily underneath.


----------



## MarcusM (Jul 14, 2008)

Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:


> So calling someone an asshole that offers an different point of view from you is not demeaning?
> 
> 
> But yet, the tone has already been set by your retort. Wiggle as you like.......



Ok, Did you read my whole post? Your point was taken, I addressed it. But you keep repeating your main point. I thought I was being pretty clear that I was pointing out my own flaws and sometimes let my thoughts fly when maybe it's best not to.

Also, like dearleader said - the tone had already been set, and not by myself.

"Wiggle as you like" - I was merely trying to add some humor to the situation and slightly poking fun at myself, but whatever.



> Mind you Marcus, I am not having a go at you, but only pointing out the fallacies, to all that read this post, that are inherent within us all. I am no better than you and quite likely to make the same pointed discourse. I merely suggest to you that in the future, when you select a thread to prove a point, that you are a bit more discriminate to one that doesn't bite you in the ass.


But I feel like you are having a go at me - anyway, like I said, I stand by my statement - the poster's remarks fully warranted it - can you tell me he was not being an asshole?


----------



## invisible (Jul 14, 2008)

Trolls rejoice when you call them assholes. They live for the reactions. The 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 button is your friend (use with moderation, though).


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jul 14, 2008)

Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:


> While I'm at it........  This is such a troll thread........  Why does this OP keep getting by with all these passive aggresive tendancies without any admonishing?  Seemingly, the only purpose this person enjoys is to stir controversy in the many, many threads generated by this individual.
> 
> I shall now go back to my bridge and live happily underneath.



 You have excellent linguistic abilities...


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jul 14, 2008)

invisible said:


> Trolls rejoice when you call them assholes. They live for the reactions. The
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Pardon my ignorance but what does the ignore button actually do? If I ignore as user does that mean I can not see their posts? Doesn't that make reading some threads confusing if the ignored user is involved?  If the ignored user starts a thread am I unable to see it?

To the op - sorry for the hijack but this thread now appears doomed anyways

Edit : Hello? ... Can anybody see me? or am I on everyones ignore list


----------



## invisible (Jul 14, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> Pardon my ignorance but what does the ignore button actually do?



That's the report button, not the ignore button. When you report a post, all the mods get a PM/email with a link to the offending post.


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus (Jul 15, 2008)

MarcusM said:


> Here's a good example right here that I remember recently. The original tactless comment was #3. Unfortunately the original photo is gone but I think the comment speaks for itself:
> http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=124963&highlight=san+diego
> 
> And here's another, #6 (If that's not a perfect example of a rude comment, I don't know what is)
> ...


Right, so I only pointed out one issue where you were attempting to rise above the fray, but yet you dissolve into the most common argument. Why is that? Is it a guttural insistence that provokes those emotions? Is it a matter of pride to be found justified in your thought process? It really has no effect after you name call the person in which you are attempting to change their point of view. All the excuses afterwards of your insults to the offender have very little effect on the person you are trying to influence since you have ultimately decided to position yourself on a level above that of the person you are attempting to admonish.



MarcusM said:


> Ok, Did you read my whole post? Your point was taken, I addressed it. But you keep repeating your main point. I thought I was being pretty clear that I was pointing out my own flaws and sometimes let my thoughts fly when maybe it's best not to.
> 
> Also, like dearleader said - the tone had already been set, and not by myself.
> 
> ...


But yet, calling someone that you consider an asshole from the onset will never get you in the advantageous position of being in the lead. It is up to you to take the higher ground.

The remainder of your argument is a non-issue. Again, as I have already stated, the tone that had been set by you is unrecoverable, the pain has already been injected. 










Oh sister morphine, turn my nightmares into dreams.


----------



## LaFoto (Jul 15, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> To the op - sorry for the hijack but this thread now appears *doomed* anyways


 
I'm afraid you are very right here, dEARlEADER ... when members use other members' posts to turn them into personal attacks, it will inevitably lead to the end of the thread. 

Tip to Señor: search for "objective critique", "positive critique" and other such words under the Search function and you will see that this matter has been discussed on here many, many, many times before. So there's a lot of reading material there already which might help you find your answer on this topic. 

So, where's all the padlocks again? Ah! Here they are.


----------

