I don't know if you thought I meant this, but just to clarify, I'm not at all suggesting that a self-critique should be mandatory in any way. As I said, I just think that in quite a few cases, comments are more likely if we're given a bit more information about what the poster is after.

Otherwise it's just another picture, and unless it's extraordinarily good or bad, there's no particular reason to comment.

Yes, agreed. But almost anything except the most anodyne can be construed as a personal insult if someone is determined to take it as such.

And the less sanitised the post, the more likely that someone will take it as as an insult if the comment isn't complimentary.

I mean, we all know that Mike-P's aircraft photography is rubbish (nowhere near as good as mine, which is brilliant - the only reason I don't post more examples is so as not to make him feel bad). But that doesn't make him a bad person.

I also think people would be more inclined to offer critique if the poster made some effort to include a little critique of their own - something along the lines of

"I was trying to achieve X, but not sure it worked, what do you think?"

or

"I took this, but it doesn't show X, how could I process the image to show Y better"

Whereas as often as not, a picture gets posted, not very sharp, not very well exposed, no hints as to what was intended, and my reaction is "erm, where do I start".

So mostly I don't, because it would simply take a long time. And a genuine, if strong, reaction, that is posted without extensive sanitisation will often be interpreted by some as an ad hominem attack even if it isn't any such thing. If I don't have time to add smilies, remove anything that sounds negative, then I mostly won't bother.

______
Edit:

I also never comment on any image that someone posts with an "I really like this, what do you think?", or indeed "400mm, 1/20s, handheld".

I think that a lot of the time, people want affirmation, not critique.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

But it has to be pretty special in that case.

Don't get me wrong, I don't often post pictures because most of my pictures are rubbish, and I usually know why they're rubbish. And I don't want affirmation except for the good ones

Please. Cite just one reference from an obviously authoritative source substantiating this claim.

And explain why, if the pixels containing noise are identifiable, why noise reduction isn't a whole lot better.

As the saying goes, it ain't what people don't know that's the problem, it's what they do know, that ain't so.

It's clear that some confuse others' contrary opinion with a personal attack in some cases.

This would all be easily cleared up if ScrewDriver could cite authoritative references supporting this claim that raw files contain metadata indicating where the noise is.

It seems rather unlikely to me, but what do I know.

You need one of these.

My K-5 lives in mine attached to the Bigma about 90% of the time. Very quick to whip it out again.

The only drawback is that it doesn't quite fit with the hood on the extended way round, and it's a bit tight in the case if you reverse it. Still a lot less sodding about though.

Yes, me too, despite my reservations.

Yes, I agree. It's not very nice to be accused of being obsessed.

My argument, in case there was any doubt, is this:

Mostly an iPhone is adequate if one's yardstick is whether a photo looks nice. For those with more demanding requirements, inevitably, closer attention will be given to details that will not be of interest to those without them.

I would think that those that have no interest in the detail would be better off not discussing it, than accusing those with such an interest of being obsessed.

It will unequivocally be the best camera for the nighttime airshows.

Then just use your phone to take pictures, mostly you need nothing more.

Those of us that are prepared to spend £2000 or more on a body and a couple of lenses because we want more than our phones can produce, are going to be a bit more demanding.