Just a thought...Not sure if this is the place for this...

[skieur]

Critique is supposed to have a minimal opinion component, as it is practiced in judging salon and professional competitions. The first element is technique or technical excellence. The variable here is the photographic eye of the viewer and their experience in photography. If you have used all kinds of equipment, lenses, and accessories and made all kinds of technical mistakes, then it is easy to recognize those same mistakes in the photos of others. Even pros still make technical mistakes after several years, but hopefully they make fewer of them. I should also point out that there is a reluctance of many pros to put their best work on the Internet, so it can be hard to judge the 'validity' of his/her critique from what they do post.

The second area of critique is composition and that is based on the elements of design used in art, but applied to photography. The variable here is the knowledge of the critic in the area of photographic composition. Someone who has done or taught art or been involved in photographic competitions or judging photos should certainly be better in making valid composition comments than a beginning photographer with no knowledge whatsoever of composition.

The last variable is that despite the lack of experience or knowledge in photography or art, a few still have a natural visual talent and attention to detail to be able to point out problem areas of a photo and the literacy skills to be able to express themselves well in their critiques.

Personal taste should not be an element in critique and most knowledgeable photographers try to stay objective in their critiques.

skieur