I think that the criticism offered by some members of this forum seems to be determined by the cost of the equipment used.
If you have high end gear, then the criticism tends to be honest and to the point, whereas if your equipment is low budget then the criticism tends to be condescending.
How are us noobs supposed to learn if the yardstick applied is in accordance with expense.
If my images suffer from vignetting, lack of flats or darks, over or under exposure or whatever then say so, regardless of how much I spent on the equipment.
If you apply software to highlight flaws, then do it for all images and not just those that are taken with top end gear. If you just critique on the face value then apply that method across the board. By making financial distinctions to your criticism, then as far as I am concerned, there is no value to the criticism. I want to learn how to improve my imagery and I certainly won't learn if a lesser standard is applied to my image purely because I use a DSLR instead of a SBIG 1100.
In my opinion a flaw is a flaw, and if they exist in my imagery then I appreciate it when criticism shows me that flaw. Then I can do something about improving my imagery.
