I'd say you've got the right of it, it would be more correct to use "which" rather than "what," but that it's not entirely incorrect to use "what" in this specific example, either.

Here's an example to show how they mean different things... imagine the speaker is looking at a litter of puppies:

"Which dog should I get?" - Implies a choice from the given selection of puppies.
"What dog should I get?" - Could mean one from a different litter, a whole other breed altogether, a fully-grown animal, etc.

So you can see how if the person is talking about a choice from among the ones in the litter, both are correct, but "which" is more correct.

Hello SL00B,

thanks for the answer, this is a good example, now I've understood the difference.

Markus

You're welcome, but keep in mind this is my take on it, it's definitely not an authoritative answer.

Yes, 'timid' is not a good example - but it is still opposite to aggressive, And yes, a diplomat may need to be aggressive at times, so therefore my only sensible contribution may have been the word "meek", which means "humble, patient or gentle" [Heinemann Australian Dictionary page 656] (without implying 'weak')

I wasn't looking for the antonyms of aggressive. I wanted a word to describe a person who is too easygoing and friendly. Timid has a negative sense.

It is not the question of being aggressive, a diplomat has got a mind of a fox, who knows how to "manipulate" things to turn the situation in his favor. That's again too negative.

Another question:

When posting a critique for a photograph, I am asked to start off by answering "What makes you look at the photograph and why?"

And then, when sometimes the photo is not worth looking at all, I tend to start off by writing, "I don't feel like looking at this picture for more than a few seconds and the reasons for the same are this, this, this and that."

Lately, I have been told that I am too harsh in my critiques, so the question is, what is the hyper polite way of answering the question above?

I suspect that the response they are after is one which discusses what you do like about it as well as what you don't like and then round it off by with a conclusion that explains your overall reaction.

I do discuss all the points in a VERY detailed way, the moderators there say, that though I blown a fresh wind in their critique section, but I need to be polite.

Well, then how should I "start off" w.r.t a picture which is not worth looking at?

In that case, I don't know. A harsh criticism (which seems to be what they think you are doing) is just as valid as a softer one. All I can suggest is that you contact one of them offline and find out what they think is wrong with your critique. A critique should allow the artist to grow, if they simply don't want people to say "I don't like this" then they shouldn't be presenting their work to the wider world.

IMO, that sounds pretty close to "this picture is so horrible(disgusting?) that I can't stand looking at it more than a few seconds without turning away". Please note that I'm not a native speaker, and could perceive it differently or even incorrectly.

Well, you could remove "I don't feel like looking" for a start.
Depending on situation:
"I liked **** part (explain), but... The picture is under/overexposed. It is unclear what was the central idea (explain, also explain how it could have been improved). It would look better if object was positioned closer to the certain side (explain which), or if you used different lighting (explain which), there were less noise (explain how to remove). Overall I didn't really enjoy the picture but I've seen worse."
Please note that writing reviews of somebody else's work may eat a lot of your time (up to 30..45 minutes per post, or up to 2 hours per post in truly extreme cases).
You could also ask mods for explanation - tell them that you're not native speakers, they might be able to explain the problem with your reviews.

This is what exactly I told the mods there, to which they replied that I have to find a very polite way of telling them that their pictures are shit!

and just now the "laidback" mod there, responded to this query of mine through PM, which I think is worth presenting here.

Reading this I feel that you ARE a photographer who doesn't shoot in auto mode?

Actually in 1x fora (which has a reputation of having a supreme critique quality), if I have to upload my photos for critique, I must write three DETAILED critiques on three photos there. Then I can get one slot. So, I don't have much choice rather than writing detailed critiques. When I joined it at the beginning, I got banned for 7 days for short critiques!

Also I have realized that if you ARE ALLOWED to write a critique without mincing your words, beating around the bush and sugar coated statements, it doesn't take more than 15 minutes to complete it.

Well, I know a bit of theory, read a few books, had two film cameras (one of them is quite old), tripod, point-and click camera with custom firmware that allows manual settings/scripts, but I can't say I'm a photographer. Everything I shoot lacks "soul"/artistic value, plus that's not one of my main interests. Although I did experiment with making panoramas, HDR shots (wasn't worth it), extra long exposures at a daytime, extracting bumpmaps from photos, generating textures from photos, etc, that's not exactly a "photography" (not an "artistic" photography), and more related to programming.

This seems to be much more than an English question... it's a culture question. This is one of those places where East and West clash frequently.

I suppose in diplomatic terms, I'd rephrase, "I don't feel like looking at this picture" into, "This photo does not capture my attention."

What is the meaning of "vet" in the following quote?