We have a Podcast coming out today which will talk about descriptions.

First, I want to say that I'm looking forward to better answers than I can give to this question because I find that I usually "Tell, don't Show" which is the opposite of what you're supposed to do. But, I have been descriptive in my writing before, it just takes extra effort, I have to think "ok, I want them to see what I'm seeing". I just take the picture or movie that is in my mind while I'm writing and I try to describe it a bit in words. A silly answer, I know, but like I said I struggle with this too.
Hopefully I can still give some advice about to what level you should be descriptive:
Try to use 'small' phrases and terms that invoke *looks up definition to make sure I have the right word* or convey certain feelings and thoughts such as "his voice echoed" The fact that his voice echoed makes the reader think of an open place, and if it's in a cave, it will add to the creepy awesomeness, if it's in a castle, it adds to the majesticness or forbidding of the palace or castle. So what I mean is, little words sometimes have big consequences on how people will visualize and think about the setting. I totally am not good at utilizing this technique, but I'm pretty sure it's something that could help make your writing (and mine!) more descriptive without using a whole paragraph to talk about it.
That being said, in some cases it's fun to learn about something. If there is an epic monster about to attack your character a few lines describing him are in order. People want to know what the fight's going to look like, it'll help a lot if they know what the combatants look like and whether they have special abilities (these should be at least partially explained, I think), and how strong/powerful they are. And even describing beautiful (or forbidding) landscapes is good, and adds to the story and sometimes gives me the feeling "I wish I was there" or "I'm so glad I'm not there!", but I lose interest if the author rambles too long (like Tolkien does sometimes, but I still love his stories! ). Well, I hope my massive post is at least worth the time it takes you to read it, I hadn't meant to go so long... God Bless and I hope someone with more knowledge is able to answer you!

We have a Podcast coming out today which will talk about descriptions.

Whoa, I did write a monster post... well, a little one anyway... I'm glad you enjoyed reading it even though I sort of misunderstood the scope of your question, I think it helped me think through some things just writing it!

Yeah, it seems that writing things out really helps me think sometimes. All the same, I'm hoping to see some more posts here!

Yea, we got a good discussion going on HWSF about it. *Hint hint*

Description is a hard thing to get right, at least for me, because I have images for everything in my book, up in my head. When I write I don't usually write descriptive writing of characters, places, foods, settings, or anything because I know what they look like so the passage looks complete to me without description. Usually I will go through a scene after I've written it and identify things that the reader needs to know what they look like and add description through afterwards.

I have that problem too! That's a really good solution to that problem. *makes note*

J R R Tolkien wrote as if he had to get every 'fact', every detail in the most accurate way.

If you read a book like Auralia's Colors, you'll see what I meant by writing description beautifully.

Tolkien, however, is one of those authors that gets hung up on description at times, I believe. I know it is taboo for me to say such a thing, but ya'll know how I feel about Tolkien, so I have no qualms in saying it.

Tolkien, however, is one of those authors that gets hung up on description at times, I believe.

Yes, I think that is true, but I have a very long attention span. Like most any other writer, I think there are things that Tolkien could have done to improve his stories. It's not an insult, its critical evaluation. I have been a reviewer for Into the Book and I write reviews for Film Reviews by People (not to mention the library work I do which requires a sharp, critical eye). In essence, it is my job to filter things through a fine clothe. Tolkien's books are good, his world building unbelievable. However, there are still some things he could have altered.

Nope. Not perfect. Brilliant and genre changing, but not perfect.

Not necessarily detract, since it was always written about something "on topic", if you pardon the HW expression, but rather... Sometimes Tolkien went into detail on things that could have been left out in order to help propel the story line. It’s not that there is anything wrong with the description, but rather, that it would arguably have been wiser to not include certain descriptions to allow the reader to focus on the storyline at hand.