UKC

We last reviewed the Satori back in 2019, and whilst the model featured here shares the name, and still sits at the top of Boreal's performance climbing collection, it feels like a big step up from its predecessor in every other way.

Read more

Yet again in a UKC review of a product / garment / shoe we get a load of long-shot photos showing its use in an outdoor setting but none - and I mean not a single one - of the shoe in close-up. Why?

Hi Fraser. 'Yet again'? Perhaps it'd be a sinister conspiracy if that were true, but you'll generally find there are close-ups in our reviews. We try to include them where we feel they add value. Once in a while we'll forget. They can be added later if anyone asks - however Rob's on holiday so it won't be today.

In this review the lack of closeups would be just such an omission, except that the accompanying video is full of closeups. You could watch that. 

Thanks Dan, I probably come over as a moaner but I really do expect to see some detailed photos of the product UKC is reviewing. I did a search of some recent reviews and got the following:

1) https://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/climbing/helmets/black_diamond_vapor+capita...

No close-up photos.

2) https://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/clothing/down_insulation/montane_mens_resol...

Maybe 50-60% close-ups (the best by some way!)

3) https://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/clothing/legwear/montane_tenacity_pants_-_l...

Maybe 20% close-ups.

4) https://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/clothing/down_insulation/mountain_equipment...

No close-ups.

5) https://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/footwear/running_shoes/boreal_saurus_20-156...

Maybe 25% semi close-ups.

6) https://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/rucksacks/medium/deuter_fox_-_a_proper_trek...

No more than say 15% close-ups.

You get the picture I hope. It seems to happen so frequently that I'm starting to give up reading reviews. We all know what a hill or crag looks like  - nice as they may be, we don't need to see more photos of them - we, the potential buyers of <product X>, are surely more interested in what the product looks like in our hand or on our foot, not what it's like half way up a route from 100m away.

Also, I don't see the 'accompanying video' you refer to anywhere on the review page, is there a link to it somewhere?

Hi Fraser, video is right at the top - image attached.

In the future, feel free to send us constructive feedback on the forums or via email but please don’t jump straight to slightly aggressive messages as a first port of call.

We’re also very aware that close ups are something that a brand offers in almost every case and therefore try to offer something different by showing the product in use, using close ups where necessary to highlight features. Ultimately, the detail is in the write up.

Nick

Interesting, there's nothing showing on my browser at all, not even a link. (latest version of Brave)

My initial post wasn't slightly aggressive at all, it was merely critical.

And you know what they say, a picture paints a thousand words.

Point taken in the case of the helmet review Fraser - which we're aware of and will amend.

Some of your other percentage estimates look very low but it may depend on your definition of 'close'.

I'd ask, how useful are multiple close-up details in every case, anyway? 

The shoe review you've linked starts with a full-on closeup of a pair of shoes, for instance. I'm not sure much would be served by shoving in loads more. Perhaps an unimpeded pic of the tread? But that's really all anyone could possibly wish to add there. Similar could be said for some of the rest. We're not going to chuck loads into every review unless they seem merited.

A pet hate of the review team here are those reviews commonly seen online that seem to largely consist of closeups of a product perhaps newly emerged from its packet, in some uninspiring field or even back garden. However professional the photography (and it's a mixed bag) these can come over as inauthentic, and they look frankly crap.

Reviews are part of our editorial that feature prominently on the homepage and so they have to be attractive, inspiring and real: hence the preference for in-use shots in proper places. 

Thanks Dan, for me I'd like to see ~80% of the photos being close-ups, contextual shots are pretty much irrelevant. Again, just my opinion. 

The UKC reviews that I read (or look at the photos!)  with the most attention are for rucksacks and without trawling through the archives,  a lot of them don't show me as much detail as I'd like or expect. That's when close-ups come into their own. I understand you want to have attractive, in-use photos to draw in the reader, but I do think this sometimes misses the whole raison d'être of providing a review. 

As far as the shoe review goes, particularly for a running shoe, I'd have thought that having a photo showing the full sole was compulsory.

No need to reply further,  this personal rant has taken up too much time already! 😉