[account_inactive]

I meant a review for UKB not for yourselves.  I thought you wanted the book to be reviewed for various publications e.g. Climb etc etc

[Stubbs]

They're both at the above link - you just have to scroll down from the first one.

Would be interesting to read a review from someone who bouldered hard, but wasn't biased towards lakesbloc, as i guess most who have visited the Lakes are (I know it would sway my judgement while writing a review).

[Alan James, Rockfax]

Well it is lower on the same page. If you are still getting the page with a single review then hit 'Refresh' and you will bump the cached page out.

Alan

[Nigel]

Is it just me that finds it a little Utopian to assume that someone offered a free guide for a review to be put on the website of the guide producers would do a completely unbiased job?

Anyone who has tried to review this guide and submitted the line:

The photography itself varies from fantastically inspiring to average

is clearly either midway through a particularly vibrant acid trip or bending the truth. The fact is that every photo is awful bar the Needlesports advert, one of Kate Arnold at Gillercombe, and the Stirrup Stones picture displayed beside the reviews, which are good.

Or indeed the line:

There is quite a bit of info about local developers, little amusing snippets, stories and photos slipped in amongst the topos to give a feel of a local guide

I've got a copy and couldn't find that much?????

[tc]

He obviously missed the "on the way home" shot (at the end, if I remember correctly), too, which  I don't think is actually even in the Lake District. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the path to Thorn Crag?

[Nigel]

You don't need correction, it is the new track beneath the crag boulders at Thorn Crag, an area not covered by the Rockfax. Quite why they didn't use a shot of say Earl Crag, or perhaps Hueco to encourage people to the Lakes I don't know 

My main gripe with this photo would really be the reproduction, which is universally terrible for every action shot in the guide, yet crystal for all the photo topos? 

[irish si]

let be honest.  the guide is a heap of shit.  thrown together in some mismatched rushed way, by people who lets be honest dont really have the slightest notion of bouldering in the area (or bouldering in any area).  the photos are pathetic.  anyone who says otherwise is not a boulderer.

[SA Chris]

I suspect you won't be getting a free copy for that review.

[tc]

Constructive criticism is welcomed and is responded to.

Go ahead, respond

[a dense loner]

good lord people always go on about guide books

[Alan James, Rockfax]

Constructive criticism is welcomed and is responded to.

Go ahead, respond

Which bit of constructive criticism were you looking for a response to?

Alan

[tc]

Which bit of constructive criticism were you looking for a response to?

Alan

You really should get a job in politics, it's the spiritual home of avoidance tactics and smokescreening. In my book, constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others, usually involving both positive and negative comments. A person giving this criticism has to genuinely feel it is important to give it. I hope you will agree that the opinions expressed are, at the very least, genuine -- passionate even.
Particularly sensitive individuals are likely to respond in a defensive or aggressive way to such criticism, however. Unfortunately, couching the constructive criticism in pleasantries to a point where the person does not take it seriously is also unhelpful.
Which leave us with all the comments on both this thread and elsewhere.
Are you really saying that none of them was useful for you? That all are invalid, to be bundled inside your "bullshit conspiracy theory"?
If that is the case, what you are hoping for is not "constructive" but "constricted" criticism and I wish you luck with your deluded expectations of the climbing fraternity, a group of people who in my experience tend to cut right through the bullshit and say precisely what they think.

[Alan James, Rockfax]

Well the best way to respond to criticism is to make a better book next time, which I suspect is what Mick intended in the statement you were quoting. This is what we are always striving to do and all comments received here and elsewhere are useful in this respect.

I don't want to waste time trying to put a general response forward when no-one, especially yourself, has really stated anything apart from that they don't like the action photos, however, if there is a particular issue that vexes you then please feel free to ask and I'll do my best to respond.

Alan

[Nigel]

I don't want to waste time trying to put a general response forward when no-one, especially yourself, has really stated anything apart from that they don't like the action photos

What about a response as to why the photos are, bar the exceptions I already mentioned above plus the fantastic picture of a young (!) Andy Hyslop at Armathwaite in the R+R advert, generally awful?

however, if there is a particular issue that vexes you then please feel free to ask and I'll do my best to respond.

Alright, why is the picture reproduction so bad for the overwhelming majority of the action shots (the Thorn Crag "heading home" shot is a prime example). Especially since its totally perfect for the photo topos?

[Alan James, Rockfax]

What about a response as to why the photos are, bar the exceptions I already mentioned above plus the fantastic picture of a young (!) Andy Hyslop at Armathwaite in the R+R advert, generally awful?

As I am sure you well know, photos are a matter of opinion any trip through the UKC Photo galleries will give you enough evidence of this. For example, you quoted the photo of Kate Arnold at Gillercombe as being a good photo. Ironically that photo was very lucky to get in the guide since we felt that it told us more about Kate and Jim than it did about the bouldering at Gillercombe. It is certainly my least favourite photo in the book. This may also point to a key reason why the photos aren't appealing to some people. Our style favours wider, more expansive shots that give an impression of the environment and the setting of the boulders - isolated bouldering in a magnificent lakes Mountain landscape. The best examples of this would be the dps on page 166 with Esk Buttress in the background, a similarly evocative shot on page 122 of Gillercombe, and the previously mentioned Stirrup Boulders shot. If you don't like those then you obviously have a different opinion of what constitutes a good bouldering photo to us. That doesn't mean you are wrong, nor that we are right, however the generalisation that all the photos are awful is just your opinion and not a fact.
One thing this guide has probably taught us is that we should throw the photos net a bit wider to get a more representative selection, something that was tricky this time since many of the areas are very new and have seen few visitors with cameras.

Alright, why is the picture reproduction so bad for the overwhelming majority of the action shots (the Thorn Crag "heading home" shot is a prime example). Especially since its totally perfect for the photo topos?

Are you sure your copy of the book is okay? If you are talking about the orange cast on the 'heading home' shot then that is because the sun was setting. We had a few problems with blue tint creeping into some of the slide scans caused by an adjustment I made at the printers, and one or two of the slide scans are slightly soft. Apart from that, the reproduction of the action shots is fine and, on my copy, I can see no difference between the action shots and the photo-topos.

Alan

[Greg C]

Alan wrote: however the generalisation that all the photos are awful is just your opinion

Whilst I agree everyone is entitled to there opinions over what is a good or bad image, I must take issue with your point regarding the quality of the action images in the LB Rockfax.

To say Nige is the only person who has brought you to task over the quality of the images in this guide says to me you haven't asked many people. Everybody who I have met around the Lakes over the last couple of months (bar nobody) who has spoken to me about
the guide - a number of whom did like the general layout etc. - has brought up the action imagery as a real letdown...

[Alan James, Rockfax]

To say Nige is the only person who has brought you to task over the quality of the images in this guide says to me you haven't asked many people. Everybody who I have met around the Lakes over the last couple of months (bar nobody) who has spoken to me about
the guide - a number of whom did like the general layout etc. - has brought up the action imagery as a real letdown...

Nowhere have I stated that Nige was "the only person who has brought (us) to task", there are obviously more people on this thread for starters, plus Trevor Suddaby in the Climb review. There are also two reviews on the UKC site, plus one on planetFear, who appreciate the action photos, which doesn't prove anything other than that other opinions exist.

This is becoming a bit of a non-discussion.

[Nigel]

I understand its a matter of opinion but you've got to listen to the masses, or at least the odd guide owner or perhaps Climb reviewer, when the're telling you that the photos are underwhelming. Take the lead in to the guide for example, the first few pages. This is the first bit of the guide people will flick through to get inspired, and its prime advertising space for selling the content with cracking shots. It starts well with the Needlesports advert of the Bowderstone (taken I note by renowned photographer John Houlihan); then the next three full page pictures are of

1) a bored looking Al Hewison posing on a generic St Bees arete (we aren't told what it is - is it a 3* problem? If not, it should be if used on page 2!) of which we can't see a thing, on a fairly dull day. The colours are washed out, Al's face is in the shade, the rock looks dirty - hardly a showpiece. Given the fact that this is only one of 2 full page St Bees shots (4 in total) you have to admit you could have done far better by undoubtably Britain's most photogenic bouldering crag. Example? Here you are (its a fairly old shot and I'm sure you could have had it):

http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.html?id=16979

2) a Rockcity advert. I understand the financial pressure but...aren't they in Hull? Prime advertising space for the best Lakes bouldering has to offer just got sold out to prime advertising space for a climbing wall. In Hull. While we're on it, are you obliged to publish whatever you're advertisers submit without argument? Its dreadful. And if you think *thats* opinion, just flick back to the Needlesports advert.

3) the contents page shot of Andy Hyslop "exploring" at Gillercombe. There are two of the Lakes' finest mountain rock problems up here; Ian's Arete V8 and Awesome Arete V5, both unmissable three star classics. Instead we have one of the authors scrambling up the descent route on an otherwise pretty good boulder (for bouldering!) in Ronhills and *trainers*. I accept you we're going for the more "expansive" shots to give a landscape context, but would it have been too much to ask to have the subject, erm...bouldering? Plus the light is flat despite it clearly being a nice day, I reckon that coming back in the morning when the boulders get the sun would have been better.

I could go on.

All I'm trying to say that you missed an opportunity to showcase Lakes bouldering at its best. How many pictures of 3* problems are there? How many pictures are taken by professional photographers? How many pictures of Andy Hyslop are there? (A lot!) All of the above are things that could be easily rectified.

Oh, the reproduction. In the Thorn Crag shot I don't mean the orange cast, I can tell a sunset at one of my favourite crags! I mean the fact that I can pretty much count the pixels in the bouldering mats, or the central figure's white trousers, with the naked eye. Another example of this pixelisation would be Phil Wake on Rob's Wall on page 4 - look at the climber and his shadow. Given the size of this pic, then even with a bargain basement digi the quality would be better than this if reproduced correctly. If this is just my copy then something very strange is going on, either with the printer when he made mine, or your eyes!

[Alan James, Rockfax]

Ok, well you have made your point, and I can acknowledge that on some of the shots you have a good point. Two of the photos you quote are in fact backdrop photos which are included so that we can't write things over the top of them. We tend to need specifically composed shots to do this, and I don't like to use the best shots for backdrop shots.
I am sure next time we do a Lakes Bouldering guide will have a significantly bigger pool of photos to choose from and I am confident that you won't make the same comments about the new Eastern Grit guidebook.

Regarding adverts: we have to take what we are given and people pay for positions in the guide. We can advise and help but mostly the artwork arrives about 2 days before publication so there is little time to influence the ads. You don't turn down people offering you money to advertise just because they are not in the local area.

Regarding the reproduction: either your eye sight is phenomenal or you really do have a faulty copy. I can find no evidence of this pixelation that you are taking about.

Alan

[tc]

I am sure next time we do a Lakes Bouldering guide...

  God forbid

The Planet Fear review is interesting, particularly in view of the following comment from the reviewer:
"...Though I haven't bouldered in the Lakes..." 

[dave]

I think theres a strong case for rockfax vetting the ads it recives for the guides. For example the otherwise visually-ok northern limestone guide is almost ruined aesthetically by absolute dogshite adverts for: awesome walls (looks like its a picture thats been fading in a sunny shop window for 3 years), Reaching New Heights (washed out and i can just make out the guy on hale bopp (limestone? no, northern? no) if i bend the spine apart), Mountain Fever (soft photo skewed to fit different proportions) and Outside (looks like a 400px by 300px image resampled up, badly). Pretty much makes the rest of the guide look even worse.

[Alan James, Rockfax]

Unfortunately it is not as simple as that. Finances dictate that you can't refuse ads, and deadlines for printing (which many advertisers will push to the limit) mean that you are left with no time to correct problems, especially when the person paying the bill doesn't think that there is a problem. In the case of the Outside ad in Northern Limestone, we even told them twice that there was a big problem with the photo. They said they'd sort it but didn't and we couldn't miss a printing slot because we were waiting for one advert, so we just had to go with it in the end.

Alan

[webbo]

as of yesterday.rockcity don't stock the guide.

[tc]

Sold out already?

[webbo]