I wrote one, a long time ago, on Manfrotto and Quantaray tripods, and have been intending to write a few more on specific lenses, and a few other things that are very highly related to photography. Unfortunately, I've been too busy to be able to use my camera at just the right time in the right place for a few weeks, so I need to update my blog, and ideally with something besides old pics.

After a bad experience in fairly rural Oregon four months ago, I got an Arc'teryx parka. Three weeks ago, I was depending on it a mile above sea level, in 20 degree (F) weather and 75 mph winds. I've also worn it hiking up mountain sides with nothing but switchbacks. And been more comfortable in both extremes than I would have thought possible.

The connection to photography is pretty obvious, especially since I mainly do mountain landscapes and night city shots. Other photogs who work outdoors in harsh weather like sharing this type of info and experience. But I don't know how many of my audience is casual and how much is hardcore hikers, backpackers, and wilderness photographers? Without knowing that, it would be hard to predict how this might affect the quality of my blog.

Naturally there would be info and images of the parka itself, but mostly photos I wouldn't have been able to shoot because of exposure. In the Gorge, I had to turn back from the edge of a cliff when the wind was strong and cold enough I started having trouble breathing ... just standing there. But readers in Florida don't care about this stuff unless they go to Alaska in winters.

So, should I sparingly post reviews that are about the process of photography, but probably boring to most readers?

What would your audience say? I know that sounds trite, but it really is the answer to your question. I say float a couple, see how they go. If your audience responds, keep doing them. If not, kill the idea.

It's the only real way to measure the success of a concept that is geared toward the end user and not a "me-generation" concept. Every audience is different, every site is different.

Are you trying to be mistaken for pay per post spam?

Forrest I agree with Adam. Try a few and see how it goes. Let your audience let you know if it's the kind of thing you should continue. I can't see any harm in an honest review.

John why does a review have to be spam? Even if you're getting paid, a review can still be honest and interesting to read. It's easy enough to see through reviewers who are being fair and honest and those just doing it for the money.

I'm with John on this. The second compensation of any kind is introduced into any review, bias generally ensues. It may not always be conscious, but it does exist.

The big problem with the so-called blog review agent sites (let's face it, they're an agent taking a cut, and that's not what I have the problem with) are nothing more than a place for advertisers to encourage bloggers to create original puff pieces. The majority of the "reviews" insist that a positive review be provided, and the so-called reviewer never even has a copy of the product or service to work with a lot of the time!

PPP is also the kind of crap that, the larger it gets, the bigger a footprint the spammers will leave without realizing it. The funny thing about it is that, in large extent, the positive gain has already been countered by Google in its efforts to stop Googlebombing. It's not complete yet, but a bunch of blogs with the same anchor text phrase (or 2-3 phrases) will generally be a good sign of something to diffuse, particularly when the anchor text is a generic phrase.

That's a side point, though. I don't think anyone would accuse Forrest of that sort of BS. I know I wouldn't. He'd be one of the few people in the world I'd trust to actually give an honest review of something.

Adam I can understand how once money enters the picture questions about motivation arise. That's fair. But I don't think it's an automatic.

Like you said we wouldn't see Forrest as posting a review just for the money. I think you have to look at the history of the person behind the review. And again I agree it's fair to ask the question about the motivation.

I'll use myself as an example. I've never been paid for a review, but I have added the occasional affiliate link when mentioning a book I liked. In all cases my recommendation for the book was an honest one. Now that doesn't mean you know it's honest and if you noticed the affiliate link you'd have every right to wonder if the recommendation was honest or if I gave the recommendation only for the possible money.

Let's say you've been reading my blog for awhile and I've earned some trust with you. You click on the link and buy the book. You'll either like it or you won't.

If you like the book then you'd still trust me and maybe even trust me a little more since the first time I led you to spend money it turned out well. You'd possibly even feel I'd earned the small cut Amazon gave me for the sale.

If you didn't like the book then you might trust me a little less. You may feel more justified in you questions about my motivations. You might still trust me. After all maybe we just disagreed about a book, but if you bought another bad one based on my recommendation it would probably be the last and even the one bad recommendation cost me some trust.

Either way I could still be making an honest recommendation and why not add the affiliate link.

Similarly for a review I think you can still review something honestly even if you're getting paid. I agree the payment calls your motives into question, but if you write an honest review I think it still comes across. If you buy something based off a review and it turns out to have been lies then the person doing the review loses a lot more than they gained in the payment.

So sure the money can affect your review, but the better money is ultimately in being honest. I think there are plenty of people reviewing things who understand this and can still write a fair and balanced review.

I think it's possible to review things without it automatically becoming dishonest. I agree with you that it can and does happen. My objection is the assumption that it's the only possibility.

When I read a review I'm certainly evaluating the review and a number of things will go into my assessment. Whether or not money is involved is absolutely one of those things, but it's not the only thing. I'll still consider the history of the person writing the review and the review itself. I might in the end decide the money outweighs the other things, but the other things might outweigh the money too. I don't think it's fair to say that the money always has to be the overriding factor.

Sometimes you never know how wide your topics can spread. For instance, I would be interested in reading a review on Manfrotto tripods being an involved videographer.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

I'm with John on this. The second compensation of any kind is introduced into any review, bias generally ensues. It may not always be conscious, but it does exist. ... That's a side point, though. I don't think anyone would accuse Forrest of that sort of BS. I know I wouldn't. He'd be one of the few people in the world I'd trust to actually give an honest review of something.

It's interesting how the compensation works out. One review I've been working on for a while is for my beloved 135 mm f/2.0 L; a lens I paid $900 for, about two years ago. It was born for portraits, and has paid itself off ... but cost labor to do that. This one is obvious: lenses are like fine wine to SLR photographers.

The other is a parka that cost almost half what the lens did, about four months ago. I had to cut a trip short when the wind was so cold and strong I couldn't breathe, or feel my fingers to use the camera. I took the money I had saved for the trip and bought gear that's kept me warm in worse conditions. It weighs about 17 ounces. It's a little less obvious how this is 'relevant' to 'my niche' ... but landscape photographers tend to spend a lot of time outdoors.

And for the record, Canadians make wonderful parkas.

Originally Posted by vangogh

John why does a review have to be spam? Even if you're getting paid, a review can still be honest and interesting to read.

There is a danger that, as more bloggers are treated to five-course lunches by Prescriptives, the unbiased product reviews they once weren't afraid to publish could disappear.

Already, "people get really scared," Fredrickson said. "I get e-mails all of the time from bloggers saying: 'I tested this product, and I don't like it. What do I do?'"

Some bloggers refuse to bite the hand that gives them perfume. "If I don't like a product, I try to approach it sensitively, since I don't want to defame a company's good name or hurt their business by slandering their product," said Kelly, whose blog gets 3,500 unique visitors daily.

Others simply censor themselves if they find that a face cream makes them break out. "If I hate it, I won't write about it," said Tia Williams, who writes a blog called Shake Your Beauty, which has 2,500 visitors each day.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/featur...,3951899.story

I think things like that are certainly possible. I hope I'm not coming across like I think all reviews are automatically honest and good. I know a lot aren't. I just don't think they're all automatically spam and dishonest either. I prefer to judge them on a case by case basis.

Interesting quote from the article. I'd say if those bloggers stopped giving honest reviews it would quickly become apparent to their readers who'd stop trusting the reviews just as quick and probably stop reading the blog. However if the reviews remained honest regardless of any money involved there wouldn't be a problem.

It sounds like a few of those reviews have already crossed the line into dishonesty ... if they're not willing to write about something they didn't like.

John is right that there's a lot of useless pages on the web calling themselves reviews; I don't think by posting an honest one most people are going to get themselves into trouble, though. For lens reviews, I don't make mtf charts showing resolution at different contrast ratings ... but I go into more detail about the good, bad, and ugly that I'm not worried about people thinking I'm only writing something because I'm being paid.

The bigger worry is a broader audience not wanting to read it. I think I'm going to test the waters, but post something more photographic pretty quickly afterwards.

No question many reviews cross over into dishonesty and there are probably different levels of that dishonesty. Some people might just feel guilty saying something bad if they're getting paid and so hold back some information or emphasize something positive.

Those kind of things happen, though with or without money being involved. Some people are less inclined to be negative and some more inclined. All reviews and all information is biased in some way or another. It's all being filtered through our own worldview.

A republican and a democrat can be handed the same set of data and come to completely different conclusions.

Forrest I think if you continue with the reviews as long as you're as honest as you can be there won't be a problem. Some readers might turn against you just because money was involved, but most won't.

Well, there isn't any money involved ... except what my readers would experience. Lenses are a clear cut example: I paid the sticker price, and in the past I've always gone over my impressions, the situations where it works well and fails miserably, and give some advice about how to decide whether it's worth the price. Until John mentioned that, it didn't even cross my mind.

The only real concern I have is covering things that are somewhat related to photography, but not directly, like outdoor gear. And I think I got pretty good advice - that I need to try it and find out.