|
|
Posts: 100
| How long do you think this fish is? Im doing a little research to see how much camera trickery goes into everyones pictures without them even knowing it. ie. fish appearing smaller than they are or larger.
Attachments
----------------
 watermark.jpg (16KB - 60 downloads)
watermark2.jpg (19KB - 56 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Iowa | 46" x 19"...kinda hard to tell but that is my best guess...
Big Perc |
|
| |
|
| 47 x 20 max I would say |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1316
Location: Madison, WI | I like the 47" think it's alittle chunker i'll go x 21"
Nice gallery BTW. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 176
Location: Tomahawk, WI | Look at his hand. than the distance between the pectorial fin and bottom fin compared to his hand. That fish is no longer then 44" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 53
Location: Tomahawk, WI | I'm gonna go with 43" to 44". That second pic does a good job of making it look longer.
Cameron |
|
| |
|
| 45 1/4" x 19 1/8" |
|
| |
|
| 44.5
Girth doesn't matter |
|
| |
|
| 49 28lbs |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2015
| 42" 44 max |
|
| |
|
| 42-43 |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | 43 inches and chunky....no way that fish is even close to being upper 40's.
Pantlegger nailed it. The size or lack of size of a fisherman can give the illision of the fish being larger or smaller....but an upper 40 inch fish has a lot more distance between the fins than this fish has. |
|
| |
|
| love this game -- I say 46 ManitouDan |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1937
Location: Black Creek, WI | Well.... its as big as you say it is.
But if we gotta guess... I'd toss out 43 inches. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1080
| 45 x 22...around 27 lbs...give or take...
Edited by MACK 8/23/2006 3:08 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 654
Location: MPLS, MN | 45 * 20.5 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 699
Location: Hugo, MN | The secod picture makes the fish appear much larger i'd guess between 43-46" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1335
Location: Chicago, Beverly | i'm goin with maybe a 37" or 38" |
|
| |
|
| This is great!! A few more replies and ill give you a few percentages on how much camera trickery actually effects the looks. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1057
Location: Medford, WI | I would have to go with 41" x 21"
-Jake |
|
| |
|
Posts: 661
Location: Roscoe IL | Guessing here but looks like 47"
Nice fish though! |
|
| |
|
| 38 inches |
|
| |
|
Posts: 229
Location: Plover, WI | 44 to 45. I have a similar picture. A 44 that looks like a 47-48"er. |
|
| |
|
| Alright guys, heres a lesson learned for ya. In the picture I am holding a 43.5 inch fish, quite stocky fish though which may have made her look bigger. As you may have noticed in the top picture I am holding the fish horizontally which allows your mind to compare her girth to my height much easier. In the second picture I am holding the fish more vertically making it harder to judge the girth but much easier to see how long she is compared to my height. Not knowing my actual height makes it hard to judge with actual inches, but based on knowledge assumed by previous catches etc. you should have a good general idea of how big a fish is by looking at them. As said before the two hold positions allow you to judge different measurements making it hard to see a fish in its whole. With calculating all SERIOUS results, omitting the two 38" guesses, the fish appeared to be an almost 10% larger than it actually was.
There will be a few more pictures up soon for you guys to judge the size.
Thanks for the help on my research, as I will be looking for more responses in the future! |
|
| |
|
| whats your point? Everyone knows pics can be mis-leading...i mean really??????????????/ |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1430
Location: Eastern Ontario | Just looked at it and automaticly tought 42 then looked at the fingers and say 11 times 4 ( whith of hand ) = 44. |
|
| |
|
| My point was to give someone an actual number on HOW MUCH camera trickery could play a factor and why. I wasnt trying to tell you something you already knew nor was I assuming that no-one knew about camera trickery. I was just giving an example of exactly how much it actually did for a fish. If I offended anyone, it was farthest from my intent on this research. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i'd guess 44" ... by making the judgement on the distance between the lower fins and the bottom tail fin .... |
|
| |
|
| How big is this one?? 
Attachments
----------------
Weston 37 lber.jpg (90KB - 44 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1937
Location: Black Creek, WI | Hey Donnie... I'd guess that Weston's fish was 37 pounds!!! Heh heh... via the file name. 
Yah... you can play games with the camera. I did the same thing last season just to demonstrate it as well..... with an obvious tiny tot too.
(5-7-05 Opening Day Giant.JPG)
Attachments
----------------
5-7-05 ODG2.JPG (31KB - 50 downloads)
5-7-05 Opening Day Giant.JPG (30KB - 47 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| Camera trickery. If it can make a small fish look bigger, it surely can make a big fish look smaller. Right? That's why all my fish look so small! And Louie's, too. Did on prupose, as we are both very humble people.
Look at that size of Jason's hands! Now we all know how his wife picked him out!
Edited by Shep 8/24/2006 7:03 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1937
Location: Black Creek, WI | Shep - 8/24/2006 7:01 AM
Camera trickery. If it can make a small fish look bigger, it surely can make a big fish look smaller. Right?
EXACTLY!!!!!!!
Which is why I find it so amusing when people immediately discredit internet photos. Such a negative attitude sometimes. If someone tries to inflate a fish, who cares??!!! |
|
| |
|
| I meant inches goof...JLong, you'll never cease to amaze me.
Shep....you're exactly right....all of my fish look small too!!
Donnie |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3240
Location: Racine, Wi | Shep, we all know you don't catch big fish. But your SON does. LOL
JLo, I was gonna say the same thing. Good catch. How's this, nobody put the size of the fish in any of the posts you have, and we can all get back to enjoying the beauty of these critters. I don't care how big they are, they all look cool as he!!. (although, catching big fish is fuuuun) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1080
| A LOT of what affects photos of fish....is the camera itself and the lens that that camera is using. Not everyone is using the same camera, with the same size lense, etc. Lighting has a LOT to do with it too. Also distance from the subject matter and the angle to the subject matter. It's all simple, common sense photography basics...
Ever take a picture with a disposable camera? When you're looking through the viewfinder on the camera to take a pic, and you think to yourself that you've got your subject matter framed perfectly in the viewfinder window and then when you get your pics developed and back in your hands, you notice that the photos you were looking so forward to seeing look as if you stood 10-20 more feet away from the subject matter? As if you didn't get close enough. But in your mind you new you were right there.
That's the affects of that camera lense in those cameras. Those type of cameras automatically "push" the subject matter away from the camera by the means of the type/size of the lense that's in those things.
My point is...there'll never be an accurate way of telling a fish's size in any photograph, unless there's an unaltered, legit measuring device within the photo next to the fish.
Look at all the crap the Louis Spray photos have conjured up. This is the same thing.
Musky Trap...regardless of your "trick photography" study and regardless of how big that fish is.....it's still a nice fish. No doubt about it. :thumbsup: |
|
| |
|
Posts: 128
Location: ontario canada - Well Anderson Indiana now | I'm 6'9" 280lbs, every fish I hold looks small regardless of camera angle! |
|
| |
|
| "Look at all the crap the Louis Spray photos have conjured up. This is the same thing."
It's not the same thing at all, not even close!
The Louie fish lenghts were calulated by an expert and then reviewed by another expert that comfirming those fish were short .... way short. Many of the leaders of the musky world (Pearson, Bucher, Maina, Saric and others) voiced their opinion that those fish were short.
Heck, even here in this little guessing forum the lenght of the subject fish was pretty darn close. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2378
| Guest - 8/24/2006 10:28 AM
"Look at all the crap the Louis Spray photos have conjured up. This is the same thing."
It's not the same thing at all, not even close!
The Louie fish lenghts were calulated by an expert and then reviewed by another expert that comfirming those fish were short .... way short. Many of the leaders of the musky world (Pearson, Bucher, Maina, Saric and others) voiced their opinion that those fish were short.
Heck, even here in this little guessing forum the lenght of the subject fish was pretty darn close.
here we go again |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| Like I said. Louie and me, both being extremely humble men, purposely made/make our fish look short using trick photography. Louie was a pioneer in this technology and philosophy. That is a fact the so-called experts fail to take into account when this discussion comes up. It's really quite easy to do.
I will conduct a seminar for a fee. I ain't giving away our secrets for free! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 335
Location: Orland Park | Oops..............trying to post 2 pictures.
How big are these fish? I'm 6-1, about 220 (1st picture)
The guy (Brian) in the other picture is not.
Edited by Commanche Jim 8/24/2006 11:02 AM
Attachments
----------------
jim.JPG (52KB - 77 downloads)
Brian.JPG (75KB - 74 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Same fish.....38-40 in |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2378
| yep, same fish. as for how big...big enough |
|
| |
|
| same fish 39-40.5 inches |
|
| |
|
| but his point is a good one...it looks much bigger in the second picture.
you won't hear me questioning fish sizes in pictures, just way too many variables, and what's the point anyway?
i'm secure enough in my own skin to believe it doesn't diminish my catches is someone else "grows" theirs.
it's hard enough to catch the dang things to worry about if someone else is stretching it by an inch.
stretching it by 20lbs on the other hand...lol.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 335
Location: Orland Park | It's the same fish. 41"..........but it does look bigger in the second picture........at least in my eyes. Plus, Brian is holding the fish out more.
I guess I posted these because it's tough to measure a fish from a picture. Depends on the size of the holder, how far out that person is holding it, etc.
Edited by Commanche Jim 8/24/2006 1:23 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I'm just happy when I can hold one up for a picture! I could care less if someone doesnt believe it is as big as I say it is. Lets all just go back to fishing!
Mike |
|
| |
|
| I agree with Lambeau on this one...who cares how big someone else says their fish is? Yah, it does get a little old when you see pics of some fish you know darn well are not as big as they are reported to be... there are alot of guys that round their fish up...some 1/2 inch, some more..some guys do innacurate in the water measurements and "just get it close" type stuff..some don't measure at all but still say what the fish was ...I have seen pics of late of some fish claimed to be over 50 and I know #*^@ well were not over 49..but whatever, I know I measure mine dead nuts on and don't stretch them...why make a great fish, greater by trying to make it more than it was...??? girths are another thing...I don't girth mine for a few reasons but the main reason is I don't want to girth a fat 22 inch girthed fish to have some goomba come along and say his is 24 when we all know it's 20..it's all a big pisssing contest for the most part..I'm happy with my catches and if there are people who feel the need to inflate their sizes and numbers...well they have to live with themselves..not me...
Pics can be very misleading..we all know this.. now lets get back to real topics shall we...
And Donnie you make all those Eagle heavies look like 50's somehow!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 199
Location: Nebraska | Here's one for ya. How big is it? My wife's biggest to date.
Edited by Stein 8/24/2006 2:02 PM
Attachments
----------------
KarlaMuskie.jpg (69KB - 78 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| Amen, Mike. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 786
Location: Minnesota | 48x22... Nice fish!
James
http://www.gruntmuskielures.com
So how big was it? If you knew. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 786
Location: Minnesota | As for Jim and Brian....
41s and they do look like the same fish.
James
http://www.gruntmuskielures.com
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | OK, here's a couple...how LONG in inches? Neither was held intentionally at any special angle.
Hints: The fish I am holding...the fish's head was even with or a bit past the tip of my left shoulder, 'behind me' if you will. Sue's fish was out in front of her some, so the perspective is totally different.
Attachments
----------------
worrall.jpg (19KB - 81 downloads)
IMAG0050.JPG (84KB - 69 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| That top one looks familiar, Steve!
50" and 41-42"? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 724
Location: Southern W.Va. | 52.5 and 41. I'd be proud to catch either, 3 weeks of 90+ heat, it's killing me.
Mauser |
|
| |
|
Posts: 41
Location: Minneapolis, MN | Since someone posted pictures about the size of the person affecting how big the fish looks...I'm 6'4", 250. I thought this fish was huge but after seeing the pictures when I got home I was a little disappointed. Thankfully the second pic really shows the girth. 48"
Edited by MuskieSlayer 8/27/2006 10:05 PM
Attachments
----------------
CIMG3056.JPG (176KB - 88 downloads)
CIMG3059.JPG (173KB - 71 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 199
Location: Nebraska | Grunt Lures - 8/26/2006 8:20 PM
48x22... Nice fish!
James
http://www.gruntmuskielures.com
Believe it or not, it was only a 42" fish. It sure looked bigger and I questioned my tape reading abilities after I was the pics. She was thrilled with it, though.
Edited by Stein 8/28/2006 7:27 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The fish I posted:
The Goon fish was over 50" according to Jack, my friend who taped her quickly before I tossed her back in the pond. I thought she was a little short, and he dressed me down pretty good for saying that. Doesn't matter a whit, really, but she was a 49.something to a little over 50. Sues fish was 39". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1769
Location: Algonquin, ILL | Not to offend anyone but does size really matter, as far as I am concerned they are ALL NICE FISH and I Congratulate each and evey one of you for a job well done
|
|
| |
|
| Steve, 47" and 41" would be my guess. There is nothing in the picture with you to get a good gauge off of though, finger, lure ect. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1137
Location: Holly, MI | How about this fish??
I'll give you a hint my 7 year old is very big for his age.
He goes 6' 9" and 258lbs. (that is a big fish).
Attachments
----------------
ChaseSki.JPG (68KB - 72 downloads)
|
|
| |
