|
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | This has come up before, but I think it’s a good winter topic.
How much does camera angle play in how big a fish looks in pictures. I was again reminded of this as I looked through some old posts .
The following are pictures of the same fish, a 49X23 inch hawg Jeremy of Team Rumbleknott got this fall.
What’s amazing is look how giant the fish look in the first picture.
It’s big in the second picture, but with the way people are scrutinizing every picture down to the nearest half inch. I bet some would argue that if only picture two was available that the fish didn’t go 49 inchs. I 100% believe it did, I am just trying to point out that when looking at pictures of fish people need to be MUCH more understanding of camera angle and how it effect the way the fish looks in 2 dimensions.
The reason I bring this up because even very experienced musky fishermen sometimes get caught in the trap of making assumptions about a fish just based on a couple pics. When Oneida Esox got is personnel best with me up at Walsh’s in 2005, the first pics we had where not the most flattering. The fish looked much skinnier than it did in person, John showed those pics to a very seasoned musky guy who has looked at 1000s of musky photos, the comment was nice fish but a little skinny. A couple of weeks later John took some more pics from the other camera and pics I captured from the video and the same guy said, WOW!! When did you catch that monster? That’s a nice thick fish! The guy had to be shown the original pictures before he believed it was the same fish.
Point being, keep an open mind when looking at pictures, because they can be deceiving.
Just something to think about during the off season, think about how you are going to frame that monster next season so it can “be all it can be” in the picture hanging above the mantel.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 1/4/2007 10:32 AM
Attachments
----------------
 Closeup.JPG (90KB - 81 downloads)
fullshot.JPG (184KB - 88 downloads)
| |
| | |
Location: Contrarian Island | good points Mike...I think camera angle, fish angle, lighting, and even how far away the camera is from the fish all play a role in how accurate or "flattering" a fish looks. I've looked at some of my fish over the years and thought they could have looked better in the pic, and some that looked great...taking a good pic of the fish comes from lots of experience taking good and bad ones to get a good hold down and the camera angles that work and don't work...
One thing of note though, is if you are going to even put a size down where the public can view it, and you don't want to be scrutinized, then don't put the size, just simply put "Nice fish"...instead of a "48" Eagle Lake Fish".
I agree that some fish pics do not do the fish justice...that's just the way it it...but if you are honest and accurate in your measurements who cares what others think really??? I know I'm dead nuts on and can take all the scrutinizing the public has to dish out...if you aren't honest and accurate be ready to take some heat...
Edited by MSKY HNR 1/4/2007 10:57 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 136
| I think it makes a huge difference. Especially when people hold the fish out from their body. People can lie all they want but they know the truth. Who cares unless there is money on the line | |
| | |
Posts: 8795
| If you have an object in the same plane as the fish, and you know the size of that object, you can actually get very close to an exact measurement from a picture.
In the second photo, for example, if you knew the length of Jeremy's middle finger from the knuckle to the tip, the photo could be scaled to match that length, and then you could easily measure the true length of the fish.
I think what you are asking is can you look at a picture and tell how big the fish is?
There are clues that give you an idea:
How much does the tail flop over past the hand supporting the fish?
How much does the gut hang down between that hand and the head?
But when you don't know whether the guy holding the fish is 6'3" and 250#or 5'3" and 130#, it's hard to get perspective.
I have a picture of a buddy of mine I like to use as an example. The first time you look at the picture the fish looks pretty big. If you look closely, though he's holding the fish way out in front of him, with his hands close together, trying to make the fish (which was all of about 35") look bigger than it was.
The dead giveaway is when you look at the shadows, and the size of his hands in the picture to the size of his body in the picture (he's a big guy) It looks like he's got hands the size of baseball gloves. Once you notice that, it becomes obvious that he's got his arms straight out in front of him, and the fish is darn near 3 feet closer to the camera than he is.
What's the point of saying it was 48 if it was 45??? You know you're full of ___ I know you're full of ___, the picture you took trying to make the fish look bigger proves you're full of ___, because why else would you do that?
It's like lying to your girlfriend about the size of your ____...
Edited by esoxaddict 1/4/2007 11:06 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32901
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I have learned a ton over the last few years as a result of shooting thousands of pictures at PWT, FLW, and other Pro Walleye events. The camera, lens, and settings are everything up to the point where perspective and creativity come in to play.
Taking a shot of a big fish isn't just pointing the camera. One needs to determine what is desired in the picture, and what needs to be featured for that effect. The first picture of here is a great example of framing the angler and fish tight and with the angler centered, light from the right, angler looking away form the lens into the light. That's a creative shot, telling the complete story about how happy the angler is about that fish, and showing the fish tucked in close and from slightly below center vantage point. That is a GREAT shot, creative and descriptive, and it shows how undeniably big the fish is.
The second shot is from above center, shooting slightly downward. The photo perfectly frames the angler and the fish dead center, backing off from the subject quite a bit when compared to photo one. This one indicates how the fish compares to the angler and the background. Light is from the right, angler looking toward the camera, so there are a few shadows to left, but the shot overall is very good. One needs to know the angler and the boat to put the size of the fish into perspective. I know both, and can see this is unquestionably a 50" class fish.
I like photo one better because it's different, perfectly lit, and cool looking.
It takes only seconds to get the boat and photographer into position to get good shots, and that can be done while the fish is still in the net. Since your fish most times will be released, a really good picture is your memory saved for the future.
As far as telling exactly how big a fish is from a picture, it's pretty tough.
| |
| | |
| It’s big in the second picture, but with the way people are scrutinizing every picture down to the nearest half inch. I bet some would argue that if only picture two was available that the fish didn’t go 49 inchs. I 100% believe it did
you make a great point about pictures - especially camera angle.
here's an interesting comparison...this Joel Michel 49x23 fish looks much bigger than the Jeremy's.
i had the opportunity to measure and photograph both fish. (Jeremy's 49x23 is accurate - i did it.)
they're the same size, but the Michel fish looks much bigger due to the lower camera angle.
girth-wise they were the same at the widest point, but Joel's fish maintained the girth thoughout more of it's length whereas Jeremy's fish had a bloated belly. this also makes for different appearances.
(06-04-08 Joel Michel 49-5.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
06-04-08 Joel Michel 49-5.jpg (108KB - 80 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | From looking at the pictures of those two fish, one can't help but draw the conclusion that tall skinny guys are good at catching 49" fish. It's science.
Kevin
Yeehah. Let's round up some muskies. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I agree Steve, I think photo one is one of the best musky shots I have ever seen. Good Job Lambeau! My goal next year is to get more shots like that, I think they tell a better story.
Nail A Pig!
Mike | |
| | |
Posts: 32901
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lambeau,
Joel's fish has the tail forward to left, too. That changes the perspective quite a bit. All three are great shots, you could hire yourself out as big fish photographer, sir! | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | That Mike Winter guy is a pretty good photographer. MI loves using his stuff.  | |
| | |
Posts: 938
Location: NeverNever Lake | I stopped trying to figure out the size of a fish by looking at the holder! Take a bunch of known sized fish and photoshop them out of a picture and paste them all on a big sheet. You can start seeing consistency's in length/girth.. I think it's actually easier to be objective by comparing the fish to the fish itself.
There was a guide on another board not long ago who posted a pic of a fish that was clearly not of size posted. The fish didn't get any bigger, but the size of the angler kept growing and growing! Finally, after taking a beaten, guide fessed up and said, he didn't measure it, his client did. All and all it damaged his reputation!
Fish storys have always been a part of fishing, but have never been as widescale as in todays forums... It's getting harder and harder to fool some of the people all of the time though......
BTW, Those are great pics above!
Edited by RAZE1 1/4/2007 1:01 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1083
| RE: Can true Size really be determined from a PHOTO?
My answer to that question is simply: no. Not possible.
Why?
Unless you're able to do the impossible and that is to make every single variable in every single photo of every single fish the exact same (constant), there is no way to tell.
You'd have to make everything constant:
- Lighting from same angle
- Same amount of lighting
- Same weather conditions
- Same lighting conditions
- Exact same camera with exact same lens every single time (all cameras are different with different settings and different sizes/styles lenses)
- Have the person be the exact same size in every photo with the exact same consistent pose/position
- Have the photographer be the exact distance every single time from the person and fish and make sure that photographer is photographing from the same angle (all which has been described above)
- Have that digital camera set on the same exact pixle setting every time or the 35mm camera having the same type/speed of film each time (different speeds of film contain different size grains of emulsion to expose amounts of light differently, etc)
- Photos then must be cropped the exact same every time and posted at the same size, etc, etc.
- and most of all, there must be a known, constant type/size of measuring tool placed in each photo all the time.
*** the only thing that could be different in all musky photos to accurately try and tell a fish's size, is the musky itself...and it had better be in the same position every single time and not even so much as that body or tail curling towards or away from the camera which can hugely impact the "look" of the size of the fish ***
So...obviously..that's not going to happen and is completely unrealistic.
In the car world, when on forums talking with car guys that think they know everything about everything and their word is gospel...we coin them to be known as "bench racers."
Same thing here. I guess we could call those who scrutinize photos on muskie forums, "bench anglers."
People all the time on these boards think they know everything only by comparing it to other samples of photos or experiences when 99.99999% of the time...it's apples to oranges.
Bottom line is: A nice fish is a nice fish. Regardless of size, shape, color or state or lake it was caught from or the situation it was caught in. Why people are so quick to judge others when they weren't there themselves to witness the catch/fish and know the exact situation is beyond me?
Carry on....
Edited by MACK 1/4/2007 2:53 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 556
| What about the size of the person in the photo do you think that makes any difference? | |
| | |
Posts: 8795
| I think it does, Guts. Look at Muskyboy's pictures
| |
| | |
Location: Minnesota | i agree with MACK, no you cant tell from a photo,
look at this pic, and how this guys left hand looks the same size as his head, for sure a huge fish and a nice fish at that
but tell just how big they are from a pic? nope.
(20061203ho_muskie_450.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
20061203ho_muskie_450.jpg (43KB - 80 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 1060
Location: Medford, WI | I always love the comment "oooh that fish isn't that big" or "look at the head on that thing (when the head of the fish is held out two feet in front of the person)". Camera angle, the way in which the fish is held, how bright/dark the pic is...all these have a huge impact on how big or small a fish can look in pictures.
Here are two good examples: #1 is a my personal best. It was just under 51", but me in my "Oh my god, look at that fish" mindset, picked up the fish on the wrong side. This fish wasn't a pig in terms of girth, but for anyone who's caughten a fish over 50" or even an upper 40, and made the mistake of trying to pick the fish up the same way I did can tell you that it is nearly impossible to not lean the fish on your arm and against your body. Another thing is how the tail and half the back end of the fish is completely bent towards the camera taking away much "eye-length" of the fish.
#2 is a fish that measured just over 45" my friend caught this summer. Looking at them side to side it may be hard to convince some people #1 is actually half a foot longer than #2.
Either way, the most important thing is the memory and feeling of accomplishment after catching a big one. Sure wish I could redo the whole photo process of my catch, but I didn't want to risk any more stress on the fish and it released perfect.
Just my input...if anyone cares.
-Jake
Attachments
----------------
JakeLOTW.JPG (33KB - 81 downloads)
Luke 45-3.JPG (60KB - 83 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | No doubt a good topic. Impossible to tell from many pictures how large the fish is. Lots of our older photos showed fish that looked slightly bigger than they were due to holding technique. That said, we have pictures of monsters that don't look that large in one pic, but looks to be any stated length in the next. Sometimes the biggest fish appear a bit smaller than some that were a few lbs lighter as many tend to need to hold the heavier fish in closer, or use our body to help support them. Distance relationship of fish to angler, angle of fish held, and distance of camera to fish are everything. A very long fish held horizontally requires the camera person to be a step or two further back than with a smaller one. I like to make sure my partner fills the viewfinder with the fish. If the person looks to have a little pinhead and you can see their whole body but the fish stretches from edge to edge on the photo, it is probably a bigger fish than a similar pic of the same guy, where you can count the zits on his face.
I prefer a good horizontal shot, with the fish fairly close to the body, and fingers not hidden completely under the fish. That way a guy can get a sense for the size relationship of hand/body to fish even if you don't know how big the dude is. I love looking at all Musky photos, but have learned that one really shouldn't scrutinize them too much. There is a post over on MH right now where some have scrutinized a pic of a very big Alleghany river fish. It looks to be all of the size stated to me, and impossible, from the photo, to really tell any different. Besides, why worry about it?
Edited by Reef Hawg 1/4/2007 7:47 PM
| |
| | |
| Answer: No. | |
| | |
| I agree with the above | |
| | |
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | I too am starting to like the "other" type photos. I use the standard hold for most of my pictures because it just feels natural. But starting to like more of the action shots.
This probably is one of my favorites from this past year just because its different.....
Cory
(51 and half lift out of net_edited.JPG)
Attachments
----------------
51 and half lift out of net_edited.JPG (231KB - 88 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 229
Location: Plover, WI | Look for yourself. This is the same fish, just two different people holding it in two different posses. Same camera, same lighting.
Mike
Attachments
----------------
photo1.JPEG (11KB - 152 downloads)
photo2.JPEG (14KB - 134 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 32901
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I like shots that are impromptu the best, just because they are usually interesting. Mr. Painter's shot is a good example. Of course, I like the CPR standard shots as well.
Attachments
----------------
IMAG0004.JPG (82KB - 88 downloads)
| |
| |
|
