|
|
Posts: 123
| This has been done here before and was brought up in another thread. Hope nobody minds doing it again.
How long would you guess this fish is? A hint: I'm 5 foot 10 and around 220lbs.
Might be interesting. Thanks.
Attachments
----------------
 MuskieFirstGuess.JPG (82KB - 118 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 463
Location: Sw Pennsylvania | 52.5" |
|
| |
|
| i'll go with 52 3/4 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 79
| Can I guess???? ha ha.
Nice pic. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Oh Boy, Here we go! 49.5..........Let the fun begin.
Nice Pic.
Jerome
Edited by Top H2O 8/3/2009 9:57 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Who cares ! Nice looking solid fish no matter the length |
|
| |
|
Location: Twin Cities | 45-46. |
|
| |
|
| Yep I agree, 42-45, especially with the size he quotes himself at... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 909
| 46 even! 
Brian |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2687
Location: Hayward, WI | Don't be offended if my guess is WAY short. I'm going to call it 45 inches. It looks a lot bigger, but it looks like the camera may have been close, and your right arm looks extended quite a bit. Then again the base of the tail looks pretty thick...
I can tell I'm no photo analyist, lol.
curleytail |
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
Location: Duluth, MN | Holding it pretty far away from your body and close to the camera....i'll say 45". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | 5'10" ... you could easily put 235 on that kinda frame ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 283
| My guess 45 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 731
Location: martinsburg wv | my guess 48" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1530
| nice fish period |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| Thanks for all the guesses. A little trick I learned to make your fish appear much larger than they are is to try to diminish yourself while having the fish fill the frame. As some of you know, extending the fish instead of holding it close to your body can do wonders. I caught this fish a couple weeks ago on LOTW, and it was 45 inches as some of you had guessed. It actually looks bigger than the 47 and 49 inch fish I caught that week because of me kneeling down and holding the fish this way. That's why it is so hard to tell size from a photo. A few people thought this fish in this photo above was 54-55 inches. I wish. My brother caught a 43 inch fish that looks much larger than this fish because of the way the photo was done. It can make a big difference. Thanks again to all who took the time to guess, I always love posts like this on here. Good fishing.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | I'd say somewhere around 49. Nice fish buddy! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 550
Location: So. Illinois | 46.75 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 199
Location: Nebraska | Just read the thread so not guessing but, what is it about the photo that is just different to me? It doesn't look like a regular photo, but like it is enhanced color-wise. Did you run it through photoshop or paint and tweak it up? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN | I with ya sled, on the 235, but there is no way that is 5'10". I am guessing 43-45", this just goes back on that play that you can tell the size of a fish by photo. You cannot, there is so much to play on with lens and angles. All I know is I want to get in a waldera boat, they simply catch fish.
Troyz |
|
| |
|
Posts: 229
| My guess is 44 inches.
John |
|
| |
|
| this is a timely thread, thanks for posting Derrys.
i've been playing around with different camera lenses, subject distances, and poses to find what ones i like best...not necessarily to make the fish look bigger, but rather to find what ones make it look better. your point about filling the shot with the fish is a good one for creating quality pictures.
Richard Collin did something similar a few years back, demonstrating very dramatically how different holds impact the apparent fish size in pictures. i'll try and post some of my experiments on different angles and poses for interest (not size) here in the next few days.
i'm also interested in what effect you used to get that grainy canvas effect, i've seen you use it a few times and i think it would be a good one for pictures you want to print out and frame. i've been looking at various photo creating/editing programs and am thinking about buying something...any suggestions?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2687
Location: Hayward, WI | I have a picture of my holding a 40 incher on the fridge. First musky I caught while trying to fish for them. Everyone that looks at it thinks it's 45 incher or bigger. Wasn't trying to make it look big either. Must have just been one of those right angle, distance, pose shots that really enhanced the fish.
By the way, I know an easy way to get the grainy picture look...just buy a cheap camera like mine, lol.
curleytail |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | 44" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 27
| I thought it was a painting not a photograph...nice fish none the less. I will be on LOTW in 10 days. Can't wait. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| Thanks guys. It was early in the morning and I forgot to have my brother flip the flash up. I had to run the photo through an editing program to get it light enough. I use Adobe Photoshop Elements 5.0, and the program I use to get the photos this particular look is called LucisArts. It's a plug-in program that works with my Adobe program and it costs around $160.00. I use a Nikon D50 DSLR and normally use a 50mm f/1.4 lens quite a bit. That lens doesn't work very well for fish pictures because it's not wide enough. For this shot I used a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens.
As I mentioned earlier, the fish was a nice 45 incher, so you don't need to guess anymore.
Some people don't care much for photoshop effects, but they do allow you to do some neat stuff occasionally. Below is a photo I took a few weeks ago that I used the LucisArts program on. I have a 20x30 print of this shot hanging in my living room now. 
Attachments
----------------
superbeeformf.JPG (119KB - 108 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 569
| I was going to guess 47 MD |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | I was thinking 47 too. Unless he has a massive right hand. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 232
Location: Sun Prairie, WI | Looks like the fish was photo shopped over another one?? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| Looks kind of like it, but that is just from the editing program used to lighten and sharpen the picture. I don't have the skills needed to do that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| Lens Creep-
If you shift your hand ahead a tad to put it behind the fin facing the camera, roll the top (back) of the fish slightly toward the camera....you'll hide the only reference point in the frame: yer fingets.
Gotta hide the hands. They say you can't hide big, but showing fingers still kills ya, even on a super fish.
-Eric |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | One way to help guess the length of a fish is to judge the tail flop. It usually takes a Muskie at least 47 inches long to get much of a tail flop if held in a horizontal manner the way that fish was. Fish in the under 45 inch class simply do not have much of a tail flop when held near the rear lower fin. And fish under 42 inches usually have almost no tail flop.
One other way to judge a fish's overall size (length and weight) is by how the fish is actually held. With the exception of very strong people, it is very difficult to hold a fish greater than 35 lbs out from ones body. It is almost impossible to hold a +40 lb fish out from one's body for anyone and fish in the +45 lb class can be difficult to hold without either supporting ones arm on your knee or cradling the fish with one's arm. Its just physics. Holding a big fish is not as easy as it looks.
So, if you see a picture of someone who claims they caught a +50 inch Muskie and the fish has no tail flop and they are holding it out from their body, then they may be stretching the truth at least a little.
Nice fish though and certainly worthy of a picture.
Fun topic! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 232
Location: Sun Prairie, WI | Just looks like it due to the black space under the jaw and above your left hand.
Still a very nice fish, congrats.
Edited by ESOXER 8/6/2009 8:26 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 484
Location: St. Louis, MO., Marco Is., FL, Nestor Falls, ON | My guess is 5'9" and 227 lbs. Am I close????? LOL |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1504
Location: Oregon | 48 |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | “Gotta hide the hands. They say you can't hide big, but showing fingers still kills ya, even on a super fish.”
I kind of disagree with this unless you are trying to make the fish appear bigger than it really is. Personally, I prefer to see fingers, hands, etc. in the frame for perspective.
“One way to help guess the length of a fish is to judge the tail flop. It usually takes a Muskie at least 47 inches long to get much of a tail flop if held in a horizontal manner the way that fish was. Fish in the under 45 inch class simply do not have much of a tail flop when held near the rear lower fin. And fish under 42 inches usually have almost no tail flop.”
I use this method myself and I can definitely see a difference between a 55+” and a low 50” tail flop as well. The difference between Slims 56" and 49.5 on the "56" thread would be unmistakable no matter how far out the fish was held.
Edited by Jerry Newman 8/8/2009 11:23 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 10
| 42in |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1
| Hey lens creep, how does that tamaron perform with fish shots? Been trying to find a nice enough lens to do some good solo pictures. I normally use a 50mm which i have to lean a certain way to get the in picture, use it mainly because I like the bokeh better. been pondering a wider angle lens.
Edited by weaksauce 8/7/2009 10:48 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lens Creep,
You gotta look into the D5000. I'm using the Nikkor 18 to 200 VR lens for most of the production work I do, and love the camera. It's a D90 on a slightly smaller/lighter frame (slightly diminished burst speed), and it shoots beautiful HD video at a second's notice, then back to stills in a second or less. With the lens options you have, you'd shoot some pretty cool video.
Adobe Photoshop Elements 6.0 is the program I use the most for editing images. Video is Final Cut Pro on the Mac and Adobe Premier Elements 4 on PC. Fun stuff for a hack like me! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| Thanks Steve, I may have to look into that. I'm hoping to get another year out of my current camera.
Weaksauce, the Tamron 17-50mm is highly recommended, and I did a lot of research before making the purchase. Go to B&H Photo on the internet and you can read some reviews. I used to use the 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4 but you need to stand so far back to get the entire fish in the frame. I bought a 28mm f/2.8 to account for that, but ended up with a bad copy of the lens so I got rid of it. Ideally, a 15-500mm f/2.8 priced around $400.00 would cover about everything, but it doesn't exist. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| Steve, I just looked at the specs and I see that like the D40 and D60, the D5000 doesn't have an autofocus motor built into the camera body. That means that the 2 lenses I use most of the time won't autofocus with the D5000. Right now I'd have to say the D90 would be the camera I'd upgrade to. I'd like the D300 but could never justify spending that kind of money. D5000 seems geared toward more entry level users who don't want to change lenses as often. Probably perfect for that use. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Since I use the VR lenses exclusively, I got the 5000. |
|
| |
|
| 44" |
|
| |
