MuskieFIRST | Photos's » General Discussion

Muskie Discussion Forums

You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )

Moderators: Slamr	View previous thread :: View next thread
Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Photos's

Message Subject: Photos's

muskyfvr

Posted 10/14/2008 5:17 PM (#340753)
Subject: Photos's

Posts: 223

Location: Minn.

With all the guessing of the fish size from Photo's. It has to be hard to tell in my opinion because of all the variables. How close the fish is, lighting, how the fish is held. I can't see how anyone can accurately guess the correct size. Thoughts? Here are two examples.

Baby Mallard

Posted 10/14/2008 5:23 PM (#340755 - in reply to #340753)
Subject: RE: Photos's

I guess both at 52.

Mauser

Posted 10/15/2008 8:43 AM (#340841 - in reply to #340753)
Subject: Re: Photos's

Posts: 724

Location: Southern W.Va.

May be just me but they look to be about 42", but who cares still good fish in my book.

Mauser

ILmuskie

Posted 10/15/2008 8:55 AM (#340848 - in reply to #340753)
Subject: Re: Photos's

Posts: 371

Location: Dixon, IL

Both are good fish! I can tell its spotted musky. Best way is close up computer and measure guy's finger between jointed is one inch then measure the fish!
I remebered an old In Fisherman stuff did measure world record walleye is not suppose to be 25 lbs!

Guest

Posted 10/15/2008 9:02 AM (#340849 - in reply to #340753)
Subject: RE: Photos's

both seem to be around 48 inches.

agrimm

Posted 10/15/2008 1:26 PM (#340898 - in reply to #340753)
Subject: Re: Photos's

Posts: 427

Location: Wausau

since both pictures are listed one as Darrell's 52 and the other as 52 - I agree Mallard...52
I may be missing the point here...

Edited by agrimm 10/15/2008 1:27 PM

mota

Posted 10/15/2008 1:32 PM (#340899 - in reply to #340898)
Subject: Re: Photos's

agrimm - 10/15/2008 1:26 PM

since both pictures are listed one as Darrell's 52 and the other as 52 - I agree Mallard...52
I may be missing the point here...

lol

esoxaddict

Posted 10/15/2008 1:50 PM (#340903 - in reply to #340753)
Subject: Re: Photos's

Posts: 8857

Looking at the pictures I'd say 47" - 48"

Steve Wright

Posted 10/15/2008 2:44 PM (#340912 - in reply to #340753)
Subject: RE: Photos's

i would say a 46 and a 50? you guys eat them? or mount em? nice ones....

Pointerpride102

Posted 10/15/2008 2:47 PM (#340913 - in reply to #340753)
Subject: Re: Photos's

Posts: 16632

Location: The desert

Is it a tradition to have a post like this every single year? With the exact same responces each time?

Raider150

Posted 10/15/2008 4:26 PM (#340943 - in reply to #340913)
Subject: Re: Photos's

Posts: 434

Location: searchin for 50

Yes grasshopper it is

JRedig

Posted 10/15/2008 4:34 PM (#340944 - in reply to #340753)
Subject: Re: Photos's

Location: Twin Cities

Again, really?

since both pictures are listed one as Darrell's 52 and the other as 52 - I agree Mallard...52
I may be missing the point here...

I LOL'd at the same detail...

muskyfvr

Posted 10/15/2008 7:37 PM (#340957 - in reply to #340753)
Subject: Re: Photos's

Posts: 223

Location: Minn.

I guess I didn't post my question correctly. My purpose was to ask how one can guess how long a fish is in a picture. ILmuskie gave the formula for doing so. Thank you. But looking at the to photo's, to me the second one looks bigger, when in fact the first fish had 3 more inches in girth than the second fish. When I looked closer at the photo"s the markings on the fish are the same . It is the same fish caught four months apart. Taking the LXGXG dividedx 800 the first photo fish is more than 10lbs heaver but does seem to show up in the photo to me. It wasn't my purpose for people to guess the length when you could already see what length they were. Anyway thanks for the post IL muskie

Tackle Industries

Posted 10/15/2008 10:16 PM (#340973 - in reply to #340753)
Subject: Re: Photos's

Posts: 4053

Location: Land of the Musky

Did Darrell trim those wiskers? That man is a big muskie catching machine!

muskyfvr

Posted 10/15/2008 10:36 PM (#340980 - in reply to #340753)
Subject: Re: Photos's

Posts: 223

Location: Minn.

Yes he did. He is 4 fish ahead of me by 182 inches. Ouch His average this year is 46 inches, His best year ever.

lund1675

Posted 10/15/2008 11:46 PM (#340992 - in reply to #340753)
Subject: Re: Photos's

Posts: 38

Heck of an averag, congrats on that.

Jump to page : 1
Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page]

Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread