|
|
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: 32886
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: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Since I use the VR lenses exclusively, I got the 5000. |
|
| |
|
| 44" |
|
| |
