Photos.

[The bad one]

On a serious note and agreeing with PJ, I also think it’s because photos are 2 dimensional and we see in real time in 3D, so the depth of field isn’t shown correctly in a photo. If and when we get to 3D photos those who attempt to deceive will be show up for what they are doing, cheating!
Until that day arrives, one of the clues I use for assessing the real size of a photoed fish is where are the angler’s elbows? Are they tight against the person’s torso? Or are they away from it? If they’re away from it and the folds in the cloths aren’t puckered up on the inside of the elbow then it’s being forced forward. Bob’s chub shot illustrates what I’m describing, from the puckering on Bob’s coat I can tell his arms are close to his body and the photo isn’t being forced. When a photo is taken with the elbows tight to the torso the average person will be holding a fish out naturally between 12 to 14 inches from their body.

One known perspective for showing the true size of a fish is to shoot slightly downward at the fish.
If you’re taking a parallel shot (flat shot) of a fish you’re holding, then what to you, looking down at the fish, looks like you over rotating the fish forward will show the true size and thickness of the fish in a photo.
Failure to do this, give a flat shot, missing the depth of field of the thickness of the fish. Bob’s pike picture again illustrates the point, as it slightly come out as if the fish is being tilted backwards and whilst clearly a big fish the depth of field and thickness to a degree is lost. Sorry Bob, not having a go at you, it just that yours are the only pictures in this thread.

I’d say with didgi cameras these days, there no reason why anyone can’t get a good shot that shows the real size of any fish they catch. That is unless they up to something dodgy!
And all that without getting into using wide angled lenses and the like eh!

 

[binka]

Barring the ridiculous cases you sometimes come across I think there is a case for not having the fish tucked in tight to your body for a photograph for a number of reasons.

Firstly it's the fish that's the subject of the picture so emphasising it by holding it slightly forwards seems fairly logical although this will run the risk of some incorrectly assuming that you are attempting to make the fish look bigger.

Secondly, and in my case, the backdrop of a seventeen stone buffoon wrapped in four layers of clothing which culminate in an XXL upper layer isn't gonna provide the best scale anyway and a 2lb roach is soon going to appear pretty insignificant.

I'm quite happy to position a fish in a forward position where a better picture will be the result but it's certainly not to make it appear bigger, if people want to assume that then it's up to them.

Here's a 3lb barbel...

 

[dann]

I have never done the arm out or holding fish in a certain way, I simply cant be bothered.

The one problem I have with photos is me, I am 6 foot 5, 18 odd stone and have hands like shovels. No matter how I hold a fish, it always looks tiny. So if I want to impress somebody, I get one of the kids to hold the fish, it looks a lot bigger that way and has the added bonus of not having me in the picture

 

[The bad one]

Was 3 lbs the combined weight of the two front paddles of that fish Bink?

 

[binka]

Was 3 lbs the combined weight of the two front paddles of that fish Bink?

She was a real porker Phil, they were like saucers and it's not usually barbel that I use that phrase for

 

[Philip]

My opinion is pretty much the same as Binkas, the fish is the star of the show.

Plus I don’t really have a problem with people picking a photo that emphasizes the size of the fish as long as its within reason…i.e not held out at arms length. If you catch a big fish your proud of then I think its natural you would show a photo that shows it as a big fish. I have photos of fish that although I did not knowingly make any big movements during the “photoshoot” the fish looks allot smaller in some than others. I also personally don’t like photos were the fish is being held against the anglers body…to me it looks like they are hugging it not holding it ...plus the conservation police will probably point to it removing scales/slime etc.
Overall I recon up to about elbow length is about right..I am trying to think how I hold fish (I just posed at my computer like I was holding a fish!)…elbows about at hip level for bigger fish like Carp or Pike. For smaller fish like Roach and dace I think you have to hold them out in front somewhat or they are lost in the overall picture if you want to get the anglers head in the shot as well. Plus as Binka says if you’re a big bloke the fish is going to look smaller than if you a small bloke. I am 6’3 and especially with smaller species I find it difficult to get my hands/fingers out of the way.

Overall It’s about finding a balance I guess…like any photo you want it to look good ! If it was just about showing the fishes true size then you may as well just photo it on a mat next to a tape measure.

 

[rayner]

I have never done the arm out or holding fish in a certain way, I simply cant be bothered.

The one problem I have with photos is me, I am 6 foot 5, 18 odd stone and have hands like shovels. No matter how I hold a fish, it always looks tiny. So if I want to impress somebody, I get one of the kids to hold the fish, it looks a lot bigger that way and has the added bonus of not having me in the picture

6 FOOT 5 AND 18 STONE, what ever you say is right with me

---------- Post added at 08:08 ---------- Previous post was at 08:02 ----------

Barring the ridiculous cases you sometimes come across I think there is a case for not having the fish tucked in tight to your body for a photograph for a number of reasons.

Firstly it's the fish that's the subject of the picture so emphasising it by holding it slightly forwards seems fairly logical although this will run the risk of some incorrectly assuming that you are attempting to make the fish look bigger.

Secondly, and in my case, the backdrop of a seventeen stone buffoon wrapped in four layers of clothing which culminate in an XXL upper layer isn't gonna provide the best scale anyway and a 2lb roach is soon going to appear pretty insignificant.

I'm quite happy to position a fish in a forward position where a better picture will be the result but it's certainly not to make it appear bigger, if people want to assume that then it's up to them.

Here's a 3lb barbel...

Yep that looks a 3lber the pectoral is as big as my hand.

---------- Post added at 08:12 ---------- Previous post was at 08:08 ----------

Tosh !!

View image in gallery

View image in gallery

View image in gallery​

First you have to catch them, then if you want to and they are big enough to photo, why would you want to hold them at arms length ?

But firstly you have to catch them !!

Bob

Good fishes, didn't mean to rile anyone. It was just an harmless question.

 

[rayner]

So in conclusion I reckon there's only one reason to hold big fish at arms length.
This is only my opinion but as I see it it's not to make the fish look bigger.
It is however so the viewer of the photograph has no reference to gauge the weight of the fish.
Photos of fish with references like beer cans look better than fish held at arms length.
I THANK YOU.

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

Why not just take pictures of the fish on a mat, in a landing net, with rod and reel in the shot.



Thats not a reference to this picture.


---------- Post added at 20:06 ---------- Previous post was at 20:03 ----------

Here's a 3lb barbel...

Nice fish Binka,

clearly you didn't get Spiders to weigh it on his scales

 

[binka]

clearly you didn't get Spiders to weigh it on his scales

I reckon it would have gone 39-4 on those Ray

 

[peter crabtree]

"Tell him pike"

 

[rayner]

"Tell him pike"

Sums it up for me say no more.