The bad one
Well-known member
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!
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!