Photos.

rayner · Jan 12, 2016

Why do anglers who have obviously caught a big sometimes very big fish hold their catch with out stretched arms,
Surely if they need the fish nearer the camera a step closer would easily do the job.
Before the knives come out this is a serious question.
When it seems everyone me included as the safety of their catch paramount holding fish at arms length is risking dropping the fish. I would be interested to know if there's a specific reason.
Or is it just to make an obviously big fish appear bigger.

rubio · Jan 12, 2016

Yep, reckon so

john step · Jan 12, 2016

Not at all! They just want their fingers to look bigger

The bad one · Jan 12, 2016

I'm having sausages for tea tonight.

peter crabtree · Jan 12, 2016

I never hold my fish with outstretched arms. I prefer to stuff my jacket with bulky clothing making myself look bigger

mg:

barbelboi · Jan 12, 2016

Yes, it's also easy enough to insert a familiar object into the photo to get a realistic sense of size.............................

peter crabtree · Jan 12, 2016

Guilty as charged.....

rubio · Jan 12, 2016

peter crabtree said:
Guilty as charged.....

Wow, a 4lb roach from the cut!

barbelboi · Jan 12, 2016

Effin' hell Simon, that last time I saw a head that far out of shot in respect of the hands was in the Exorcist.......................

Peter Jacobs · Jan 13, 2016

rayner said:
Or is it just to make an obviously big fish appear bigger.

Well . . . . . . Yes

rayner · Jan 13, 2016

Still no definitive answer for me there. Some lovely humour though.
There has to be some reason because loads of people infact every photo I see of good fish the fish is precariously held at arms reach.

Peter Jacobs · Jan 13, 2016

The simple answers is as I said: to make the fish look bigger.

The technical term is, I believe, perspective distortion where there is a warping or transformation of an object and its surrounding area that differs significantly from what the object would look like with a normal focal lengthhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens, (due to the relative scale of nearby and distant features)
Perspective distortion is determined by the relative distances at which the image is viewed.

Related to this concept is axial magnification, being the perceived depth of objects at a given magnification . . . . . .

Hope this helps . . . . . .

flightliner · Jan 13, 2016

barbelboi said:
Yes, it's also easy enough to insert a familiar object into the photo to get a realistic sense of size.............................

If I'd drunk all them tinnies that pike would have been a fifty at least, double vision has its advantages!.

chub_on_the_block · Jan 13, 2016

Maybe some folks are just shy and like to hide behind their fish as much as possible. I tend to hide behind relatives in family gathering photos. As anglers, some have found new ways. I just find it a difficult thing to do when the fish rarely get much over about 8oz.

rayner · Jan 13, 2016

Peter Jacobs said:
The simple answers is as I said: to make the fish look bigger.

The technical term is, I believe, perspective distortion where there is a warping or transformation of an object and its surrounding area that differs significantly from what the object would look like with a normal focal lengthhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens, (due to the relative scale of nearby and distant features)
Perspective distortion is determined by the relative distances at which the image is viewed.

Related to this concept is axial magnification, being the perceived depth of objects at a given magnification . . . . . .

Hope this helps . . . . . .

Thanks that's a brief but concise answer,
So in translation would it be fair to say the photographer is a little disappointed with their catch, and is trying to make said catch more worthy of the catchers time and effort.
Thanks again Mr Jacobs.

barbelboi · Jan 13, 2016

flightliner said:
If I'd drunk all them tinnies that pike would have been a fifty at least, double vision has its advantages!.

It could start a new national sizing system - i.e. I caught a 7 tin'er today - bet that one won't go 8..................

It'd certainly **** Spiders up though..............

rubio · Jan 14, 2016

I still anticipate fish records may sometime move towards length rather than weight. Would irritate far too many just yet in this country but would get rid of some of these kinds of issues. But who knows? The IAAF and even FIFA have got to do something about corruption in their sport.

Bob Hornegold · Jan 14, 2016

rayner said:
Still no definitive answer for me there. Some lovely humour though.
There has to be some reason because loads of people infact every photo I see of good fish the fish is precariously held at arms reach.

Tosh !!

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

Philip · Jan 14, 2016

I sometimes hold fish away from my body when I take a photgraph as I dont want them to flap all over me and cover me with slime....

chub_on_the_block · Jan 14, 2016

I dont have the muscles to hold a descent fish at arms length anyway - well not without a blurred image.

Photos.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

AKA Simon, 1953 - 2022 (RIP)

Well-known member

AKA Simon, 1953 - 2022 (RIP)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member