'Iffy' photos!

How often these days do we look through the weekly fishing mags only to find rows and rows of photographs of carp with suspect claims to their weights?

I'm not going to mention names nor particular magazines - because, quite frankly, I don't think I need to! Anyone wishing to take the time to compare can see it for them selves. For instance, there could be a deep bellied mirror weighing in at around 28 & 1/2 lb and seemingly genuinely weighing that much. Next to it there is another mirror supposedly weighing in at 27 & 3/4 lb - to me the second fish is no where near the previous one in terms of weight! How can there only be 3/4lb?? Why should this be allowed? Is no-one checking these weights, or are my eyes decieving me? I don't think so!

I can see your point Malcolm. I've got no doubt there are those who try to 'increase' the size of their fish.
On the other hand, photos can be so deceptive. Last summer I caught a 12.12 common from the lower Severn. The way it photographed I've got no doubts I could pass it for a 20. But, I've also got photos of other fish (of a variety of species) that don't look the weight that they actually are.
I'm sure it doesn't happen with the serious angler, but there are those who simply guess the weight of their fish. And when we guess, we tend to go higher rather than lower. Last summer, on opening day on the Teme, I spoke with an angler in the car park, who told me with absolute conviction that he had been catching doubles (barbel) all day long. I honestly don't believe he was telling a deliberate lie, but he believed what he was saying to be the truth.
If, and back to your original point, anglers are telling blatant lies to try to make themselves sound good, in all honesty they're only fooling themselves. And they aren't really doing that !!!

Thanks for the reply Stewart.

I do understand that photographs can sometimes be deceptive, but (imo) this is usually down to the focal lenth of the lens on the camera that was used to take the pic.

Most 'quicky' cameras these days are 35mm cameras and the 'standard' focal length lens for these is around 50mm. Therefore, anything less than 50 produces a 'wide-angle' effect - which in turn has an effect of lenghtening foreground and making nearer objects look bigger! One can usually tell by looking around the main image in the pic to see if there is any unusual distortion, etc.

In the two photos I mentioned this is not so, both appear to have been taken with cameras of similar focal length lenses. I hope that makes sense?

I agree 100% that peeps tend to overexaggerate the weight of their catches, and I'm sure I've done that myself - before I had scales, I now feel if it was worth bragging about to friends then it was worth weighing!

Regarding your last point, yes they are only fooling themselves. But sending the mug shots to mags for the publicity and/or some posible specimin prize or some such - well, I'm afraid it does get my back up.

It does stink when sad people try to pass off fish for somthing they are not. Fortunatly or unfortunatly, if you are the perpetrator of such porkies, you cannot fool all the people all the time. I do agree though, that photo's can be misleading. We only see the fish in a two dimensional aspect, width across the shoulders can make many pounds of a difference. Another factor that is seldom taken into consideration, is the size of the captor. one guy could be built like Arnie and another like Lestor Piggott. Have you never been suprised by the stature of a well known angler, when you have met them face to face?
There is another practice that was braught to my attention, that is far more sinister, than some guy adding on a couple of pounds. A reliable source(cough)! assures me that a couple of well knownish anglers actually carry around a full set of summer/winter clothing. A little bit of swim hopping and a quick change routine, Bingo one fish becomes four. Suddenly that low thirty caught in july that hardly got a mention, is a prize winner in the middle of February, and ooh look, my mate jimmy has caught it as well, it must be down to this super bait we are trying to flog.
Tell you what it brings a whole new angle to the "Do fishmeals work in winter" argument.

The pictures that always get me are of Chub. As we all know, chup are a fairly sleek fish, unlike carp that can come in all shapes and sizes. I have seen pics of 6lb chub that I honestly believe are no more that 4. This seems to happen a lot these days. I noticed that a certain specialist angler is being doubted about his chub catches at the moment. Now, the pics I have seen of his fish have always seemed genuine, but just have a flick through AT or Anglers MAil and you will see what I mean.

It's almost impossible to say 'that fish ain't 30' etc. We've all seen examples which look dodgy but you can't see the girth of the fish etc. A couple of inches across the shoulders can make a few pounds or more on a big fish. Also we assume the captors are all the same build (because you can't tell from a photo). I'm short and I've seen pictures of other anglers on the syndicate with fish and they often look 5+ pounds smaller, when in fact the weights were similar.

The bottom line though is if anglers are lying about their weights they're only kidding themselves. Other anglers that fish the same venue know the truth and just take everything else the lier says with a pinch of salt. Oh and aren't we all a little too obsessed with what a fish weighs ?

Rob.

I agree Rob, the person who lies about the weight of a fish he or she catches is only kidding themselves. But I'm not talking about the odd 5lb or so! I am not going to mention names, venues, publications etc, but to see two photographs side by side, with similar claims to weights of their respective catches, it becomes blatantly obvious that someone may have another reason to show of the fish! The differences I'm talking about, Rob, are at least 10lb to 15lb - it is that obvious! Prizes are often at stake from mags etc, and I find such people sad! I agree also that we are possibly becoming obsessed with the weight of a fish - all I personally aim for is a personal best! I've never caught what could be considered a genuine 'whacker' - but the last people I'd contact if I did, would be a fishing publication just to bull****, and even worse - lie about it!

Agree that anyone upping fish weights deliberately is only kidding themselves....think it was Rob who mentioned "sinister" tricks. Over here there is a good one...how about asking someone if you can "borrow" the fish they have just caught for a few minutes, take some snaps then send it off to a mag in a different country with a claim that you caught it.... Lovely, instant whacker no fuss!

Disgusting, Phillip - yet I'll bet it happens all the time?

Well, not sure about all the time but yes, I have seen it with my own eyes.

There are one or two other rather devious little ploys that I am aware of as well but I dont know if its a good idea to publicise them. Its basically cheating and cheaters have a nasty habit of getting found out.

"The camera never lies!", who say's so?. On page 3 of Angling Times, (February 7th) there's the story of two lads who digitally manipulated a photo to increase the apparent size of a pike. Naughty, maybe, but they said they did it for a bit of fun. I don't have a problem with that. But, in more serious terms as expressed by the official record keepers, this can throw the whole business of keeping records into turmoil. So what did the Angling Times do?. They printed a section on the same page explaining how it was done! As this practise could cause so much bother I think it was irresponsible of them to instruct others on how to do the same.

Yes, but anybody with the software would probably know how to do it anyway.
You'd need a good machine and some pretty good software to do it so nobody could detect it.

Most people these days have seen big Carp and are not often fooled by the holding out at arms length /shot looking up/wide angled lens dodges.Same with most Pike pictures.The one area (I suppose in all fairness because it is so close to me) that really gets my back up is with big Continental Cats.The problem here is people can get away with saying some outrageous fibs about weights purely because most have never seen fish this big.I see plenty of fish claimed at highly exagerated weights and no one quiries them!I would like to think that these are purely down to poor weighing.For those who havn't done it weighing,handling 100lb+ fish is difficult.My mates and I have always been very precise over this and have a lot of specially made and designed gear to help do this.I unfortunately have a feeling that some people simply just take advantage and blatently lie about their catches.Without mentioning names I have helped weigh several fish for well known anglers only to see them reported at much greater weights.A lot (despite it being pointed out to them)"forget" to subtract the sling weight.This in some Cat sling/stretchers can be another 20lb! If ever you were to point this out it would be decried as sour grapes! A lot of the European anglers on the Euro big cat scene openly mock all the false reporting they see from the UK "experts"!It would also suprise you how many of these peoples cat fishing experience is purely limited to going with guides!Makes me laugh when you get back to UK and read their articles on how to do it and what tackle to buy from them! Not read many who write " after setting the hook the guide passed me the rod and wet nursed me untill the fish was landed despite me whinning like a girlie"! Sorry off at a bit of a tangent there!! I suppose the main bone of contention with this deception is that the press allows it to continue and dare I say indirectly encourages it by printing these pictures and publishing the exagerated weights claimed? Never been a great one for putting pictures in the paper myself but openly admit that if other people didn't the mags would be pretty boring. Just wish that the people who do like a bit of publicity (and why not if that is what turns you on?) would be a little more carefull in their weighing and recording.