• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

Thames Barbel

363763888_10160785018385883_208426658326998779_n.jpg
 
Saw this elsewhere, seems like it was on a boat, and caught when carp fishing.

If I am right, I don’t think measuring a fish on the boat can give you accurate result, especially we are talking ounces here.
 
🤣 that’s a terrible attempt at photoshopping a barbel onto a fella.
The front end of it is floating in mid air.

So the only thing to remotely scale that fish to is someone’s hand supporting the back end and my guess would be 13-14lb tops based on the size of the fish relative to an average blokes fingers.

Nothing else to go on. The whole photo is just BS
 
Richard Isaacs said:
🤣 that’s a terrible attempt at photoshopping a barbel onto a fella.
The front end of it is floating in mid air.

So the only thing to remotely scale that fish to is someone’s hand supporting the back end and my guess would be 13-14lb tops based on the size of the fish relative to an average blokes fingers.

Nothing else to go on. The whole photo is just BS
Click to expand...
All will be revealed next week no doubt when it’s from cover of the angling rags ..
 
Can’t see the point of overstating the weight of a barbel ???
I believe a record has to be witnessed by at least one other angler ?
I am no expert on photography ,but the photo looks very odd.
Hope the angling mags will be able to Authenticate this claim one way or the other.
I would have thought a Barbel of 22lb would have much more Girth than the one shown.
 
I couldn't say if this was a photoshop or not.

But first thoughts were that it does not look much bigger than 14-15lb. Where is it being claimed as 22lb?
 
Russ Fowlkes said:
There'll be a lot of anglers on this site who haven't caught a fish that big even at 12-14 lbs. Cant he be just grateful to have caught it!?

The other give away that it's possibly photo-shopped is the angler and background are just slightly out of focus, but the fish is crystal clear .... nigh on impossible to achieve in a single photo??
Click to expand...
Actually, it is possible to have that shallow a depth of field, depending on the lens and the aperture setting used but there’s a lot else that just looks wrong about that picture. It does make me wonder why you’d even bother, and who they think will be fooled here
 
Richard Gardiner-Smith said:
Actually, it is possible to have that shallow a depth of field, depending on the lens and the aperture setting used but there’s a lot else that just looks wrong about that picture. It does make me wonder why you’d even bother, and who they think will be fooled here
Click to expand...
It don't look like the photo that comes out of an expensive low aperture lens
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top