• 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

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...
The depth of field on that picture is all over the place. The anglers face is out of focus but objects further back are fairly sharp. I don t know any aperture setting that would do that.
Bit very feasible lwr Thames could do such a fish.
 
Neil Smart said:
The depth of field on that picture is all over the place. The anglers face is out of focus but objects further back are fairly sharp. I don t know any aperture setting that would do that.
Bit very feasible lwr Thames could do such a fish.
Click to expand...
My son had a VERY large barbel off the Thames a couple of years ago, it was at night, pics were taken and he sent them to the anglers mail,got his cap,some money and ten kilos of tutti frutti boilies lol,there was a small piece of yellow on a step in the background, but everyone seemed to know where it was,swims were rammed for the next few weeks, if that's a pukka capture then im sure that area will be the same 🙄
 
Personally I think it’s just a naff picture, the fish isn’t in focus either. I doesn’t set off my photoshop alarm bells but it also doesn’t provide me with confidence of the claimed weight.

All said and done though, I’m not fussed. If the chap is exaggerating then he’s only fooling himself. If it’s genuine then that’s that isn’t it, I’m not going to get bent out of shape and make accusations on the internet based of a low quality photo of fish that a bloke I’ve never met is holding.

Without playing devils advocate too hard, I wonder if the same level of scrutiny would be applied if the fish had been caught by a “respected angler”…
 
Stephen Crowhurst said:
Personally I think it’s just a naff picture, the fish isn’t in focus either. I doesn’t set off my photoshop alarm bells but it also doesn’t provide me with confidence of the claimed weight.

All said and done though, I’m not fussed. If the chap is exaggerating then he’s only fooling himself. If it’s genuine then that’s that isn’t it, I’m not going to get bent out of shape and make accusations on the internet based of a low quality photo of fish that a bloke I’ve never met is holding.

Without playing devils advocate too hard, I wonder if the same level of scrutiny would be applied if the fish had been caught by a “respected angler”…
Click to expand...
I think the alarm bells might ring when trying to figure out where his left hand is, and how the front of the fish is being supported. Not sure that's down to picture quality.
 
Alex Gowney said:
I think the alarm bells might ring when trying to figure out where his left hand is, and how the front of the fish is being supported. Not sure that's down to picture quality.
Click to expand...
Bang on Alex, where is the left hand holding the fish, it appears as though the front end is livitating, enough said.
 
Tony Koziol said:
Bang on Alex, where is the left hand holding the fish, it appears as though the front end is livitating, enough said.
Click to expand...
Not always a tell tale sign I took this pic for a mate last week by the way this was 11 .8



IMG_3294.jpeg
 
Alex Gowney said:
I think the alarm bells might ring when trying to figure out where his left hand is, and how the front of the fish is being supported. Not sure that's down to picture quality.
Click to expand...
As Jon shows above his arm is there. There is a patch behind the pelvic fin which could be a shaded hand. It doesn’t effect me either way so I’m not going to invest much time thinking about it.
 
There's very little in the pic to suggest it's photoshopped. The blurry upper body and face could just be movement, on a slightly longer exposure, with light fading. The left had not showing is also feasible, as the angler's forearm looks to be pointing towards the fish (sleeve rolled up). Perhaps.
That said, the fish looks far too small. As Adam Wylie wrote, there's no girth.
 
In my un-educated opinion the photo looks OK. Only thing I'd question is where is the guys left hand and what is it doing to support the fish ??

As for the weight of the fish, it doesn't look the stated weight to me, but maybe the guy isn't very big. LOL.
 
Last edited:
Look at the image of the chap holding the current British record[ 21 lb 2 oz] in the BFW gallery, and then compare to the image of the Thames fish which is supposed to be even bigger ,hmm....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top