• 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...

The Camera never lies. Or does it.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shippo, that second one is obvious enough, but I'm still struggling to see the photoshopping in the first one you posted. Any pointers?
 
Clive Shipman said:
Ive only seen 2 photoshopped pictures that I know of on BFW although there maybe more??
Here's the other: A 17lb Tees fish!!!
Click to expand...

I remember this one from my local river thread. The guy finally admitted he'd guessed the fishes wieght as he had forgotten his scales. I think the common consensus was it was a double figure fish but no where near 17lb.
 
The head on the first picture has a halo effect around it where it has been cropped out like I said a very good one I suspect.
 
"So maybe you'll give me some leeway."

No problem - and although I don't post much I have been around for a while too.

I mentioned "trolling" as you were so unspecific which I think is wrong. If you have a problem with a specific picture - then say so. I only mentioned the point about you going out as it seemed you has thrown a troll-grenade & retired.
 
"The head on the first picture has a halo effect around it where it has been cropped"

Or the fish is a bit wet and shiny?

It's pretty unlikely someone would go to all that trouble - why? I've seen loads of pics of fish that don't look anything like the claimed weight, but they're more likely to be the result of **** scales, weighing procedures (or both), plus an exited angler 'kidding himself'. Nothing sinister.
 
Declan Doherty said:
It's pretty unlikely someone would go to all that trouble - why? I've seen loads of pics of fish that don't look anything like the claimed weight, but they're more likely to be the result of **** scales, weighing procedures (or both), plus an exited angler 'kidding himself'. Nothing sinister.
Click to expand...


I think you've hit the nail fair and square, Declan.

Couple of years ago there was a 'shopped pic of a massive Zander which was doing the rounds, ludicrously big. And I'm sure there've been others.

I think Graham's point of "if your instincts set your alarm bells ringing" when you see a pic with a claimed weight which definitely seems a "wrong 'un" is a wrong 'un, generally holds true.

Although fish lengths and depths can vary among species, when they get into the Specimen category, you can tell when a pic and a caption is throwing a curved ball at you.

Usually it's down to what you've pinpointed; innacurate scales multiplied by poor weighing procedure, plus lack of obvious witness(es) and dodgy photos.

I know of one claimed record which was "set up" by the captor and his two mates as witnesses. The (known and named) fish having been caught by someone else a couple of weeks earlier, at a far lesser weight and weighed and witnessed properly. The papers and the Records Committee bought that one.

Also another near record that was not fairly caught but netted out in the margin with a landing net.

Sad, but true.

The frustration is wanting to challenge someone in public, but not being able to get the answer you believe to be the truth if they stand their ground on what they claim.

You "know" it's wrong, but how can you prove it?
 
Obviously there are cases of an experienced angler, or 'name', who should know better, trying to hoodwink Joe Public for their own reasons... Far more likely IMO (who was the bloke with the French Carp he said came from the Severn?).

At the end of the day, there're going to be people who 'smash' a river record or catch a monster specimen in unlikely circumstances. They've got to live with themselves..

Heard a funny story a while ago, about a guy who caught a decent Perch, then took a few pictures of the fish with him wearing different tee shirts and claimed he'd had a good season on various rivers!

But people regularly 'photoshopping' fish (and not just for a laugh) - unilikely..
 
Declan Doherty said:
But people regularly 'photoshopping' fish (and not just for a laugh) - unilikely..
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree. If someone is sad enough to lie in the first place for whatever reason, why wouldn't they go that step further and start doctoring photos?

I'm fairly good with photoshop (and for other reasons that doctoring fishing shots before someone says it :D ) and once you know what you're doing, it's surprisingly easy.
 
"I'm fairly good with photoshop (and for other reasons that doctoring fishing shots before someone says it ) and once you know what you're doing, it's surprisingly easy. "

Nice one Stu - I fancy a 26lb'er off the Ivel - if I mail you a pic can you sort me out?

:)
 
The Chairman on Friday


Just wish some of the chaps had had Photoshop at Eton, with its time-honoured "You show me yours and I'll show you mine" rituals, back in '35. Saved any amount of life-changing fuss and trouble.


As ever,

B.B.
 
I must admit to a bit of photo shopping on a website for a laugh.
Here's a one of my favorites my brother.:D
xxx.jpg
 
Very good Shippo, you clearly have photoshopping talent. However, I can clearly tell that the net was never in the original photo! :D :D
 
Have a look at the gallery 'All Rivers' first page and peruse the images. On one of these the forearm looks to be at an impossible angle to produce the grip on the front of the fish (which is barely visible). The width of the grip at the rear of the fish also looks rather stretched. But it could be just an illusion and a genuine capture, so apologies in advance to the captor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top