Anyone else see that "11-4" in the Lunker Club pics in the back of the Jan/Feb issue of BassMaster? Caught by Mike Carbone, next to the 11-13 that looks like it could eat the 11-4. I wouldn't think twice if he said it was a 5 1/2 lber. And I'm not calling him out on it. There were some threads about pics, how fish look different in some pics, how to hold for a pic etc... back a couple of months ago and all I'm saying is that this sure is a deceiving pic. I wasn't there and didn't see a scale so I cannot say; but Mike must be 7' tall and tip a scale at about 300...

Smokinal, the secrets to taking a good photo of you with your bass includes:

1. Nothing in the background to take away from the photo.

2. If the water is shown have the background bank about shoulder high.

3. Hold the bass out in front of you to make it look larger.

4. Lie about its weight.

 

Simple way to take the photo.

 

P.S.  Make sure your fly is up if it is a full body photo.

I know exactly what you're talking about Smokinal. That guys scale was way off. Looking to get published and he did...

Pages upon pages being discussed on another forum

I saw it to and was wondering...

Bassmaster doesn't validate the photos, they use the anglers input.

Tom

I missed that picture, but the magazine was lying right on my kitchen table.

Either that bass weighs around 5 pounds, or Michael has the largest hands of any man in Massachusetts 

 

Roger

If you read the fine print under the photo it says "Caught on April 1st".

I saw it as well and recognized the same thing.  There will always be mistakes and/or untruths when it comes to the weight of fish.  This isn't the first one I've seen in Bassmaster.  Time to fish is to short to allow something like that to occupy my time when I could be studying, learning, and getting out on the water to increase the number of lunkers I bring in.  Still . . . . that picture could be an embarrassment for him in the future, if not already.  I hope it was a mistake.

My first thought when I saw that was the person that did the layout of that page probably put the photo of the 11-13 right next to the "11-4" on purpose.....

 

Now, if you saw the photos (no weights listed) of the 11-13 and the 17-0 side by side - which would you call the bigger fish?  Hard to tell.

 

Photos capture memories,.........................accurate scales capture the weight...

^ I like that photos capture memories accurate scales capture the weight.

Didn't see the pic that'd be cool if someone could post it here.

But when I catch my double digit that's what I got my gopro for, that and family videos but more so that lol.

Now, if you saw the photos (no weights listed) of the 11-13 and the 17-0 side by side - which would you call the bigger fish?  Hard to tell.

The 11-13 looks quite a bit heavier than the 17-0, hands down in my opinion (both great fish nonetheless.) The 6-2 smallie in the photo to the left looks larger than the 11-4. Who knows?

someone wanna post the pic?

idk look at the eyes. 

idk look at the eyes. 

 

I've seen googly eyes on 6's

 

 

Nice 5

That's too funny, I wondered if I was the only one who noticed that.  It didn't look as big as some of the 6lb smallies.

Id say a solid 8 is a believable weight

You guys must have not seen under his picture it said the man holding the fish is "10 feet 7inches tall and Weighs 425lbs.  LOL!!!!! I knew i had caught a double digit,  d**n Scale.

Hope he speaks up and clarifies the true weight of the fish...

There is no way that fish is anywhere near 11 lbs.  The fish in my avatar was between 5 and 6 and it is bigger than that one.  Seems like 4-5 lbs to me.  The magazine editors need to do better than that.

 

IMO that's a 6lber at best.

It's obvious looking at the body structure that fish is not anywhere near 11lbs, I would say half of that.

In agreement, no way that's any more than 5.5-6 pounds.

 

My avatar fish weighed in at 6.6 pounds, 22 ¼" long.

my guess would have been a SOLID 9 he looks to have the body to show it but that is IMO