Guess the weight and length of two of the bass I caught today. 

Doubt if anybody will be able to or care to. No offense but, those are both the ole Al Linder hold the fish close to the camera type pics. All I am gonna say is they are both nice fish!

[movedhere] General Bass Fishing Forum [move by] five.bass.limit.

1.5 lbs and 4.5lbs

1.5 lbs and 4.5lbs

yeah, I'd agree with that.

Were they taken with a fish eye lens?

Geeze! Tough crowd.

Of COURSE they wern't taken with a fish eye lens.

I'M THE NEW WORLD RECORD HOLDER! tHE FISH IN THE SECOND PICTURE IS 24.11 POUNDS!!!

Can't you see the thing goes from my head past my hips! It's HUGE!

Okay Okay so I'm being sarcastic. But still. TOUGH CROWD!

I'm not posting them to show the bass off like they're close to world records or something. I'm trying to see if you can try to guess the weights and lengths of the bass even though the pictures are taken with a fish eye lens.

I can imagine you sitting there thinking "Who does this bass_akwards guy think he's fooling?" Too funny.

Anyway, there's been discussions on another thread about how good people can be at guessing weights of bass when taken with different lenses. Blah Blah Blah.

If you want to guess, go for it, if not, it won't kill me although it might destoy me emotionally.

For the fish 2lb 1oz and second 3lb 5oz

1.11lb and 4.6lb

Fish #1-1lb 3oz

Fish #2-2lb 9oz

These guess the weight threads are getting stale.......just weigh it yourself, if it's that important.

These guess the weight threads are getting stale.......just weigh it yourself, if it's that important.

Maybe you shouldnt open them then. Just because you dont want to give input on it, that doesnt mean the rest of us dont want to. These threads are kind of like your posts, nobody really cares except the person who wrote it.

Those would be a lot heavier if you caught them in Virginia and had them weighed on "calibrated" scales. 

Both fish are very fat.  On the generous side I will guess 2.2oz. and 4.6oz.

These guess the weight threads are getting stale.......just weigh it yourself, if it's that important.

Maybe you shouldnt open them then. Just because you dont want to give input on it, that doesnt mean the rest of us dont want to. These threads are kind of like your posts, nobody really cares except the person who wrote it.

Seriously.  Get a clue.  I love these mean people who do nothing but cry and moan and try to ruin other peoples good time.  Not to mention, I DID WEIGHT IT MYSELF Mr mean guy.

First fish is 1.14 and 14 inches

Second fish was 4.11 pounds and 17 inches.

The first comment you quoted was referring to a thread in the southeast section titled " Northern Virginia Fishing"

The first comment you quoted was referring to a thread in the southeast section titled " Northern Virginia Fishing"

Thanks Bizz. I just saw that thread. Apologies to Cart7. Not sure now about the second, so I'll go ahead and delete.

Paul, this post had zero to do with being offended. Not sure where you got that from. It never even occured to me to be offended about anything you've ever said. Not sure how you made that correlation. I thought it was an interesting subject we brought up.(the fish/lens/being able to figure out weights from photos with different lenses and distances to the camera thing)

I was simply trying to see how good people were at guessing when an extreme lens is being used. I was next going to make a post with photos of the same bass taken with three different lenses and see if people could guess if it was the same fish or not.

I guess since I've gotten a few negative posts on this thread, I'm done with the whole thing. Sorry to have angered so many people.

Also, trust me. If I have a problem with you or something you said. (and by "you," I mean anyone) You'll know it. I don't beat around the bush or make ambiguous posts to make my points.

Apologies to you too, Todd. Assumptions made I guess, from our exchange on that other thread. Wasn't sure what you were getting at there I guess.

So, by "fisheye", what focal length did you use? I've seen em down to 8mm (!), but not looking at a fish lol.

I like these threads when there is an answer. Keep doing them.

This particular lens Paul, was a 16mm.  That focal length is the shortest lens, in my opinion, that still makes it's point without being over the top when you shoot a landscape photo.  I do like how it can make a 5 pounder look like it's a 20 pounder if you want to have some fun with it.

People really seem to hate it when others use a wide angle lense close to the fish.  Sometimes my friends give me grief about it.  I like it because, YES it distorts the bass making it look bigger, BUT it also gives way better detail of the fish than shooting it with other lenses. 

What bugs me is the lying.  I have no problem with a guy "long arming" the bass into a short focal length lens if said person actually says "This is a 4 pounder!" when in fact, it IS a 4 pounder.  Many people intentionally take fish pictures this way so they can say it was a 5.8 pounder when it was really 4.2.  That ticks me off.

It also drives me insane when people catch a big bass and take the photo so you can't really see the beautiful detail on the fish because it's to far from the camera.  It's great that you can see the fish's size in relation to the person, but you cant see how amazingly gorgeous the bass is and all the details on it's body. 

I'm gunna start taking them where there's a happy medium.

If you dont like the 'guess the weight' threads, stay off of them. It really is that simple.

I tend to take issue with the long arming. I've seen them done well, and realize that this is subjective, and can be a case of "Artistic license". I guess I've grown tired of them. I guess what bugs me, and it comes up with EVERY In-Fisherman mag I get in the mail, is that to sell magazines and lures and rods, .... the fish have to look larger than life. I know I'm not the only one looking, but I'm tired of it. In IF's case is it BS, or advertising hype? They print a LOT of pics of 3 and 4lb northern LMs distorted into... what?? Why??? Then they have LOTS of pics of Erie SMs. Guess I'm just tired of the hype. And it seems that the bar has been raised so that anglers (or is it editors) expect to see distortion.

In my mind, a great shot can be taken without such distortion. See FishChris pics. What I like about his pics is the stunning sharpness and color -not just the size of the bass -which are appropriately displayed I think. He works on that harder than I will.

Fish are gorgeous creatures. Distortions, at least in my mind, are unnecessary, and appear to be trying to say something else altogether.

I guess this has some more history with me too. I once submitted an article to a national fly-fishing magazine about big small-stream brook trout -how to ferret out "big" brookies from your respective watershed. The then editor bought it, saying he loved the tack and the inclusion of non-jet-setting anglers; The "back forty" anglers guide to finding "bigger" brook trout. Then, before it went to print, that editor took another job, and the following editor wouldn't print my article, saying it was a great article but the fish pics were of "small" brookies. (They were 12"ers.) His brook trout issue was full of brook trout from Labrador and lakes (footballs), with one article (by John Gierach) saying basically what I was saying -MOST brookies tend to be small fish, and that angling adventures are relative.

As to bass, I sure don't like to see someone (esp from the north) feeling they have to apologize for their 4 or 5lber, or have to make it look like something else.