Gonna be a lot more 17s and 18s that used to be 20s on the forum....

If a catch one that I think is close to 20" - and I'm with someone who can take my picture - I'll hold it up briefly for that.

Taking a picture of a fish in the net is kinda pointless IMO.
Just doesn't show any perspective to the fishes size
 
wbranch said:
I dislike long arming. Any guy who fishes a lot can easily see how distorted the fish looks when a guy's arms are fully extended. I measure any fish I think is 19" or bigger. I don't bother measuring, or photographing, trout that look less than 19". I'd rather under estimate a length than have some keyboard jockey bust my chops about a length. Like this 20" brown.
Click to expand...
Well stated, Matt! A real 20 inch fish is massive. That fish would be 25 on the 'gram.....
 
pretty much only fish pics i have these days are if someone else with me takes a picture and since i usually fish alone...
 
I'll be the odd man out here: I take fish pics (in the net) pretty much every outing. They don't even have to be good fish. And I'll go a step further and say I even enjoy looking through my camera roll of average fish when I'm sitting at the bar having a beer, etc. 🤷‍♂️ Google Photos and its mapping function is pretty much my fishing journal.

I still won't be buying the robot testicle bobber.
 
No perspective in a net huh same net 9 inch fish and his father that’s perspective same day minutes apart
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0121.jpeg
    IMG_0121.jpeg
    587 KB · Views: 17
  • IMG_0116.jpeg
    IMG_0116.jpeg
    511 KB · Views: 17
Cougarbaby said:
No perspective in a net huh same net 9 inch fish and his father that’s perspective same day minutes apart
Click to expand...

The relative difference between those fish is obvious when you see both pics. But with the big fish deep in the net and bent, and the hoop of the net closer to the camera, it doesn't do that fish justice and it could be 20", 22", 24", or whatever.

At the risk of attracting the fish handling nazis, I think that previously the only good way to demonstrate a fishes true length (without a ruler) is laying it in the water at stream edge in the hoop of the net or alongside a rod. If you know the model of reel, rod, or net, you can extrapolate a fairly accurate measurment. Now he orange ball doohicky seems to take this principle and refine it, although now we'll see even dumber looking fish pictures. Fish pushed out to the camera. Orange ball dangling from one hand, rod held I the teeth, etc. etc.

But let's face it, most fish pics are just evidence, not works of art.
 
Right I even marked the net from 18 inches up to 26 or something and failed to use it yet I’d rather get them revived in the water and watch them swim away
 
Cougarbaby said:
Right I even marked the net from 18 inches up to 26 or something and failed to use it yet I’d rather get them revived in the water and watch them swim away
Click to expand...
The measurements are the quick part though. It takes what, a second to hold a fish up to marks on a net ir rod? Getting a worthwhile photo of any sort is the where the stress on the fish comes into play.
 
If I could do that all my pictures would look like 24 inches or better 😂 or get one of them old fisherman’s liar tapes you know where it’s marked in inches every 1/4 inch , I bought a cheap Eagle Claw 3 wt for like 34.98 early in the summer it has a built in tape measures right above the reel handle now that’s cheap convenience
 
Another answer for simple measuring:
Years ago, I bought a flexible tape ruler that sticks to your rod.
So you start the measurement at the lower end of the grip.
Then just continue it on the blank at the upper end of the grip

Of course, if you weren't honest with yourself, you could fudge things a bit with it too
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top