First off, nice fish regardless of actual size. Good couple hours of fishing.
Now I'm going to rip it apart... :razz: :mrgreen:
rybak said:
So ... I took a stab at analyzing the photo by using some common human anatomy measurements like the average width of eye and length of an ear to come up with the following:
eye: 15/32" to 15/16"
ear: 2.52"
In pixels on the photo:
ear: 80
visible eye: 30
fish: 840
fish to ear ratio- 1: 10.5
fish to eye ratio- 1: 28
According to average ear length the fish is: 26.46"
According to average visible eye width the fish is: 26.25"
So, my crackpot science sort of confirms that the fish was a BEAST! nice catch.
26" would still be a mutant smallmouth.
Do your measurements take into account that the fish is being held out in front of the fisherman?
A picture can make a bass look longer than the CN tower due to positioning..
Hence crackpot science as rybak stated. His method of estimation is only believable if and only if you compare two objects that are within the same plane in the photo. For example...measuring a segment of a finger that is held against the body of the fish.
But...it does prove a point the fish was over estimated.
Certain common objects can offer some estimate of the fish...regardless of how big or small the person in the picture may be. People often claim they are such and such height and weight and grossly overestimate fish size. I just had to look at the size of the ball cap visor and say BS because an unbent ball cap visor is usually 7"-7.5" wide. When bent, it ranges from 5.5"-6.5" wide...depending on the size of the "roof top".
Otherwise...to prove a point...I set this experiment up...
2 American pennies (Don't have Canadian pennies anymore
) set on a piano bench exactly (measured) 12" away from each other in "depth", and 1" slightly offset with each other laterally.
First picture was taken with the camera lens set exactly (measured) 22" above ground, and exactly (measured) 12" away from the closer penny (and exactly 24" from the further penny). This is a fairly unrealistic situation where the object (fish and angler) is so close to the lens...but use here to illustrate a point.
In this case, the closer penny is 191 pixels in diameter, while the further penny is 101 pixels in diameter. If we use the further penny as comparison for "actual size", then the penny that is closer is enlarged 89%...it almost doubles in size! I don't really need to tell you that. You can probably see that the penny that is further away is 1/2 the size.
OK...let's bring the camera back from the pennies.
Second picture was taken with the camera lens set at the same height (22"), and exactly 36" away from the closer penny (and exactly 48" from the further penny).
In this case, the closer penny is 68 pixels in diameter, while the further penny is 51 pixels in diameter. Again, using the further penny as comparison for "actual size", the penny that is closer is enlarged 33%! Again, I don't need to tell you that the penny that is further away is about 3/4 of the size.
So...as you can see, the enlargement factor is quite severe. I don't think I need to tell anyone that holding a fish closer to the lens makes the fish look bigger...but I don't know if people are aware just how much "bigger" the fish looks.
The further you set apart the pennies, the bigger the discrepency in size. I love how people always mention how big they are in the picture. If you claim you are taller and wider in built, it also implies your arms are longer and the fish is held out further...which means the actual size of the fish is actually smaller than it appears. It works against you...not for you.
But still, rybak's estimation has merits. If we take my measurements and enlargement ratios to what rybak has measuered, assuming that the photographer was 36" away from the fish and the fish was held out a reasonable 12" from the face (which I'm being generous...because with arms from a 6'1" body it is more than 12"...after all, a ball cap brim is about 5" long)...then you have an enlargement ratio of 33%...or flip it around we should shrink the fish to 75% of the apparent size...
That means the fish is 19.8" (round up)...Which is what I estimated without doing all that silly photography and calculation anyways.
Again, I'm being generous here assuming that the fish was ONLY held out 12" from the face.
All that to say...the smallies looks to be 4-5lb fish...and people should not overestimate an Ontario record breaking fish length without a tape measure...because that estimation certianly looks fishy. A 31" smallie it isn't unless you can show some pictures of the fish beside a tape.
BTW, if you really claimed the smallie is 31" long, then your forearm must be 24" long. You must be an orangutan...
