Hooking fish forTV, photos, etc.

[Fish-on]

I took an interest in the post about hooking fish for TV and thought I would throw in my $.02 as a outdoor writer/photographer.

I agree that the cases of actually hooking fish to catch it for the TV camera are rare, but they have happened. I know that a lot of fish have been kept in the livewell until the light is right, or the sun comes out, then a whole bunch of photos are taken with the fish, sometimes using different caps, clothing, and even lures.

Is this right? I don't know. The Outdoor Writers Assn. of America of which I am a member has been discussing this for several years. Now, when you throw in the amazing things that can be done with Adobe Photoshop on the computer, there are even more wrinkles to it.

Here's something that will really blow you away if you take the time to do it. Look at the photo on the cover of the May/June 2000 Walleye Insider. Now compare it to the photo on page 106 of the April/May In-Fisherman. Look at the fish, the shirt, the rod, the position of the hands, the lure in the fish's mouth. It'll blow you totally away when you realize what's been done here. Many magazines are doing this.

Do you feel violated? Has In-Fisherman lost some of your trust? What's right and what's wrong? Who should decide?

Remember, the cowboys didn't really shoot the indians in those old movies. Most of what you see in all magazines today is staged, as well.

[RANGER]

MY POST REALLY DID WHINE IT's WAY TO THIS, BUT, I'M GLAD IT DID!!!

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ANYONE OF US REALLY BUYS ALL OF THE HYPE BUT IT IS FUN TO PLAY ALONG WITH IT ANYWAY. I DON'T FEEL AS THOUGH IN-FISHERMAN IS LETTING US DOWN. I HAVE LEARNED MORE FROM THEIR PAGES AND TV SHOWS THAN ANY OTHER PUBLICATION THAT I HAVE FOUND (AND I GO BACK TO, WHAT USED TO BE, THE FISHING MAG OF THE SHELF - "FISHING FACTS" AND SPOON PLUGGING!!!!

EVERYONE IS OUT TO GET THEIR SHARE OF THE AMERICAN PIE, AS AM I. THE COMPETITION IS FIERCE AND SENSATIONALISM SELLS, BUT WHEN I SIFT THROUGH THE LITERATURE AND PROGRAMMING OUT THERE - I LIKE IN-FISHERMAN.

[Nofish]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-27-00 AT 12:20PM (CST)[p]Hey Fish On,

I too am an outdoor writer. I basically have 2 problems with photo's.

One, I seem to be too stupid to put down the rod and take a few quick pictures with fish that I want to release. I am usually more interested in catching another, that I don't take enough photo's

Two, because I am concerned about minimizing the handling of the fish, when I do take a few pics, it is with fish that I plan to eat. Therefore, I have done the let me move the boat and change my hat routine once in a while.

Now let me stress, that with these pictures I do not report these fish to be anything other than what they are.

I Do not claim them to be caught at any other place or time than where they were. For article purposes, a jig caught fish is a jig caught fish.

I do not use a photo of a walleye caught in South Dakota for an article about Little Bay de Noc.I have seen this done several times before, and you cannot mistake South Dakota's landscape for Upper Michigan, believe me.

I do not see much harm in maximizing the fish you do take photo's of, as long as it is represented well/properly. I also do not like re hooking fish with different lures, especially if I plan to release them.

I do have questions about, shall we say, expanding fish in photo's (photoshop). I think there is a line that is crossed there. At least when a picture is taken with a different hat or lure, you actually caught that fish. But this too is a big gray line.

I suppose it all comes down to, for me, do not represent the fish as anything it is not. I do not take pictures with me holding a partners fish and then say I caught it.

I do not take pictures of a Record fish, and then recycle them again as something else. If I post a photo of me with a fish and say I caught it, then I did and you can believe what I tell you I caught it with, and where I tell you it came from.

I understand that giving good info in an article is always highlighted and has more impact with a good photo of a nice fish, but being honest about the photo is as important as knowing what you are writing about in the first place.

Actually I have 3 problems with photo's. It is hard to find someone who can frame the picture properly. How many pic's do you have with the top of your head cut off or 600 miles of shoreline behind you? LOL :-)

Good luck......R

[Juls_WI]

Well as usual the issue of In-Fisherman is not here yet. I don't think my mailman is done reading it yet..;-)

I have the In-Sider, but without the other I can't compare the two photos. It is my guess though, from looking at the cover of the In-Sider, that the fish and hand were moved from another photo. The size of the hand is a bit off in perspective, and the water is dripping off the fish like it was just pulled from the water. By the time the fish made it to the position it is, it would not be dripping that much! Now I'm curios to see the photo in the In-Fisherman..LOL

I work for a publisher doing color correction using Photoshop 5.0. Let me just say that with some of the photos that pass through my workload, they would be unacceptable to publish. (Just about all of them). We often need to "enhance" the pics to make them acceptable. I don't see anything wrong with it. I would rather see "worked" photos than some that never had correction done to them. The publisher I work for likes blue skies, green grass, and red barns. It's my job to make the gray skies blue, brown grass green, and give the old barns a new "paint job". Is that wrong? Not in my mind.

Fish that are used in photos are most certainly on the dinner plate that evening. They are spent by the time the photo shoot is over. Oh well... gee, pictures and dinner? Sounds good to me. ;-)

Just my thoughts...

Juls

[Fish-on]

It's a lot worse than that Juls. I think you should go get a copy of the In-fisherman magazine and compare them. This one has been out for about a month. Since you work with Photoshop, I would especially like to hear your opinion on this one. It'll shock you when you put the two pictures together and compare them.

I'm still not going to describe it until someone comes on here and tells me that they looked at both photos. And I'll know if they did or not, it's a shocker.

[RANGER]

Fish-on,

I did look at the two photos and you are absolutely correct - It is shocking!!! You have a good "eye" and memory! Shall we play "Mister Potatoe Head"??? and not bother to change shirts either!! Heck, even the folds in the jeans are the same!!!

But, having said that and to come back to your original analysis -- Is this really all that deceitful especially in view of the fact that they (In-Fisherman) don't refer to the pics per say? Like, "You can catch fish like this if you follow our methods/buy our Mag" or whatever. Yes, it is implied and I see exactly what you are saying, I'm not blind to it (at least I hope I'm not that unintelligent)!! But, consider the competitive market environment they have to get "Share" of. If everybody is doing "IT" then it doesn't make it right. Conversely, if you don't do "IT" Advertisers' take their bucks elsewhere.

It doesn't make it right but it does make a company a survivor. What happened to "Fishing Facts" magazine?? They didn't change with the times, now they aren't there to share information with all of us.

RANGER

[bob oh]

Juls, I'm a news guy and I don't have any problems with you changing a photo if it is being used as an illustration and you are saying it is an illustration or making it obvious, but I do have a lot of problems with news photos being changed. Changing the color of grass, skies, building etc. in a news photo is, to me, the same as lying in a story. If you soften the shadow so the image can be seen that is one thing, but if you are changing the physical makeup of the picture you are misrepresenting the scene, the same as if you had said Jim Smith caught the fish when in fack, Jim Jones did the catching. Just my opinion....
Any publication puts a fish in someone's hand with Photoshop is lying to the readers unless they explain it is an illustation that has been altered.
Bob

[Juls_WI]

Guess I should clarify the kind of mags I do. We do Country oriented mags and the biggest part of our mags is the Color. We do not have any advertising in our magazines, and the mags are supported by subscriptions. The biggest compliment we get on our mags is "the colorful pictures" we have in them. We do ten mags right now and have one in the works. When a reader sends in a snapshot, to put in our mag, and it is not colorful, but has the potential to be colorful...we change it. I don't think this is misrepresenting the scene. Just making the photo look better. I don't see how making a gray sky blue, is going to be deceitful to anyone.
I would however, have a problem, if someone put my head on another body... hhhmmm but then again...LOL

Juls

[Jon'eye']

After reading these posts I couldn't help but look at other photos in the May/June In-sider.

Take a look on page 24, Scott Fairbairn netting that eye - I'am a Graphic Designer that works with Photoshop - this photo is touched up BIG TIME! They really like those water drops, don't they.

My advise to the In-fisherman...If your going to touch up photo's like that, do a good job of it!

Jon'eye'

[matt thompson]

I know I'm setting my self up for some abuse here but obviously the In-Fish guys are doing something right,you all seem to have the magazines to look at.
Matt

[Fish-on]

Now that some of you have had a chance to look at the photos I'll give you my opinion on this whole scenario.

The photo on the cover of the walleye insider has a picture of Troy Lindner with a nice walleye. The exact same photo appears on page 106 of the In-Fisherman, with Doug Stange's head where Troy's is in the other one. Same photo, they just cut and pasted a head in place. Additionally, the photo on the cover has a jig in the fish's mouth. The photo in the In-Fisherman has been retouched to remove the jig because it's an article about slip bobber fishing. No doubt, the graphic desinger who did this is very good because it's really hard to tell they've been retouched.

First of all, I would feel cheapened--sorta prostituted--if it was me in the original picture and they put Doug Stange's head where mine was. Secondly, if I was Doug Stange, I would feel cheap because they posed me with a fish I didn't catch. This whole thing boils down to a matter of integrity. I do not beleive they are so short of photos that they must use the same one over and over with alterations to make them fit the story. I believe they are just trying to save money. Would this have happened before PRIMEDIA took over.... I wonder. The Lindners built In-Fisherman on a solid base of integrity. Integrity that may be lost when big business takes over.

I, like Ranger, believe in In-Fish. I grew up with them in the late 70s and became a groupie in the 1980s. In-Fish is one of the reasons I'm an outdoor writer today. I love their products, and I trust them. But what I'm seeing has shaken my trust. I want to be very careful not to burn any bridges, heck, I have an article in this very same walleye insider, and I don't want to jeapordize a relationship, but I think this is wrong. I've seen a rise in sloppy journalism, and the photography is going right with it. We need to maintain a high level of integrity if we are going to maintain the reader's trust. And trust is a fragile thing that's hard to rebuid once it's torn down.

Juls I have no problem with you sharpening photos and retouching color. You must work for Reiman publications, it's the only one I can think of that fits the description you gave. I think they produce fantastic magazines. I also agree with bob(oh), that in a news photo, we must be ever more diligent that we don't alter things. However, in news reporting the trust has already been utterly destroyed and will probably never be restored, very few people believe what they hear on the national news in in the larger newspapers, it's all given a slant these days, and objectivity has been totally discarded. I hope that we don't do that with outdoor magazines by destroying the trust of our readers.

Long Live In-Fisherman. But let it live in integrity.

[Juls_WI]

Yepper, I work for Reiman Publications. Glad to hear you like our mags!! :-)

Juls

[RANGER]

AGREED!!!!! AND AMEN!!

I am very much in concert with your views/integrity. I have often wondered about In-Fish and where they are going now that they have become a part of a "Multi-National". I picture (no pun intended) Al and Ron Linder getting really pi**ed-off in their executive meetings when decisions are being made in spite of their objections/suggestions and jumping in their boat and leaving for the solitude of the water, and their profession, that brought them this far!!! (I know my boat and fishing have saved my sanity a number of times, thank heavens!!)

It is trully sad and unfortunate that the whole "World", per say, has had to go this route. In general - the visual media has become one big "Enquirer"(sp?). And to survive they have to play "THE GAME"!!!

RANGER

[Mongo]

I think that we all have to realize that no matter what the publication, photos are enhanced 95% of the time. As a photographer who both shoots digitally, works with photoshop and various plug-ins, and prints digitally, I too am aware of the many sublte ways that photos can be enhanced. However, when I look at a photo of a beautiful fish in a mag, what they did to enhance the photo is the furthest thing from my mind....I think, "Wow, look at that great fish!" I think we all need to appreciate the images for what they are and not worry about how they were created.
Just my 2 cents worth.

[Jack]

A few years ago I was drifting shiners on a lake in Florida. On one drift I saw two bass boats side by side with a lone fisherman in one boat and three men in the other boat which I recognized as a local guides boat. One of the men in the guides boat had a camera and was taking pictures of the fisherman in the other boat.

They were taking big bass out of the guides livewell, putting them on a hook, placing the fish in the water and passing the rod over to the lone fisherman. The fisherman would set the rod down and after a lengthy pause would grab for the rod and then land a nice trophy bass.

When I later went in to a tavern/restaurant/baitshop with a dock I found the fisherman I had observed getting a cool 7 Up. The guy was one of the better know fishing show hosts and one I personally enjoy watching. On that day, however, I could not bring myself to take advantage of his friendly nature and shake his hand and say howdy as several people were.

Do not believe everything you see in magazines, hear on TV or are told by other fishermen and used car salesmen. Some of it is accurate and some is smoke and mirrors.

[Wall-nut]

Just posing a question: Are you telling me that, considering the thousands of opportunities available to In-Fisherman photographers on a regular basis, that they have to recycle photos that they've already used? They either need better writers or better photographers, in my opinion. From now on I will surely take a suspicious look at everything I find in the In-Fisherman magazine and that includes the articles.

[Chairman]

Lets get this question down to economics, the cost of tv and photo shoots gets higher each year and to get the job done you need the fish. When the sun is best for a photo, the fish usually don't bight. You can not take pictures in bad light or you get criticized for touching them up in a lab. I think the complainers need to study the stories that are written to help them catch more fish and look at the photos as a compliment to the stories.

[Backwater Eddy]

You asked if I have lost faith in the integrity of In-Fisherman? My response is a resounding "**** NO!"

Camera shots of prize fish show results of a wealth of knowledge to drive home a point in a given article. A simple illustration of cause and effect to set the tone of the subject mater. If the fish in the picture is, or is not from that particular body of water or caught directly by the individual who is holding it has very little to do with the content of the material. Content of material and quality of information is what In-Fisherman does to the highest standards in the publishing industry.

I read, and stare at the impressive catches like the next angler, but know the wealth of knowledge in the text is were the integrity has and always will be. Knit picking photo's for digital flaws in order to "catch someone at something" is petty and a waist of time in my opinion.

No Sir--I have the same faith today in the integrity of the In-Fisherman as I have had from the day I picked up book #17, many years ago.We all experience growing pains at times especially in the world of computer everything.

I can keep the faith in them an they have never shown me any real reason not to!

How soon we forget?
Backwater Eddy

[Bill]

I know of a couple guys that caught fish on Lake
Erie and took them to Hollway Res. for their
pic shoot. One of the guys and his wife took fish
and big fish out of the catch and release holding tank at tourney and
went out on Saginaw Bay for their photo shoot. No
big deal the content of the the artical is what counts anyway. I have also been asked by fisherman if I had any fish as they haven't been able to hit the bite that day, and wanted to do a photo shoot. Such is life. Every since then I have always wondered if the fish I see caught on any given program has just been caught or rehooked to make it look good.?????

[jumbojim]

Good Topic
I wish these guys would be real and not worry if they are holding a 12 pder I would rather see the 3 pder caught.
Trust me I would not stop ordering there magazines I would give a certain left body part to go fishing with Al Linder.
These guys do not need the photo retouches i am not looking to date any of them I just want to learn to read what they got to say.
That is why I appreciate a guy like Bob Probst a good old timer that has done it all and shows you his pics from the 70's no pretty boy crap about him.
If they just would be real I would give more creadit to their pics but when I see them now I wonder where they got the fish.
take it easy
jumbo

[River_eye]

It almost sounds like you think that fiction is wrong as well. How many people actually saw that movie and believed that there had been a real mission to mars, similar to the one depicted? That is not deception, nor could they deceive anybody even if they were trying.

If they put somthing in front of you, and don't tell you anything about the actual picture, I don't believe it's wrong. It's up to you to decide what to believe and what not to. I think it's wrong for people to assume anything that is not totally apparent.

River eye

[Jeff_IN]

I agree Jim. I think the touch-up job is cheating the reader. I would rather watch the show and see a guy admit when he gets skunked like the rest of us or, in the case of print, leave out the pictures and just print text if there is nothing to show. The cropped head on the example referenced in a previous post is not right. Does it change my opinion of the mag...I haven't cancelled any of the three I get from them...yet.

[Bill]

You should know cause you were running the
tournament.

[Bill]

You should know cause you were running the
tournament.

[jumbojim]

It just makes it look like you should catch a 9pder every trip or it was not a good trip. just wish it was more realistic. Maybe they could tell us who put them on the fish or how long they hunted for them and with who. I would still love to watch it. No need for fishing Gods more need for real info.
jumbo

[Scott Fairbairn]

Hi,

Just was glancing through this interesting post and saw your comments on the photograph of me in the Walleye In-Sider. For everyones information the water is not touched up. The photo is exactly as it was taken. I know it is because I submitted it. A couple of years ago after the Ft. Peck Western Pro/Am I had lots of requests for reservoir photographs. A friend traveled with me to Lake Sakakawea and we shot 15 rolls of film. This is one of those photos.

I am well aware of the touching of photos that occurs in magazine (Scary to think that they could make you wear O.J.'s shoes or gloves) but this photo is the same as when I submitted the slide.

Save a few for me,

Scott Fairbairn

[HUMP]

It's funny you bring this subject up. Last fall I went dont to my local lake and went spooning for walleye it had been a good bight for a few nights so we went. When we got there we seen a local so called guide showing this TV Show Host out of Denver were we had been catching them. They caught about five all day then went out in the middle of the lake and started puting on a show. You could hear them braging about catching doubles and everything else. Then they came back and filmed us. What a joke!!! People like that give out of staters a bad name!!!!

[Glyde Ryder]

In my relationship with Dave Csanda I have learned to respect and depend on his professional integrity. Being kind of new at this, he knows I struggle with supporting photography for the articles Insider has requested from me on highland reservoir and lower plains walleyes for upcoming issues. Publishable photography is a challenge and Dave has been quite patient with me. I can assure you that authenticity is important to all of us.

One solution is to call or write In Fisherman and express your concerns directly to them without a lot of grousing about.

Scott Fairbairn indicated it takes a lot of film to get that one very best of the best photo shots.

[Sheila]

Guess I have to agree with Fish-On's dialog..."live in integrity." Wow take heed, not a thing will go un-noticed with a discerning public of observant fishermen! Yes, all the stories and info in the magazines are good, but watch out for those photos baby!

You guys sure have good 'eyes' - eh? LOL and thanks for the heads-up truth Fish-On!

We got lure companies airing commercials using the wrong lures, heads being swapped in fish photo's, photos of fish caught in entirely different bodies of water than where they're said they were caught, and this great hype surely will probably go on... until that is, we step up and say - "HEY, get back to reality, don't try to fool us with fake promo just for the sake of eye-appealing hype. We want real people, real action, real stories, and real photos too."

OK, color touch-ups are great, nothing wrong with that. But swapping heads, hehehe that's hilarious! I think I just got a new fun idea... ;-)

[Jeff_IN]

As a follow-up, I did contact them and ask about the photos in question. I heard back from Doug Stange today explaining what they had done. He explained what they had done on this particular cover and it makes perfect sense. I now think that it is much to do about nothing. I don't believe their intention is to decieve anyone and you can trust what they write in their publications. If anyone is interested in reading the letter I received, e-mail me at jmcampbell@home.com and I will share it with you.


Jeff

[AquaMan]

The flip side to this issue is that if the magazine had required another set of photos then another fish would have spent time out of the water, modeling. Instead, only one fish was required for two covers. I think that that makes more sense econimically and evironmentally. What do you think?

I don't care if they used that same pic with changes. Was their intention to see if they could pull a fast one or rather was it an opportunity to provide a service for their sponsors without the huge expense of a new photo shoot.

Non-the-less, you have a good eye Fish-On. But in the end, perhaps, that was a better alternative.


AquaMan~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[AquaMan]

You guys want to see smoke and mirrors. head into the kitchen of your favorite resaurant. Bet you will think twice...or will you?

Is it really a dis-service or a service they provide. If The method in which the message is created is not half as important as the message itself, then has any harm been done?

If the food you eat is clean, tastes good, smells good, looks good and arrives with great service, are you really concerend about how it got to your table? You are paying for more then just the food...

You are paying for more then just a picture. It is the story that is the real issue. The picture is just graphics...a coincedence of opportunity.

AquaMan~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Jon'eye']

Just wanted to type an apology to Scott Fairbairn. I got a little carried away after reading these posts. Sure hope my post didn't cause you any unwanted trouble.

Good Fishing!

Jon'eye'

[Bill Coomes]

I didn't read this post until after I fished with Jeff Campbell on Sunday. I looked at the two pictures last night and I was appalled, you can even see the fork in the small tree in the backgound. I guess all I need for a Master Angler Award is to know how to use Print Shop and use In Fisherman pictures. If this is OK, then we should restore Mabry Harper's Walleye record, and the Smallmouth that had the outboard motor parts stuffed into it. I'm sorry, but lying is lying--it is never OK. This reminds me of the comic strip Dilbert when Dilbert is temporarily transferred to marketing--the guy in marketing tells Dilbert to put in conscience in a jar in the closet with his.

[Nate W.]

Here's another Photoshop feature that will blow some of you away. I work in the video production industry (totally unrelated to fishing) and with Photoshop you can take digitized video footage and retouch it frame-by-frame in Photoshop. We've done it here to take a garbage dumpster out of an otherwise good shot. If you can take things out of video, you can put things in. I believe it would take about a day to remove one lure out of a fish's mouth and replace it with another. I've never tried it, but It wouldn't be hard to do, and I could do it so that none of you would be able to tell the difference. I never started thinking about it until I saw this post, but it could be done easily. It does make you wonder....

[Bill Coomes]

I e-mailed In-Fisherman, stange's response follows, I was a disappointed:

I chose the cover in question because we wanted a shorefishing
scene and the shot in question was a shot of me. I didn't think it
appropriate to place myself on a cover, so I asked if a another generic
staff member would appear. This is the first time we have used this
technique. I doubt that we'll use it again, although I can't rule it out.
We often use photoshop (the computer process) to erase blood, fix split
fins, correct backgrounds, and so on. The idea is to make a photo
pleasantly illustrative of a particular fishing scene.

We view covers and interior photography in basically two ways. In
a journalistic sense, sometimes absolute accuracy is necessary in the
depiction of a scene. Other times, the photo is a rendition of a scene
from real life. All In-Fisherman covers are artisitic renditions of such
scenes. Most of our Guide covers also are. So is a lot of the photography
within our magazines and on some covers. Most of the underwater shots, for
example, are set-up shots (in our tank). We build the set and add the
fish. The art is in knowing what the scene should look like and in
shooting it well, then reproducing it well in the magazine to illustrate
what's being written about in an article. It's photo art painted with a
camera instead of a brush. I view the cover you refer to in the same
context; that is, as an artistic rendition of a pleasant fishing scene,
average fish and average fisherman.

I know some folks still think that great photos usually just sort
of happen. For years, though, most of the great photos have been set up
shots shot with fish caught at one time and then photographed when
conditions were optimal to create a scene.

Hope this answers your question. Thanks for taking time. Good
fishing to you,

doug stange, editor in chief

[RANGER]

I just want to say that I personally appreciate your efforts, Bill, and to Doug for taking the time to respond - THANK YOU!

I shouldn't think that this admission would be a revelation to any of us. I have stated it before in my thread(s) - If you don't play "THE GAME" you're SOL.

Dispite everything - I still feel that "In-Fish" is the best rag going and the most honest. AND - I still feel that I could enjoy a day of fishing with AL, Ron, whoever at "In-Fish" and feel quite comfortable with them and what they are doing for us.

RANGER

[ufda]

C'mon Guys and Gals, manipulating photos isn't new or even recent. My father-in-law worked for the Mpls Tribune right after WWII and he tells the story of a news photographer taking a very heart-rending picture of a forlorn kitten on the steps of a burned down apartment building. Another photog came up to take a picture and was told, "hey, get your own kitten." So the kitten had been placed in the shot. You don't need Photoshop 5.0 and this was supposedly news photography. Additionally I think Doug was honest. Had he placed his face on another's picture it would have been different as he is portrayed as the expert.
IMHOWSH
ufda

[Backwater Eddy]

It was good to read Doug Stange's response and I found it clear, honest and lacking in any hint of a "conspiracy" or "plot".

Artistic expression was clearly there intention, not deception!

If that is Doug's response, it is good enough for me, no further explanation needed or required!

Backwater......