Which Camera for Anglers?

I don't intend giving any advice in this article about any camera other than a digital. Film cameras went out not too many years after split cane rods and while both will, respectively, take good pictures and catch good fish, neither are as good at doing the job as the modern tool. The end product will be more or less the same, but producing the end product with the ancient gear will be so much more laborious. Both film cameras and split cane rods are for those who are expert in either photography and fishing, or both, and get their kicks from reliving and romanticising about the past. If that's what turns you on then great, go and enjoy it, but it's not for me and therefore I'm not the right person to write about it.

Self-Take Photography

Anglers are often loners and what they need in a camera is to easily be able to take shots of themselves with a fish. Please refer to this article, 'Fishing & Photography', for more details on this topic.

Although the articles mentions the Canon G11 compact as the best there is for this job, it's not a cheap camera, even for a compact. However, browse the internet, particularly eBay, for the previous Canon 'G' models and you may get one at the budget you want to spend. A G11 or similar on a Gorrillapod, as seen in the picture left, is a great piece of kit for self-take photography.

Making the Right Choice

Camera phone, compact or DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex)? That's the big question and the answer depends on what you're prepared to spend, what you're going to use the pictures for, where you fish and if you fish alone or with a pal. All those things are significant when making the final choice.

Make a list and consider the following:

Image by Graham Marsden via Flickr

•    What do want a camera for; what are you going to do with the shots you take? For web and small prints you need only a cheap compact or even a mobile phone camera, unless you're an photo enthusiast.
•    Number of megapixels (but see below - 'The Megapixel Myth')
•    Do you want a simple point and shoot camera or do you want a degree of control?
•    Do you want a viewfinder, a screen, or both?
•    If a screen, then how big?
•    Is size and weight of camera an important factor to you?
•    Do you want anti-camera shake, called variously image stability, vibration reduction, etc.
•    Do you want optical zoom or digital zoom? Digital zoom merely enlarges what you've already got by increasing the size of the dots and decreasing the quality of the shot and can be done more easily in post processing software. Most experienced photographers would never use digital zoom.
•    Do you want the camera to be able to take video?
•    Do you want to take pics of yourself as easily as possible? The best type are the swivel screen with remote control.
•    How much do you want to spend?

Lots of questions there, so write them down or print this off and tick those points that are important to you.

The Megapixel Myth

Before making your final choice let's get one myth out of way: multi megapixels in a digital camera are not what the camera manufacturers would lead you to believe. Advertisements imply that 8 megapixels are always better than 5 megapixels and so on. They're important yes, but they are not the be-all and end-all of producing a good shot. Lots of megapixels are good depending on various other factors, such as the camera’s lens, circuitry and sensor, as well as your skill with lighting, composition and the camera’s controls.
A megapixel is one million coloured dots in the picture and it seems to make sense that more megapixels adds up to a sharper photo. The reality though, is that it could just be a poor photo made up of more dots.

Typically, photographic pixels are recorded to an image sensor, a CCD (Charge Coupled Device), and as manufacturers cram more pixels on a given sensor, those pixels need to be smaller to be able to fit. Larger pixels mean better light-gathering capability which leads to better low-light performance, better colour accuracy, and in some cases, better dynamic range. Sensors come in a few different sizes: Full frame (24 x 36mm), APS-C (17 x 25mm), Four-thirds (13.5 x 18mm), and even smaller sensors on compact models.
So, it's worth repeating: cramming more and more pixels on a sensor just leads to a reduction in pixel size and a depreciation in image quality as it inevitably reduces the pixels ability to gather light, and reduces its sensitivity.

Image by Graham Marsden via Flickr

This is why, given equal quality in lens, circuitry and photographer's skill, a DSLR will almost always produce a better picture than that of a compact camera. They may have the same number of megapixels, or even more on the compact, but those megapixels on the compact will be smaller to enable them to fit on its small sensor.

The bottom line is this; 6 megapixels is easily enough for most photographers. With 6mp you can print up to A4 without any noticeable loss of quality and can show your photos on a PC screen, or on the internet, with no noticeable difference from the pictures taken with a 12mp camera. Yes, I do have a 12mp camera but that's mainly due to the camera I wanted having all the other bells and whistles I wanted, that just happened to have 12mp. In the last year or so I've gone from the £2000 full frame Nikon D700 to the £650.00 Nikon D90 and I can honestly say, for the photography I do and where I view it, I can't tell any difference whatsoever.

It can't be repeated often enough: if you just want to publish pictures on the internet and make small prints up to about 5" x 7" then a decent mobile phone camera or a cheap compact will do the job quite adequately. Only invest in an expensive compact or a DSLR if you're a photography enthusiast or you want to produce big prints or publish your pictures in a magazine.

Related articles by Zemanta

• New 50 megapixels camera from Kodak !!! (teabreak.pk)
• IPhone 4 Camera Beats the Smartphone Competion (pcworld.com)
• Are digital cameras destined to be usurped by cell phones? (kreisle.com)

Deceit in the Digital Age

The digital age has breathed new life into photography, at least as far as convenience is concerned, but there will always be photographers who take pictures and people who take snaps. That will never alter no matter how much the equipment progresses for the photographer has an 'eye' for a good shot. The big change, apart from the technology itself, is that the digital era has put photography into the hands of the masses; now almost everyone has a digital camera even if it is no more than a camera phone.

Digital photography with a top of the range, multi megapixel SLR camera is now also very close to the quality of 35mm transparency film. You would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a shot taken with the different media even at poster size and the bulk of the photographs you see in magazines will have been taken with a digital camera. We’re awash with pictures, and they can be sent around the world via email almost as fast as you can say ‘smile please’. With just a little knowledge of how to take a decent picture it’s difficult to take a poor one, and when you check the results in the monitor you simply delete those that are not up to scratch and just take them again. No wasted film, no processing costs. And as if that wasn’t enough we have a glut of inexpensive image editing software around these days that can change a poor shot into a work of art. Microsoft Windows Vista and Windows 7 operating systems have it all built in, so the ability to edit images is more convenient and easier than ever.

But that’s the rub, for image editing will be even more open to abuse by those who wish to deceive. And believe me, there are more than a few deceivers around, and some have quite a talent for it. In some cases you would never know the difference between a manufactured picture and the genuine article unless you had access to the original and knew exactly what to look for.

Take a look at the first image of me with a chub. How big? It certainly looks big enough to win a wad of cash and a weekly award.

Now look at the second image, which is the unedited and genuine shot of the fish. I can't actually remember what it weighed but it was less than 5lb.

The edited and false image of the chub took me just a few minutes to do in Photoshop, and it wouldn't pass scrutiny by anyone who cared to take a close look at it. But it gives you a good idea of what could be done by someone who knows how to use the software and spent more time perfecting it.

One of the easiest things to do is to take an element from one image and drop it into another image. Where fishing pictures are concerned this usually means cutting a fish from one picture and dropping it into the hands of an angler in another picture. Get the sizing right and the fish of course looks much bigger than it really is. Another trick used by the cheats is the ‘angler’ who cuts an image of himself holding a fish from one shot and pastes it into an image of a lake or riverside scene, thereby making it look like the fish was caught from quite a different location to where it really was caught. Quite recently one ‘angler’ openly suggested in print that to do so was a good way of disguising where you were catching your fish. Obviously oblivious to, or not caring, that to do such a thing would put pressure on someone else’s water. Knowing the ‘angler’ like I do I’m sure it was the latter.

It’s prudent to ask why. Why do some anglers wish to behave in that way? The out and out crooks are obviously doing it for the money and the prizes that some angling publications offer. That, in a perverted kind of way, is possibly more understandable than the anglers who do it for the glory and for no other reason than they’re just by nature deceitful and dishonest. Why can’t it be enough to just take the photograph with an unrecognisable background, or with a brolly or a bivvie in the background? And it’s easy enough to take the picture from a high angle so that all that is visible, apart from the angler and fish, is grass. The only conclusion you can come to is that there are some people who actually enjoy the dishonest and deceitful subterfuge.

Worse are those anglers who are total hypocrites. One in particular I’ve been unfortunate enough to run into on more than one occasion has criticised more people than I care to remember for publishing photos of fish they’ve caught where he’s been able to recognise a blade of grass or two. He’s caused more trouble for his fellow anglers and the club he belonged to than anyone else I know. I’ll never forget the day we had a toe to toe argument on the Dove when he accused me of publishing a picture of the stretch that showed a club sign (which was a lie) and telling me I wasn’t being fair on the others who fished there. Now he’s no longer a member of that particular club he’s publishing pictures on a regular basis that show swims in detail. And then he wonders why he’s known as Billy Nomates and why nobody believes a word he says. Thankfully, the real truth is slowly emerging and he fools fewer people as each day passes.

So what can we do about this dishonest image manipulation? One thing I would suggest is that editors really scrutinise the images they’re sent. It’s not too difficult to spot editing that goes beyond simple image enhancement. A couple of months or so ago I took a copy of one of our weeklies to a FishingMagic fish-in and indicated a few points in a barbel picture sent in by our ‘friend’. Within a few seconds the dozen or so lads (and lassie) could see where the fish had been pasted and blended none too skilfully into another shot.

Of course, someone who is more adept at image editing would be able to produce an image that would pass scrutiny, so what the answer is then I don’t really know. I suppose in many ways it doesn’t matter, for any system that relies solely on photographic evidence has to accept that it is wide open to the sharks who will take advantage. And yet the organisation that should be as foolproof as is practicably possible, the British Record Fish Committee, does accept photographic evidence!

I’m not particularly cynical by nature, but some of the images I see in some of our publications cause me to smile wryly at the very least, and others cause me to roar with derisive laughter. Not always due to dishonest manipulation but for the claims made for the fish in the photograph. Apart from those sad people who do this to make a profit, and the even more sad people who do it for some kind of recognition, or to help sell a product, I do wonder what kind of life they’ve led that has brought them to such a low ebb they need to fabricate fish catches, either through direct lying or photo editing. A few anglers are so paranoid about being second best on the waters they fish they’ll stoop to any level to appear to be on top.

They’re fish for God’s sake, and many of the fish we catch most of the time are largely the result of good luck rather than good judgement. The cheating toe rags should get a life, grow up and stop being so bloody pathetic.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Which Camera for Anglers? (grahammarsden.blogspot.com)
• Fishing & Photography (grahammarsden.blogspot.com)

Fishing & Photography

Two Great Hobbies Combined

One of the lesser known advantages of being an angler are the beautiful locations in which you can find yourself. I've been to some fabulous looking venues both here and abroad. So it's a double whammy for me as my second (often my first) hobby is photography and it's great to be able to combine the two.

Keen semi-pro and amateur photographers like myself are likely to have a digital SLR camera, but that doesn't mean you can't get some great shots with a digital compact.And let's face it, if you only want to print up to A4 and for web or PC monitor use, you don't really need anything else.

Self-take Photography

Photography has long been a second hobby for many anglers, especially those who take an interest in the landscapes and wildlife they share their surroundings with. Many of those who have no interest in photography carry a camera, if only to have a record of the good fish they've caught. And in these days of fully automatic digital cameras and camera phones even more anglers are taking pictures of the fish they've caught. When you fish with other anglers nearby, whether they're companions or not, there is no problem getting a good shot as you just ask someone to bang off a few shots and usually at least one will be of decent quality.

The problems start when you fish on your own and there is no one nearby to take the shot for you. In that situation you have to have some means of taking the picture yourself that doesn't involve keeping the fish out of the water for too long. Most anglers choose to use a camera with a self-timer or, better still, a remote control and support the camera on a tripod or a bankstick fitted with a camera adaptor. They minimise the time the fish spends out of the water by setting up a space between two banksticks, switching off the autofocus and manually pre-focusing on the banksticks from a predetermined spot.

When a fish is caught it is then a simple job to place the fish on an unhooking mat between the banksticks, set the camera up on the predetermined spot, set the self-timer going, and nip smartly into position between the banksticks to hold the fish in time for the shutter to go off. If you have a camera that is capable of taking a burst of three or more shots then that's a distinct advantage if you bracket the exposures. And better still is if you have a remote controlled camera that will allow you to hold the fish comfortably and pose with eyes open and a smile on your face before you release the shutter. Even better is if you have a camera with a swivel screen so that you can see what the camera is seeing. The Canon G11 is excellent for this, but there are other makes and models that also have the facility.

Camera tripods have always been a problem for anglers as the most stable ones are too heavy to lug around when you have to walk any distance to your swim. A solid, screw-in bankstick with a camera adaptor, is a good idea but still not ideal when fishing on very hard ground or even rocks, and when you want to move the camera around a little.

What I use is the Joby Gorillapod which come in various sizes to the suit the type of camera you use. It is lighter than the lightest bankstick, can be used on the ground like a standard tripod, or attached to practically anything, such as trees, bushes, fences, pipes, even rocks. Used on the ground it's low down but that is easily solved by tilting the camera upwards. Most of the time though anglers will have a convenient fence or tree branch to attach it to. Combine the Gorillapod with the Gardner Camera Angle Adaptor, or similar, and you have a great, versatile, camera support that takes up hardly any room in your rucksack or box and weighs just a few ounces.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Which Camera for Anglers? (grahammarsden.blogspot.com)
• Joby's Gorillapod Magnetic now sticking cameras in unexpected places worldwide (engadget.com)
• Deceit in the Digital Age (grahammarsden.blogspot.com)
• When the DSLR Camera Fad Hits You (blogcritics.org)