# Breeder Photo Poll



## SLIGHTLY STOOPID (Dec 23, 2004)

*Are breeders and or sellers of cichlids altering their photos of fish in an effort to increase sales?*​
It's obvious to me .. YES!!513.51%No, not at all.12.70%I have seen some questionable photos and I think it's possible2567.57%I don't know enough about photography to know the difference38.11%Breeders and other sellers should alter their fish photos if they choose12.70%Why should I/we care?00.00%Who cares?25.41%


----------



## SLIGHTLY STOOPID (Dec 23, 2004)

Have you seen photos you thought were a little suspicious?
Please give your honest opinion.

=D>


----------



## cichlidaholic (Dec 7, 2005)

I didn't choose an answer to the poll.

I used to sell alot of fish...Alot...

I use a simple point and shoot camera, and the only time I ever tweaked anything as far as colouration goes was to do a quick auto "level" adjustment in an effort to replace the colour that my flash washed out of the fish to start with.

Would you consider that as "altered", when all I really did was make an effort to let you see _what I see_ when I look into the tank?

There are too many variables to digitally enhancing pictures for this thread to give you the answers you are seeking, I'm afraid.


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

Yes, I would agree that a few businesses may partake in this, primarily because they probably got someone in to take the photos for them, in which case I would suspect it is simply done with the intention of making an impression and creating a bold and colourful interface, without necessarily suggesting that this is what is sold (although it will naturally be somewhat misleading).

As Kim has pointed out, with digital photography (in particular) there are a variety of different options and levels of post processing, most would hope that the individual is trying to replicate as best they can the original and true colours of their subject. But something like an "overly" colourful picture can be attributed to something as simple as over saturation on account of having a poorly calibrated monitor, or using non-standard colour profiles, so that when others view them they are in fact not as the creator had intended, this has happened to me on occasion when I have forgotten to calibrate, or when using incorrect colour profiles for web sharing.

Just for fun I thought I'd have a go, we also have to remember this is a competitive business and therefore advertisement will do what it has always done, seek to attract attention by being the biggest, boldest most eye catching of the competitors, so who's store would you most likely buy from, which would hook you in - especially as someone new to the hobby....?

In this shot the flash was from above, so there is not so much iridescence, but I have done this as it will be easier to show "colour-pop" which seems to be the popular one.

First image is a little dull compared to reality (second image on my monitor is actually closer, but it _looks_ juiced), simply due to showing only base colours more than the fish as a whole (T-reef keepers will know what I mean). The second is the exact same image, selectively "juiced" using saturation and colour levels, took about 5 mins.



















I think that when it comes to individuals sharing images, fine, the level of processing is really an individual thing (obviously) and if the image is a little over saturated then I will put that up to enthusiasm or simple mistake, but I tend to agree that when it comes to commercial use this isn't really acceptable, the way in which the image is presented is usually one in which suggests that this is the stock, rather than, look at this nice specimen, and here is the stock.

But then how many adverts are misleading.... :lol:


----------



## NorthShore (Feb 3, 2006)

I chose the third option.

Is it any different than a car commercial that shows a upgraded model and then in very fine print says "may not be exactly as shown"?

Is it misleading? Sure it is. Is the market not dictated by the motto "Buyer beware"? Of course it is.

I have bought one fish over the internet in over 20 years being in the hobby and did it turn out to be what I was told? It was the actual species I ordered. Was it the size I was told it was supposed to be? Nope, not even close. Will it make me buy more fish sight unseen. Nope.

Do I rant and rave about it? Nope.


----------



## exasperatus2002 (Jul 5, 2003)

There are programs that help clean up a picture but I think the biggest tweeking breeders/sellers will do is hormone their fish.[/list]


----------



## Joels fish (Nov 17, 2007)

Just like anyother sales business , the object is to make your product as appealing as possible. The bigger question is where is the line between a little polish and false representation. For me a little tweak doesn't bother me, I expect it . A lot of flagrant alteration on the otherhand is just trying to scam . it's like that old saying "if it looks too good to be true ,it probably is".


----------



## bulldogg7 (Mar 3, 2003)

I haven't seen one of these in a while


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

bulldogg7 said:


> I haven't seen one of these in a while


 =D> :lol:


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

:thumb:


----------



## SLIGHTLY STOOPID (Dec 23, 2004)

> Would you consider that as "altered", when all I really did was make an effort to let you see what I see when I look into the tank?
> 
> There are too many variables to digitally enhancing pictures for this thread to give you the answers you are seeking, I'm afraid.


Yes it is altered. Hopefully the adjustments you were made were as close to the product as possible.

I'm not looking for answers I'm looking for opinions. :thumb:


----------



## SLIGHTLY STOOPID (Dec 23, 2004)

Here is one from Aquabid that I think has been touched up for the purposes of making the fish look better than it really does.

Look at the flash spot on the back of the tank. How could the flash spot be so strong but the black of the fish is underexposed? How do you not see the eyes of the fish if there is such a strong shadow behind it?

I may not be very technical in my photo lingo but this looks like a candidate for a fake.

:-?


----------



## Joea (May 25, 2004)

I'm not sure it's even an issue... these are photographs after all.

Photos of a fish, and a fish in real life are _always _two different things. Type of camera, lighting, the mood of the fish etc., all contribute to how the fish looks and how the photo looks. Does a poor picture of a beautiful fish make it a lesser quality fish? In the same respect, does an exemplary picture of a mediocre fish make it better quality fish?

For those of us in the know, it's easy to tell whether or not the fish is a nice specimen based on several factors. I don't take the colour of the fish much into consideration or as a "selling feature" when judging by a picture, because photography can't duplicate what we see with the naked eye.


----------



## SLIGHTLY STOOPID (Dec 23, 2004)

Yes, for those of us in the know. I bought my first African cichlid in 1982 and I consider myself to be in the know. 

I've seen Trophs of that quality before if it a totally untouched image. The pic which is obviously questionable to someone in the know may look like a pic of an amazing specimen to someone with less experience.


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

They've whacked the contrast up on that and then increased the yellows. I wouldn't say that image shows a selectively "juiced" fish, rather the image as a whole has been processed in that fashion (look at the colour of the pot).


----------



## cichlidaholic (Dec 7, 2005)

SLIGHTLY STOOPID said:


> Yes it is altered. Hopefully the adjustments you were made were as close to the product as possible.
> 
> I'm not looking for answers I'm looking for opinions. :thumb:


With a point and shoot camera, the flash will make the fish appear washed out. So, when I tweak the levels of the pic, all I am really doing is making that pic portray the fish as accurately as possible.


----------



## SLIGHTLY STOOPID (Dec 23, 2004)

> With a point and shoot camera, the flash will make the fish appear washed out. So, when I tweak the levels of the pic, all I am really doing is making that pic portray the fish as accurately as possible.


I understand what you meant. But what you did and what this thread is really about are two different things to me.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

SLIGHTLY STOOPID said:


> > With a point and shoot camera, the flash will make the fish appear washed out. So, when I tweak the levels of the pic, all I am really doing is making that pic portray the fish as accurately as possible.
> 
> 
> I understand what you meant. But what you did and what this thread is really about are two different things to me.


But where do you draw the line...

My guess is almost all of the people who tweek their pics feel they are doing so in good conscious... even though others may look at the picture and the fish and then disagree...


----------



## SLIGHTLY STOOPID (Dec 23, 2004)

> But where do you draw the line...
> 
> My guess is almost all of the people who tweek their pics feel they are doing so in good conscious... even though others may look at the picture and the fish and then disagree...


O.k. good. Did you vote?


----------



## bulldogg7 (Mar 3, 2003)

I know you guys have seen this fish in the adds up top, do you think it's "photoshopped"?


----------



## nick a (Apr 9, 2004)

I ended up voting with the majority (for a change :lol: ) but I'm one of those weird 'personal responsibility' nuts & the bottom line is:
If you are buying a species of fish based ONLY on the information that the SELLER is providing---you will always get what you deserve.


----------

