I don't know about you all, but I get to stare at three 27" computer screens all day long in my office. If I'm going to have to have these eye sores in my office, they might as well display something that means a lot to me - in this case, that's a fish.

I had a professor (former WDFW Commissioner) back in my undergraduate days that said "If the photo is not truly the best it can be and is not 100% excellent, DO NOT use it." I've taken that to hear when I've had a camera in tow on my fish and hunting expeditions over the years. I'll take many photos in the slight hope that at least *one* photo comes out good by my standards. The lighting is good, the photo is crisp, the smiles are great, etc. Any serious flaw in the photo and it never sees the light of day. I have about 500 hundred "computer desktop/screen saver" worthy photos that I display on my three screens. Of these, a few photos pop up where you know the fish (or animal) was super special, the photo did it no justice whatsoever.

We've all seen the hero shots of big, beautiful fish, and I love looking at them all. We've also seen people post photos of a what looks like a 15 lb. steelhead with the person saying "Honestly, this fish was 25+ pounds....I'm 7'5"...or bad camera angle, etc".

While some of these photos are complete BS, much like the story behind them, some are not. Some are truly monster fish that just didn't photograph well, or the photographer may not want to give up his day job just yet.

This thread is about posting photos of truly exceptional fish/animal specimens that just didn't photograph well.

I have two fish photos that come to mind.

The first fish is a 40lb. albacore. It was so heavy that I had to rest it on my knee! Granted I do not know what constitutes a "wall hanger" class fish for an albacore, but I do know that 40 is a pretty good sized big tuna. The photo is OK, but this albacore just looks like any other albacore to me.



Here's a second shot showing the fish on the cleaning table. Just go ahead and sing along: "One of these things is not like the others...."
You can see the obvious difference in size between the 40 pounder and all the other tuna on the table.



The other fish was a chum caught by my son on an OP-ish river. It was his first float down this river and he was *thrilled* to fight any fish, let alone this fish. Thinking this fish was another big king when it slammed the rod, I was shocked when it came in to view and I saw that it was a chum. I was even more shocked when I tailed the beast and it was easily the largest, heaviest, and beefiest chum I've *ever* handled or seen. The photo really does this fish absolutely not justice on how thick this fish was. Much like coho that do not show their girth/size in a photo, chums do the same. This was an absolute monster of a chum and was easily over 25 pounds. It was released, so no actual weight was taken.



Let's see what you all have in terms of memorable, big, trophy, fish or animals that look like crap, or not their true size.

We've all seen the Glory Shots. Let's see the less then glory shots. The shots you *wished* would have been perfect.