Every time one of these threads gets posted, the resounding theme from the guys posting is that their taxidermy man is the $hit, and the pics just DON'T do the replica justice. I always chimed in, "Nice fish!" but somewhere deep in the back of my mind, I was really thinking, "OK OK... yeah, whatever."

Well now that I've got mine in hand, I can honestly say, "The pics just DON'T do the replica justice." There's just no way to capture the subtlety of detail and depth of color that goes into the artist's handiwork....at least not in a single digital image. The variety of lighting conditions... indoor vs outdoor, direct vs indirect, backlight vs no backlight, flash vs no flash... either accentuates or hides certain features of the artwork.

Here's a small sampling of EXACTLY what I am talking about. You get a very different impression of the very same artwork in each pic.

The first three pics show the same composition in ambient light outdoors vs ambient light indoors vs flash indoors.

The next two are composed from an "upshot" perspective to show off the posturing of the ventral fins and accentuate the fish's tremendous girth, ambient light indoors vs out. The size of the pectoral fin is exaggerated since it projects out most toward the camera. Does this composition scream "MEGA-hen" or what?

The next two are tight headshots taken in ambient light indoors vs out.

.
.
.
.