Awful fish photos

most looks pretty good to me.

this passer angel pic can use some work though.
renderImage.image


i did order some dry goods(formalin and a few other times) from them and got it pretty quick.
 
The individual pictures are fine but when the adult & juv and male & female comparison pics could use some work. I've ordered live couple of times and never had a problem. The first one was a 3" meredithi (about $125) 3.5 years ago. Getting dry goods from them is super fast for me and usually 2 days and their price match policy is pretty quick on the phone.
 
They often have sales on IO salt... cheapest around.

Regarding livestock...unless it's a WYSIWYG pic, then what does it matter? Google image search is much better if you need to see what something looks like.
 
SDguy said:
Regarding livestock...unless it's a WYSIWYG pic, then what does it matter? Google image search is much better if you need to see what something looks like.
Click to expand...

^^ That.

Besides, would you rather buy something from a pic that's overly Photoshopped so that it looks nothing like what you actually get (like people do with corals now)? LOL

I still give them kudos for using their own pics. I'm more likely to trust a company that does that than one that is too lazy to take their own and steals pics, which is usually a great sign that they don't have what they advertise.
 
Stock photos dont mean as much to me as getting a beautiful specimen. Its what arrives at your door that counts, Unless it's WYSIWYG. Otherwise save the high quality photoshopped pictures for Magazines and calenders after all they are selling livestock not postcards.
 
My original post was looking at the pics from the standpoint of the business, not the customer. I doubt that many consumers are going to expect the broduct they buy to look BETTER than the advertised photo, but a healthy niger or huma sure looks better than their pics on this site. Any business wants to show their products in the best light, IMO, these pics don't due justice to the beauty of the fish. BTW, the largest seller of live fish on the internet does not photoshop fish photos (except to put their Co. logo on); but they do use plenty of lighting and they admit that up-front.
 
Last edited:
ALL the pix on that page are out of focus...so yeah, the photo quality pretty much sux. It does seem like they'd make their site more presentable. Eye-candy pix do get peoples' attention.

As for "the largest seller", they do a pretty good job, and at least they do mention that they shoot their pix under 20k.
 
namxas said:
ALL the pix on that page are out of focus...so yeah, the photo quality pretty much sux. It does seem like they'd make their site more presentable. Eye-candy pix do get peoples' attention.

As for "the largest seller", they do a pretty good job, and at least they do mention that they shoot their pix under 20k.
Click to expand...

Sure, a business wants to show its products in the best possible light, in the internet fish business, literally. Its why I no longer get asked to do Speedo ads.
 
Last edited:
MrTuskfish said:
Sure, a business wants to show its products in the best possible light, in the internet fish business, literally. Its why I no longer get asked to do Speedo ads.
Click to expand...

Dood...I laughed so hard that I'm surprised my monitor isn't wearing the jalapeno rellenos I had for lunch!:lol:
 
I don't see any flaws in those pictures, I guess it's because I'm not looking for wysiwyg pictures. It's rather difficult and plenty of work for anyone to take pictures of fish that are healthy, in a habitat that are actually swimming around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
50 Gallon Stocking Help
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
Urka
U
Paul B
How Fish are Different from most of us
Replies
1
Views
1K
Paul B
Paul B
E
What's Old is New Again
Replies
2
Views
401
Uncle99
Uncle99
Z
Stocking 35gal, 140ltr tank
Replies
13
Views
2K
ZanaZoola14
Z
C
DIY Stand for Flatback Hexagon Tank
Replies
2
Views
2K
Drummer98
Drummer98
Back
Top