# ID please¬



## dweizoro (Apr 1, 2005)

what`s this.


----------



## dweizoro (Apr 1, 2005)

sorry post 2 pics.....- -


----------



## rchan11 (May 6, 2004)

I don't know, but it looks amazing.


----------



## "qickshot" (Apr 19, 2005)

wow thats a super looking serra! i dont know wat it is spilo? mac? i have no clue on second look it doesnt look like either of them


----------



## Joga Bonito (Oct 30, 2004)

its not a sanchezi for sure

im going to say Gold Piranha (Serrasalmus Spilopluera)

looks like this (pic from pedro)

View attachment 77828


----------



## dweizoro (Apr 1, 2005)

...i think it is Spilo or mac


----------



## CROSSHAIR223 (Jan 17, 2005)

either a gold spilo or gold rhom looks like both when they're young. I have both and he looks just like they did when young. Too much time to tell but I'm leaning more towards spilo and not rhom. How much did you pay if you don't mind me asking. If you payed around or over 100 he's probably a gold rhom.


----------



## Fomoris (Mar 13, 2005)

The tail tells that he is a S. spilopleura


----------



## deezdrama (Jul 9, 2005)

thats for sure a -Serrasalmus Thatimusthaveth-


----------



## CROSSHAIR223 (Jan 17, 2005)

here's a pic of my gold I just sold.
View attachment 77934


----------



## ANDONI (Jul 11, 2004)

Could be a Marginatus but not sure.


----------



## CraigStables (Oct 5, 2003)

the pic looks heavily photoshopped to me.


----------



## theanimedude (Jun 4, 2005)

CraigStables said:


> the pic looks heavily photoshopped to me.


----------



## dweizoro (Apr 1, 2005)

....no ps.....3q


----------



## dipset.taliban (Sep 8, 2005)

CraigStables said:


> the pic looks heavily photoshopped to me.


not heavily... just looks like the levels were changed to bring oujt the fish


----------



## CraigStables (Oct 5, 2003)

dipset.taliban said:


> the pic looks heavily photoshopped to me.


not heavily... just looks like the levels were changed to bring oujt the fish
[/quote]

judging by the little marks along the edge of the P where it meets the background it looks like a fair bit of work has gone in (although this could just be on the background itself!) and Im still not sure if the yellow on its fin is real or not but without the full size pic I cant really tell!


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

ANDONI said:


> Could be a Marginatus but not sure.


That was my first thought as well...but the nose looks a little too blunt.


----------



## Winkyee (Feb 17, 2003)

It looks much like a juvi mac to me.


----------



## KRSwop1 (Feb 17, 2003)

Yeah, that pic is a fake. I looked at it up close, and you can see where the blur tool was used. I believe the tail band to be fake. I think the bright yellow was either added in, or the contrast was intensified a lot. Even the head looks like it was altered. I think the shape of the head was changed by blacking out some of it. If you look close, you can see the black line added around the head to change it's shape. There are random blurred areas. It's fake. Just copy it and paste it in paint if you don't have photoshop. There's a magnifying tool that you can use to check for yourself.


----------



## dweizoro (Apr 1, 2005)

Not fake . fish shop`s picture .


----------



## KRSwop1 (Feb 17, 2003)

it's heavily edited. Who did it is another question. I didn't say you did it, but it had been done.


----------



## B. Rodgers (Jan 20, 2005)

CROSSHAIR223 said:


> here's a pic of my gold I just sold.
> View attachment 77934


Here's That Same Gold, But I Own Him Now! My Camera's Better Than Yours


----------



## dipset.taliban (Sep 8, 2005)

again its not heavily edited.. ive gone to school for this.

The levels were brought closer together, in my guess the black were made blacker. Also im not seeing any blur tool in there as somebody said. But ya if anything it was just photoshopped the show off the fish, alot of shops would do this, wouldn't you. But it wasnt photomanipulated, just edited to glorify it.


----------



## deezdrama (Jul 9, 2005)

yeah I dont see any heavy photo munipulation in the pic- It may just be a nice ass digital camera- or the levels adjusted.


----------



## KRSwop1 (Feb 17, 2003)

ok. I don't really care about this enough to argue about it, but I went to school for it also. I believe that it has been altered. You disagree, well that's just your opinion, which you're entitled to. I am a graphic designer, and the pic looks edited to me. The pixels seem blurred or heavily blended in some areas. The colors seem exaggerated a lot also, and the shape of the face seems to be altered to me also. There is a dark line following the contour of its face, as if someone was changing the shape of its profile. But then again, that's just my opinion. If you look closely at the pic, you can see some inconsistencies in the pixels.


----------



## serrakeeper (Aug 28, 2005)

looks like a marginatus from argentina


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

View attachment 79651

A little lighter...

The first fish I thought about was this one from the OPEFE website:








My guess would be S. marginatus.
Lovely fish, btw









And to all vinegar pissers that nag about the picture being Photoshopped: why not answer the thread starters question instead of ruining this thread







Either contribute, or stay out!


----------



## Piranha King (Nov 28, 2002)

Judazzz said:


> View attachment 79651
> 
> A little lighter...
> 
> ...


no need to be a dick. if the pic is photoshopped the id is not accurate. also a pfury member was the first to say it. try being nice for once. there was a lot better way to say it.
wes


----------



## CraigStables (Oct 5, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> And to all vinegar pissers that nag about the picture being Photoshopped: why not answer the thread starters question instead of ruining this thread
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, I actually agree with P-King here. I was the first to say it was shopped, and I still think it was.

Whats the problem with saying that opinion, as if he wanted an accurate ID then surely an unphotoshopped pic would of been best?


----------



## KRSwop1 (Feb 17, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> View attachment 79651
> 
> A little lighter...
> 
> ...


Check the tails. Not Marginatus, sorry bro.

As for the vinegar pissers thing(which I assume he was probably talking to me) is no biggie. I've been called worse in my life :laugh: . Oh, and I still think it was photoshoped. Sorry.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

CraigStables said:


> And to all vinegar pissers that nag about the picture being Photoshopped: why not answer the thread starters question instead of ruining this thread
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, I actually agree with P-King here. I was the first to say it was shopped, and I still think it was.

Whats the problem with saying that opinion, as if he wanted an accurate ID then surely an unphotoshopped pic would of been best?
[/quote]
The question was about the ID of the fish, and I don't see that fish being photoshopped much itself (probably apart from contrast/brightness) - I could agree that it appears copied into a different background, but does that change the fish or its ID?
What would be the point in photoshopping yourself a new kind of fish and then asking for it's ID in this forum?









KRSwop1: I think you're right that my guess was off... The tail points towards Spilo/Mac, but somehow the rest of the fish doesn't add up.


----------



## CraigStables (Oct 5, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> The question was about the ID of the fish, and I don't see that fish being photoshopped much itself (probably apart from contrast/brightness) - I could agree that it appears copied into a different background, but does that change the fish or its ID?
> What would be the point in photoshopping yourself a new kind of fish and then asking for it's ID in this forum?


Its been done before Jud!!


----------



## KRSwop1 (Feb 17, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> And to all vinegar pissers that nag about the picture being Photoshopped: why not answer the thread starters question instead of ruining this thread
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, I actually agree with P-King here. I was the first to say it was shopped, and I still think it was.

Whats the problem with saying that opinion, as if he wanted an accurate ID then surely an unphotoshopped pic would of been best?
[/quote]
The question was about the ID of the fish, and I don't see that fish being photoshopped much itself (probably apart from contrast/brightness) - I could agree that it appears copied into a different background, but does that change the fish or its ID?
What would be the point in photoshopping yourself a new kind of fish and then asking for it's ID in this forum?









KRSwop1: I think you're right that my guess was off... The tail points towards Spilo/Mac, but somehow the rest of the fish doesn't add up.
[/quote]
He could just be doing it for shits and giggles. We still haven't figured out what species it is. That could be the point of the whole thread-To try to stump everyone.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

hmmm, do I think the photo has been altered? probably. However, the fish otherwise meets the criteria of S. maculatus. ID Complete.


----------

