# Tiger trout reproduction



## Truelife (Feb 6, 2009)

Here's my latest creation. A 18 1/2" tiger trout


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

LOL! When I saw the title I thought we were going to see some kind of crazy question about tigers and spawning. I was pleasantly "set-straight" when I saw the content of the post. Good work!


----------



## Truelife (Feb 6, 2009)

ha ha, that's funny! I didn't even think about that.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

Nice! where were you at the taxidermy competition? Did you come? You would have done well with that fish!

You comin to the fish painting seminar with Dan Johnson?


----------



## Truelife (Feb 6, 2009)

I haven't been able to create enough time to make it to the show the last couple of years. I live in Santaquin so it was always easier for me when we had it at the Bean Museum. I've just been quietly working away and trying to improve my work the last few years. I'll get back to the shows eventually. 

I am really hoping to make it to the fish painting seminar. I'm also right in the middle of trying to get my house sold right now amongst several other things that are going on so hopefully I will be able to make it. I'll be in touch if I can.

Thanks for the comments Darin.


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

Very nice artwork Truelife! How long did that piece take you?

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## orvis1 (Sep 7, 2007)

I know who I will call when I finally get one that is wall worthy!


----------



## Truelife (Feb 6, 2009)

I didn't count the hours on that one Sawsman, it's a donation to the local BSA troop for a fundraiser auction. BUT, it was a whole bunch of time! I usually work on every fish until my wife threatens to take it away and smash it.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Truelife -- I'd like to see a photograph of the fish this reproduction was modeled after.

Please take this as constructive criticism: the fish looks "painted" to me. If it looks painted, then they certainly are not what I am looking for. Personally, I've never seen a tiger trout that looks like your reproduction. It appears to me that the "squiggly waves" or "stripes" are wrong. It appears to have light colored waves and stripes, while I've always looked at tiger trout as having dark waves or stripes. Maybe a bit more "spotting" or "blobs" mixed in with the "wormy" lines on the back -- a transition section. Copy that transition in the orange area.

Now, tiger trout certainly do take on characteristics of both parents -- brook trout have dark backgrounds with light spots, and brown trout have light backgrounds with dark spots. So, when you cross them, they get wavy light and dark squiggly lines.

there is just something that I don't like about this fish as a tiger trout. But, that is only my personal opinion.

The fish is VERY nice looking -- it is certainly artistic and pretty. It just doesn't look like what I would expect my tiger trout to look like. That is why I'd like to see a photograph of the original fish. I very well may change my opinion.

Again, hopefully you take this as constructive criticism.


----------



## Truelife (Feb 6, 2009)

PBH - In my opinion the best way to learn is to take constructive critisim from those who are better, or know more than one's self. Therefore I always do try to look at critisicm with an attempt to learn. So no sweat there. I'm going to post a bunch of pictures below for others who might read this thread. They will for the most part prove you absolutely correct.

Before I do that let me explain what I did with this fish. I don't know if you are a taxidermist, or not, but I'll explain the process a little for those who are not. First of all this is a reproduction. That means that I basically have a blank, white sheet of paper to start painting on. I did not model this fish after an existing fish because it's just one I did for a donation, not a one for a customer. I really like this fish shown on the cover of Breakthrough magazine so I tried to make mine look like it.










Those vermiculation (squigely lines) always give me little twitchy fits when painting them so I thought I would try something new with this one. I thought I would draw the fish up on a piece of paper, draw the lines, laminate the paper, and then cut out the lines so that i would have a stencil. I'm not sure if that saved any time, because makeing that stencil wasn't quick.

BUT - as you said, the body of the fish should be the lighter color, with the stripes being dark. However that would not work with a stencil because the light parts that show through would need to be floating. I don't know if that makes sence to everyone or not but if you look at the pictures long enough you will see what I mean.  So the option was to make the body darker, and put the light on as stripes. 
Now, let me shoot come constructive constructive critisicm back at you. If you are a taxidermist let me say that sometimes we taxi's can take things farther than they need to be taken. For instance, you could put my fish on display next to the one shown on the magazine cover and have 1000 people look at them. 90% of the viewers might say that they were equally as good and not ever notice what you noticed. The 10% that did notice are the one's that will be paying the magazine guys' bills. He will charge 4 times what I charge for a fish because he's just that **** awesome. I won't dispute that for a second. I see this all the time with bird taxidermy. There are a whole lot of poopy looking bird mounts out there and guys just love them. Why??? Because it looks "good enough for them" and they didn't have to pay $250 to get it done.

So, to sum it up&#8230;. You are dead on about the stripes, but most people that see it will say they think it looks awesome and not ever notice that.

Anyone else who reads this please feel free to chime in. Like I said, I'm always learning.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Truelife -- I have to admit, I didn't expect a response as good as what you wrote. I fully expected some retaliation. I am certainly NOT an artists -- so you would be justified to tell me "let's see you do better...". I couldn't come close to doing as good a job as you did.

Compared to the magazine cover, I have to admit that I think you did a great job. I think you were able to "reproduce" that fish very well.

You also made a very good point about the customer's expectations. For the majority of people, your reproduction is going to be perfect, and certain particulars won't ever be noticed / missed / scrutinized. There will be some who will be looking for something different (maybe not better or worse, but different). Expectations are something that can be difficult to meet. I certainly don't envy any taxidermists attempting to reproduce a tiger trout! Their patterns are certainly a difficult task for even the best.

In your reproduction - I can't tell from the pics - are scales visible? That is something I always look for in fish mounts as well.


----------



## Truelife (Feb 6, 2009)

Thanks PBH, I know what you mean about expectations. That is always the joy of trying to create what the customer has in their own mind. 

You asked about scales. That is one of the biggest downsides to reproductions in my opinion. Especially on the majority of our trout species. The living fish has very small scales and they don't show up very well when a mold is made, and then a reproduction made from that. It's kind of like a copy of a copy. So, no, this fish doesn't have the type of scale detail I would really like to have to work with. You've probably noticed on great fish mounts that the artist will tip many of the scales with a irridescent color of some kind. That is what really makes the fish look lifelike. It's also pretty hard to do when there isn't any scale detail to tip. Warm water fish are different because they have such large scales.

Here's another picture for those wondering what I'm talking about. You can see that there are some scales that are silver. That's what makes the rainbow shine when you hold it a certain way. Also, notice that those spots aren't round spots. Most guys miss that on fish and paint them on as round spots. Those spots will also change shape depending on where they are on the fish. All of the little things are what makes it look real. All of these little details are also what makes good fish taxidermy, or any taxidermy for that matter expensive.


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

I'm loving this discussion! Its nice to hear what goes into a piece of art. NOT EASY. Taxidermists are true artists, just as much as those who draw and paint on paper. Thanks for sharing with us! I'd like Tex to chime in too, and hear what he has to add to the discussion.


----------



## trout bum (Oct 5, 2010)

Truelife, I think the fish looks great! You handled the criticism very professionally and I think any artist needs to be able to do that. However "constructive" it may be(which I though it was), I believe there can be such a thing as too much. Paint on!

T.B


----------



## Truelife (Feb 6, 2009)

T.B. There can absolutely be way to much paint on fish mounts. That gets even trickier on a reproduction when 100% of the color you see is painted on. It gets to be a tricky process. ( at least it is for me)

Thanks for the compliments.


----------



## trout bum (Oct 5, 2010)

I wasnt saying there is too much paint on the fish. I was saying "paint on!". I think the fish looks great.


----------



## Truelife (Feb 6, 2009)

gotcha, thanks!


----------

