Photography - "Fixing pictures"

[sjc]

As we begin a new year and a new bull buying season and a new breeding season we are all pouring over pictures of the new bulls. Whether it is in a bull sale book, on a website or in a print ad, I have noticed that the pictures have gotten better and better. Or so it seems... there is even a blog on here and Ill be the first to admit, a good picture goes along way to promoting a bull, cow, piano, whatever.

My question is how many of these breeders are "photoshopping" the photos? Is there anyway to tell if a photo has been "touched up"? Or is the technology so good out there that a picture may get you interested but you need to actually see the animal in person to know what you are getting. If this is the case, then I can understand the value of a website such as this where people can gather information on steer sires and such.

Being a commercial man myself, I am more interested in the bull sale books. Sure I like to go to the sales but sometimes it doesn't work out. I really don't know much about programs like photoshop other then they are out there. My wife and daughter got some type of program for Christmas to touch up photos and it is amazing from what they showed me. Is it common practice for breeders to do this to make that good shot even better? I guess I don't like to be fooled if I buy out of a catalogue - I want to get what I am seeing in the picture.

A lot of purebred breeders up in Canada picture there bulls in knee deep straw. Makes the bulls look stouter. I noticed last year in one sale book (no I am not naming names this time) that the bulls had no straw on them in the picture. And the straw had a weird wave or a kind of blurriness in the snow in the background. My young daughter said, "dad you are too cheap to buy a proper monitor for the computer - the resolution sucks and that's what the causing the blurriness". The cheap part is right but what was very puzzling to me was none of the bulls had straw on them. If they were in a straw pile - even walking through it there would have to be some straw no? I found it odd at the time and looking at some of the new steer bulls photos (they are all so perfect looking) it got me wondering again if it was common practice to touch up these photos.

I guess it is buyer beware - just wondering if anyone knows how to tell.

Thanks - Happy New Year everyone

 

[sjc]

Ok for example the Rimrock bull just posted on the site. Beautiful picture - but look at the background - to me that looks touched up or altered. See the waves on the straw pile in the back?  I am not saying it is or it isnt - I dont know.

 

[Show time]

I have not seen that picture, but usually when you see the "wave" like that they are using the cloning tool to remove something.  It may be a pile of poo, but it may be shaving a lil of the topline too...it's always best to use your own good judgement.

 

[oldwood]

Yeah its like any other marketing tool , you try to get the edge on everything else, but sadly on the buying end it doesnt alwasy look so good .

 

[Bawndoh]

I shot about 25-30 bulls for a catalogue last January.  The operation was really short on help, so they didn't get the chance to blow the bulls off before I pictured them.  I DID remove much of the straw off the bulls...but that was IT!.  Some of them just had specks of straw or tag on them because they use a bale shredder and the fluff got all over.  Most operations blow each bull off before picturing them, therefore they do look better...fluffier....better!  I seriously doubt that Browarny, or Grantspix does any more than what I did either.  I have seen many times a photo of a bull with only the straw, or frost, or tag chunks photoshopped off.  Last year when I shot in January it was about -25-30 Celsius...so there was a LOT of frost on the bulls.  Not to mention they didn't want to move around much either!  I had to darken the frosty spots in a few of the bull pix's as well.  The second day I was there, it was almost above freezing...so the (coming 2 year old bulls) were feeling REALLY good.  They hardly ate, were riding eachother like crazy, and fighting eachother all darn day, and looked sweaty, and green.

Anyhow...I would personally say...buyer beware.  I can easily tell which images are PS'ed, but you may not be able to.  Personally, if you are going to be spending money on your herdsires...go look at them yourself!  Or send someone you trust.  There is absolutely nothing like seeing the bull yourself. 

 

[Bawndoh]

Ok for example the Rimrock bull just posted on the site. Beautiful picture - but look at the background - to me that looks touched up or altered. See the waves on the straw pile in the back?  I am not saying it is or it isnt - I dont know.

Kudo's to the fact that they put his video up at least.  Judging by the video...they didn't do much PS'ing to his photo.  I think they just took something distracting away from the background. 

 

[JSchroeder]

If you are worried about photoshopping the background, don't even bother looking at pictures.

A picture being "photoshopped" doesn't mean the animal was touched up to make it look better.  The majority of the time it just means crap (both literal and figurative) in the background was removed.

 

[Okotoks]

If you are worried about photoshopping the background, don't even bother looking at pictures.

A picture being "photoshopped" doesn't mean the animal was touched up to make it look better.  The majority of the time it just means crap (both literal and figurative) in the background was removed.

A lot of photos have the back ground changed and some the animals. In the 50's and 60's it was called retouching and the animals were given more hind quarter and the switch was moved to the side to make the animal look fuller.They were almost always photographed in deep straw. When you look at those photos now you have no clue what they really looked like. Even the way the animal is posed can make an animal look very different. If one can't get to a sale it's best to have someone you trust take a look for you. If a catalgue is well done the photographs will attract buyers. A bad photo isn't worth much, just bad publicity!

 

[Chap]

i have found that most of the catalog pics are simply cleaned up if any photoshopping was done.  Promo pics on the other hand are a different animal.  I would ague that some of the prominent photographers are more bold about the practice than others, but when buying semen or an animal that looks too perfect, you had better go and see them in person to confirm what you are getting.  Feed, fit, hair and camera quality have definately helped make for better pictures, but in my opinion the computer has created more perfect cattle than actually exist.

 

[redsimms]

As far as Canadian bull sale bulls go. If you are buying bulls sight unseen it really is not in the sellers best interest to change the animal itself in any way. I mean really if you send a customer a bull that isn't like the one in the picture you are only asking for trouble for yourself. For that reason I don't find many Canadian sale pics that really modify the animal itself. But really, if you could clean straw off a calf why wouldn't you? It doesn't change the calf, just makes you stop and look because it is presented in a nice way.

 

[sjc]

Taking the manure off of a calf I can see - make the calf look the absolute best they can to try and get interest. If i see a bull catalogue with a bunch of pictures of bulls with crap all over them I am not really interested in looking. If you cannot take the time to clean the bull up I am not wasting my time looking at your bulls.

What I am a little more concerned about is "trimming off the top a little" or even taking an unclipped animal and making them look clipped via photoshop. On one hand I can see where it is useful and as long as its not changing the appearance of the calf, I am good with it but where do you draw the line?

I also understand that going and seeing the bull is still the best way. It is just sometimes you see a nice calf, and that darn heifer still hasnt dropped that calf yet and you know if you leave she will....

I also like the comment about changing the bull to much - if it is not the same bull when they do show up at the yard then I would be unsatisfied and not be a customer any longer. No gain for the breeder in that.

The more I read, the more it sounds like people have accepted this and the poster who said our cattle look more perfect then they actually are is probably bang on. I guess it is just something we have to accept.

 

[gobigorgohome]

if you dont see it in the pictures you will see it in the calves yes you might get the crappy end of the stick but thats the chance you take but in the end the bull and owner will get bad publicity.

 

[Shady Lane]

I remember a prominent Angus breeder had a saying about buying cattle sight unseen, "If you can't afford the ticket then you can't afford the beast".


Meaning it is always best to go and see for yourself.

I think that is a little bit more cut and dried than actual fact but I think the idea remains that buying something strictly out of a catalogue regardless of if it be a bull sale catalouge or the Sears Catalague you should educate yourself and research beforehand and not just base it off of the picture.

Sometimes it might be as simple as just calling the breeder up and asking about the particular animal and if the photo has been "retouched" you might find that people are a lot more honest than you think.

 

[thunderdownunder]

I think you'd be surprised by the number of cattle which are photoshopped (not just background etc). I am finding it easier and easier to pick those photos which have been altered.
I have no problem with people removing distracting objects etc, but when you start playing with the actual animal's phenotype, that's different.
But then, I guess what's the difference between photoshopping an animal to look good, and fitting it out to hide it's faults, using that much glue etc that the animal that walks out doesn't really reflect what it truly is.

In the end, people are going to do whatever they think it takes to sell their animal. Personally I think if you need to do that much work they can't be much worth selling!
It all comes down to 'caveat emptor' - let the buyer beware.

 

[husker1]

Taking the manure off of a calf I can see - make the calf look the absolute best they can to try and get interest. If i see a bull catalogue with a bunch of pictures of bulls with crap all over them I am not really interested in looking. If you cannot take the time to clean the bull up I am not wasting my time looking at your bulls.


Please be lenient on the guys that don't get them cleaned up to a T for production sale pictures.  It's always been one of my pet peeves that I want them clean for pictures...but it is SOOO MUCH WORK! 

A year like last year, we had dirty bulls from start to finish....snow, freeze, thaw, mud, etc., etc.  Moved bale feeders every second or third day as well as clean bedding at least every other day.  We had about 8 guys working chutes for 2 days (myself included)...trying to get them cleaned off for the sale.  Powerwashing and curry combs in sub-freezing temps.  One of the toughest jobs you can come up with on the farm.

Some operations just aren't able to find the man-power to get it done.  I've been there and understand how much work it is, so I'll let that slide some. 

I still don't tolerate it at our place, though. 

 

[Freddy]

Vieos's are less forgiving than  still photo's ,they can still pictures all they want, but this fall a breeder had a photographer take video's an standstill an boy they didn't mix very good, it would of been embarrassing for the breeder in my eyes... Those cattle start moving an they trally fall apart ...

 

[Bawndoh]

Before and afters of a could bulls I just pictured.  -20 degrees (celcius) plus wind up here that day.  Lots of snow on their backs, plus freshly processed straw...you know what
a 2yr old bull does in fresh straw!  This is an example of what I do when "fixing pictures".

 

[knabe]

one of my favorite pics is of energizer with manure on his butt.

 

[sjc]

Bawndoh .

Thanks for that - I appreciate what you did. Too me you just cleaned up the photo and made it more appealing to me to look at. I guess as long as the bull is not "altered" then I can see how it is a benefical tool. By looking at the photos, I woudl be more inclined to take a look at both of your cleaned up photos.