Back at the knee?

[Sysonby]

I really figured that the easiest way to find out if the horse was back at the knee was to look up the sales results . I can hardly imagine these sharp buyers shelling out big bucks for anything less than a 10 out of 10.

Yes and no. When evaluating sales prices, the real inquiry is who's buying him, why are they buying him and who's getting money on the side for buying him. Not to be too cynical, but the actual quality of the horse is often only part of the equation at the big sales--and sometimes not too big a part.

[ageecee]

Damn 38K for just 10% what a markup on this horse.

[LSB]

Damn 38K for just 10% what a markup on this horse.

The was my first impression, but then I realized I don't know anything about that particular partnership. Maybe some of the initial training and carrying costs are included in that price? It might not be as big a mark-up as it appears.

[wilf]

Yes the Westpoint site says that the 10% price includes all expenses thru 2005

[wilf]

Thanks FOS and Michael for your input. I find it very interesting actually how a horses action can overcome certain faults. Looking out of my back window is a prime example actually which I am certain would pique both of your interests. His name is Classic Jewel and he is back on both knees but he floats like the Butterfly still at 20yrs old. He ran 171 times , winning 33 and I had him from age 6 until his final win aged 14. God only knows how many strong gallops he enjoyed at various tracks in 11 years of racing but he always moved so nicely and it was a pleasure to greet him each day. Respectfully.

[StayOutFront]

Renowned (and published) photographer Barbara Livingston seemed to have Thunderello standing quite well for a straight-in shot, but an angle shot where the stallion could have cocked his head a bit more... might have produced a more attractive result.

It's interesting how people see things so differently.

You feel Thunderello should possibly be photographed from an angle, rather than squarely from the side, to make his head look more attractive.

I very much prefer to accurately/squarely see the horse's side/legs/shoulder/hindquarters (as a sidenote Thunderello, a promising, handsome stallion, has a rather square head which would definitely not be more attractive cocked more toward the camera).

You mention Almostashar (Joy Gilbert) might be better suited to a photograph taken at an angle to hide his straight legs. If a photographer prefers straight legs not be so obvious, they can pose the horse in front of bushes or another dark background. That way the breeder/perspective buyer can still see the fault if they really study the photo.

With true side-shots, people can see what they're paying to breed to, or buying to race. They don't have to wonder if a horse is over- or under at the knees, if his legs are too straight, or if the photographer photographed him that way to hide something.

But, obviously, different strokes....

PS By the way, wilf, Classic Jewel sounds wonderful.

[Michael]

I guess the smartest thing to do when evaluating the conformation of any horse is to inspect him in person. Sometimes this is darn near impossible, so it's important to have someone else's trained eyes looking for strengths and weaknesses. Even then, you're not quite sure you're receiving the insights you need. Personally, I've bought mares without seeing them first hand, but I can't recall ever breeding to a stallion who I had never inspected. For all the reasons discussed in this thread, I am inherently suspicious of most professionally shot stallion photos. Manipulation of shadows, backgrounds, camera angles, footing, and the like can essentially create a look that is not at all like reality.

As a stallion owner I am repeatedly reminded of how few breeders actually take the time to personally inspect the horses they are betting on to produce an athletic racehorse. They would rather rely on magazine advertisements, or word of mouth. Maybe if breeders spent as much time on analyzing their breeding stock as yearling buyers spend inspecting potential purchases, they would produce more correct and athletic young horses. JMO

[FOS]

hi StayOutFront

You wrote "I very much prefer to accurately/squarely see the horse's side/legs/shoulder/hindquarters (as a sidenote Thunderello, a promising, handsome stallion, has a rather square head which would definitely not be more attractive cocked more toward the camera)." You also wrote "With true side-shots, people can see what they're paying to breed to, or buying to race. They don't have to wonder if a horse is over- or under at the knees, if his legs are too straight, or if the photographer photographed him that way to hide something."

StayOutFront...thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Consider this...(as you may or may not be aware) Thunderello (in the flesh) is a touch back at the knee...and also has a clubby and contracted foot (his front left)...that is connected to a pastern that is quite upright also.

I suggest that photographer Barbara Livingston was aware of Thunderello's flaws...and wise (and/or shrewd) to stand him in the grass (for his 2005 TB Times stallion directory photo). By doing that, Livingston seemed to minimize Thunderello's defects that were so clearly evident in his 2004 Blood-Horse stallion register photo (where his feet are not hidden). Take a glance and compare the two photos...very interesting.

I guess the moral of the story (if there is one) might be that getting an exceptional conformation photograph can be very difficult to accomplish (to say the least)...and presenting the horse in an attractive and appealing fashion...while at the same time maintaining a high level of integrity can (arguaby) be quite challenging.

All Things Considered...Michael may have offered the best advice when he wrote..."I guess the smartest thing to do when evaluating the conformation of any horse is to inspect him in person."

If that is not possible...I suggest that a photograph can offer some benefit...but it's probably wise to BEWARE.

Respectfully

[StayOutFront]

I suggest that photographer Barbara Livingston was aware of Thunderello's flaws...and wise (and/or shrewd) to stand him in the grass (for his 2005 TB Times stallion directory photo). By doing that, Livingston seemed to minimize Thunderello's defects that were so clearly evident in his 2004 Blood-Horse stallion register photo (where his feet are not hidden). Take a glance and compare the two photos...very interesting.

Hi again FOS,

I do agree that, if possible, a person should personally inspect any horse they might be interesting in buying/breeding to.

It's interesting you feel each conformation photographer is crafty enough to hide things intentionally...and that you feel you know what they're thinking while they work.

Your note made me smile, as you sure give Barbara Livingston a lot of credit. You suggest Livingston was aware of Thunderello's faults, and wise or shrewd enough to stand him in the grass rather than on pavement. The 2004 Thunderello shot was taken at Walmac, where they have a non-grass presentation area. At Sugar Maple their presentation area, nestled behind the stallion barn, is a beautiful grass yard.

In more than 20 years of taking conformation photos, I have not once intentionally stood a horse to hide a flaw(s). To the best of my recollection, on only one occasion have I ever been asked to hide a flaw, and it was a joke. A groom I've known for years jokingly asked if I could get rid of a stallion's pinfire marks (which, of course, I didn't).

We once stood a stallion who was slightly over-at-the-knees in front of bushes, but that's because (drum roll) there were bushes at the only flat spot on the farm. I took the photo directly from the side, however, so those imperfect knees showed.

You speak highly of another photographer, while saying he probably stood a horse in a particular fashion to intentionally hide something potential buyers should know about.

Hiding a flaw wouldn't dawn on me when taking a conformation photo. It seems of utmost importance to honestly - and correctly - record a horse, both for history's sake and for the sake of anyone who might be financially influenced by the photograph(s).

I don't know if other conformation photographers intentionally deceive, although I'd like to think most do not. I can only speak for the unaware, unshrewd, not-necessarily-wise (but boringly honest) Barbara Livingston.

[ef]

StayOutFront,

My reading comprehension skills are sometimes lacking, but does this mean that you are Barbara Livingston? If so, a) I must chuckle/cringe at some of the previous comments in this thread, and b) I have to tell you how much I love your work! I don't know anything about conformation shots, so I'll stay out of that debate, but I absolutely love your Old Friends work. You truly capture the dignity and character of our aging favorites, and you help us to remember them. Thanks so much!

ef

I don't know if other conformation photographers intentionally deceive, although I'd like to think most do not. I can only speak for the unaware, unshrewd, not-necessarily-wise (but boringly honest) Barbara Livingston.

[FOS]

hi StayOutFront

You wrote "It's interesting you feel each conformation photographer is crafty enough to hide things intentionally...and that you feel you know what they're thinking while they work."

Respectfully StayOutFront...where'd you get that from? Is that intended to be defensive or offensive...or what? I NEVER said that. If you want to challenge my premise please quote me...so I can respond appropriately. I certainly welcome a debate. But spinning my premise and/or viewpoints to an unrecognizable status certainly accomplishes nothing.

Re: Barbara Livingston...I suggest that she was aware of Thunderello's flaws...and wise (and/or shrewd) to stand him in the grass (for his 2005 TB Times stallion directory photo). I selected my words to clearly reflect my thoughts...I NEVER said she "intentionally" (as you wrote) tried to hide anything...or that I know what she (or any other photographer) is thinking.

You also wrote "You speak highly of another photographer, while saying he probably stood a horse in a particular fashion to intentionally hide something potential buyers should know about."

Again...RIDICULOUS...I NEVER said anyone did anything to "intentionally hide something."

Maybe you're referencing my suggestion that the best equine photographers...are aware of exactly what the client is attempting to accomplish...and that I suggest that photographer Joe D'Orio understood clearly the challenge before him.

I further suggest that selecting the appropriate photographer (especially when a photograph is intended for public consumption) can be a very important decision by anyone that owns...manages...advertises etc...a commercial stallion. And selecting the appropriate photograph is obviously very important also.

This is a very serious business...the stakes are often high...and anyone that takes it cavalierly may be destined for a rude awakening.

You wrote "In more than 20 years of taking conformation photos, I have not once intentionally stood a horse to hide a flaw(s)."

I appreciate your candor...but at the same time I suggest that the job (or goal) of the equine photographer is not to be an investigative reporter (unless of course that's what you've been hired to be). I suggest there is more to quality equine photography than exposing all the warts and pimples.

Getting back to Barbara Livingston...she seems to love some of the 'old guys and gals' that she photographs and her heart seems to be exposed in many of her photos.

Although Tony Leonard has long been a favorite...I suggest that Louise Reinagel has developed into one of the premier equine conformation photographers. She seems to understand the strengths and weakness of the horse (often a stallion) standing before her (along with all the challenges and circumstances surrounding the photo-shoot). I'd like to think that a photographer's goal is to capture the BEST photograph possible. That's a tall order...the BEST. But in the case of photographer Reinagel...I submit that very often she seems to hit the bulls-eye.

For what it's worth...it seems clear that some photographers consistently get better results than others. Furthermore...it seems that horses often won't cooperate in the process...yet the exceptional photographer will often get THE shot.

Whatever our differences...it's nice to know that at least we agree with Michael's premise that "...the smartest thing to do when evaluating the conformation of any horse is to inspect him in person."

Respectfully

[StayOutFront]

hi StayOutFront

You wrote "It's interesting you feel each conformation photographer is crafty enough to hide things intentionally...and that you feel you know what they're thinking while they work."

<< Respectfully StayOutFront...where'd you get that from? Is that intended to be defensive or offensive...or what? I NEVER said that. >>

You mention Tony Leonard 'possibly' photographed Housebuster in the grass so as "to minimize attention to the angles of his pasterns," and D'Orio probably photographed the West Point horse from a particular angle "to diminish whatever flaws the colt has." Others retouch their work, "with the intention of leaving a better (although probably misleading) perception..."

Louise's work, you say, "is often to use what some refer to as the 3/4 shot, and hopefully minimize front-end flaws...." You sense Louise "uses a more 'straight-in' perpendicular shot when a horse is very good conformationally and has (arguably) nothing to hide."

You are careful to use words like "possibly," yet you infer you know what those photographers were thinking when they executed those photos. But I wouldn't have responded to those. Heck, maybe they were thinking those things. I have no idea.

I had to respond to this, however:

<<Re: Barbara Livingston...I suggest that she was aware of Thunderello's flaws...and wise (and/or shrewd) to stand him in the grass (for his 2005 TB Times stallion directory photo).

I selected my words to clearly reflect my thoughts...I NEVER said she "intentionally" (as you wrote) tried to hide anything.>>

You suggest I was aware of a horse's flaws, and that I wisely and/or shrewdly stood him in grass to mask those flaws. That suggests intention.

RIDICULOUS...I NEVER said anyone did anything to "intentionally hide something." >>

"I expect (Joe D'Orio) tried...to diminish whatever flaws the colt has.... I suggest that D'Orio placed himself at an angle....which would allow himself to capture a photo that would minimize (as much as possible) the appearance of any defects."

D'Orio "can position himself...to get the angle which might minimize the impression of the flaw(s)/defect(s)..."

It's simply the old, "You say tomato, I say tomato" thing. I feel positioning a horse at an unusual angle to "minimize" a physical issue is trying to "intentionally hide something." You do not. You feel it's good business to minimize horses' flaws. I'm sure many agree with you.

But when you 'suggest' I intentionally posed a horse in a particular way to mask physical issues, I felt the need to respond.

Like religion or politics, it's not worth arguing about, as neither will change the other's mind. If I offended you, my sincere apologies.

I actually just began visiting this forum this weekend, as I'm a tremendous fan of white/colored Thoroughbreds and pedigrees/racing history. A friend recommended I sign up. But forums are a bit too touchy for me, I'm afraid!

Take care,
Barbara

P. S. Thanks again, ef, very much, for those kind words! They brought a big smile.

[LSB]

StayOutFront, I hope you'll reconsider your decision and stay around until you get to know us a little better. I'm with ef, I love your work! Especially OLD FRIENDS which is one of my favorite books. I'd love to have your input into our discussions here.

Some of our posters feel that they are always right--even when proven wrong. Feel free to ignore that aspect of the forum. There really is much else to enjoy here.

[madelyn]

I'm with LSB, welcome StayOutFront. One of the most pleasing aspects of this board is the incredible diversity of the population here... and the sometimes amusing wide range of opinions expressed... but along with all that there are some really helpful, knowledgeable folks with extensive contacts. If you love Thoroughbreds you can't help but like it here.

[halo]

Hi, Barbara, good to see you here.

I work with Louise a lot, and have never ever had her mention standing to cover or minimize a conformation flaw. She has always incredibly congnizant of her backgrounds being perfect, the horse being groomed to perfection, and stood in a perfect conformation pose. I also work with Joe D'Orio, and the same with him. Never have I heard a photographer make any comment to the horses conformation, only that the horse be groomed properly, the background and lighting be correct, and the pose as the industry standard wishes. Photographers are photographers, not conformation experts.