retouched photo in advert for Hoof First?

coffeeandabagel

coffeeandabagel

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 August 2011
Messages
633
Location
Central Herts
Visit site
On page 78 of the recent BHS mag British Horse there is an advert for Hoof First. Its shows a before and after hoof. The before foot has chunks missing round the bottom where hoof meets shoe. The after pic is of a lovely hoof, shod but with no clenches or side / toe clips. Is it stuck on? If so how unfair to compare that to a conventionally shod foot.
 
20131031_124119.jpg
 
Last edited:
Looks like someone got a bit to happy clicky with their mouse on Photoshop!!! Bulb of the heel has also been 'tidied up'

have you all got your bhs mags? When did you receive them???
 
I've had shoes with no side or toe clips before when the farrier wanted to encourage the wall to grow down (no idea if this makes a difference but he has nice feet anyway). But can't understand why there are no clenches in this, and yes it does look tidied and trimmed (the photo I mean). Actually it looks a bit more like a barefoot hoof with a picture of a shoe added underneath - something to do with the angle. I'm not especially au fait with barefoot hooves, someone else might know better.
 
Foot is still sick anyway!

Long toe has been chopped off at the end to disguise it. Hoof pastern axis is broken backward. What a baaaaaaad advert!!!
 
I thought that cptrayes, even if the hoof hadn't been retouched (which it blatantly has), it is still a bad example of what it should look like!
 
cptrayes said:
Foot is still sick anyway!

Long toe has been chopped off at the end to disguise it. Hoof pastern axis is broken backward. What a baaaaaaad advert!!!
Click to expand...

That made me think of the image/branding on some hoof range or other that when I see any of their products I think, that's one bad example of a hoof to have chosen, lol! Trying to think who that is, now.
 
Just looking at my copy now...there is definitely some dodgy cutting-out going on, especially around the toe and heel.If you look at the back, where the shoe ends under the heel, there is also something odd - there is a bit of heel that seems to come down below the shoe. That would support what Abacus has said about the shoe being 'shopped on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top