This makes me so angry!!!

B

black_horse

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 November 2008
Messages
4,778
Visit site
Found this on facebook, how horific and unnatural :(

424021_305553019499782_163893446999074_748527_1290604159_n.jpg

4
205753_164402473614838_163893446999074_306919_4480697_n.jpg


263393_195822950472790_163893446999074_459284_2956027_n.jpg


poor mare

197589_164407303614355_163893446999074_306933_930995_n.jpg


406968_263433497045068_163893446999074_650028_773930891_n.jpg
 
The conformation on the first two looks almost photoshopped, gross, can't be rideable. The last looks skinny. But what am I missing the other two?
 
The first two MUST be photoshopped. It would take decades and decades of breeding to produce something like that and I've never seen or heard of a breed that's even remotely like that.
 
Second picture at least is BLATANTLY photoshopped - look at the pattern replicated on the trees in the back right.

I don't understand the FIRST "poor mare" one - I have seen some broodmares who give a LOT more to their foals and look a lot worse with a large weanling at foot despite 5* care - inherently she looks healthy and well to me and if that is her foal you can see exactly why she perhaps raises cause for concern!
(ETA the second however is a different story!)
 
Last edited:
The first horse (I believe it's the same one in the first two photos) has a slipped back or sway back, that is not normal conformation for an American Saddlebred (I think that's the breed pictured).
 
they are real photos - yes the background of the second photo has been photoshopped but probably to remove objects in the background that spoil the photo (something i have done on photos before to draw the eye to the focal point and not the rubbish on the horizon!).

I think the horrific shape is caused by the completely unnatrual pose. Back legs out very far behind pulling the rump in and stretching the back. Front feet up on higher ground to give the arching back shape.

Would really like to see what this horse looks like when it is unposed.
 
Those first two can't really be a real horse. Surely? Maybe the ridden horse is hobbled to stop it trying to buck off the guy sat practically on its quarters.mare does look thin, but not so thin that an illness or something couldn't explain it.
 
It's got a sway back. Here's a different horse of a different breed with the same problem.

dsc05659.jpg


ETA another example
swayback.jpg
 
Last edited:
agree with paint me proud re the posturising makes it look far worse.
Having said that... it obviously does have terrible conformation from breeding as well :(
 
Paris1 said:
How do you know the horse isn't photoshopped?
Click to expand...

i can tell just by looking at the photo. The pixels and image are consistent around the edge of the horse with a non-shopped image. The shadow also matches the horses outline and that too shows no sign of alterations.
Sadly, that is ACTUALLY how they pose their horse.
 
Stinkbomb said:
Sorry but i still think its photoshopped. Its the same horse as photo one but looks totally different to me!! my opinion.
Click to expand...

thats because it is standing on different ground in each picture. Notice how the front feet are on much higher ground than the back feet. That is what is causing the upward curve look of the spine, especially emphasized by having the rear feet very far back out from the pelvis.
 
It isnt photoshoped, the pixels cannot lie ;)

The reason it makes me angry is a) the unnaturalness of it all and b) that fact he is a stallion and they are breeding more horses to be like him...
 
The second photo has definitely been manipulated in some way. There is a massive blur at the tail of the horse, the mane around its withers and its head.
 
These are aweful...
Are these the horses where they sit on the weaker part of their back to get them to dip...and bang 40 odd nails into each foot and coat their feet in acid to make them lift their feet more as its painful for them to stand.

poor things :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top