BSZS GHKLR - Page 6

Do  you think that the still photos we see of these dogs really look like them or are they photoshopped (or something). I saw Peik and Chacco  recently and to be honest neither of those dogs look anything like their photos. I thought they looked much better in person, not as stocky and overdone. Both really nice dogs; I'm not sure I'd have said that about either of them if I hadn't seen them in the flesh.

I personally think photoshopping would better the pigment and maybe the smoothness of topline, but angles and proportions remain the same and can be judged perfectly from a still stack picture

I just don't know for sure, ibrahim. Honestly I don't think I'm the only person who would not have recognized those 2 dogs from their photos. I didn't even recognize my own female from her URMA photo. It really didn't look like her in most ways. 

agree with Blitzen. To me, in the flesh Chacco was very athletic looking and not over done at all. that's just not always easy to see in these professional still shots.

Blitzen, almost all of the pics are not photoshopped ( besides color ) .
There are a lot of ways to make a dog looking different while stacking.
Never believe in pictures ( or "training videos" ) only...

In the best case the official picture of a dog is just a "perfect moment" of that animal.
I used to stack dogs for pictures, one dog = sometimes 1.5 hours of hard work, and at the end the pictures were thrown into the garbage.
New day-new luck...
 

All said it nicely,
Facts from reality
1. You can photoshop a picture: make an edge smoother, enhance color etc
2. You can stack a dog to increase or decrease a certain body characteristics like front/rear angulation

That said, in a photo you can not change lengths of bones and angles in between nor body proportions by photoshopping it unless you change the proportions of the photo itself which no sane would do.
By photoshopping you can hide white hairs on a chest or toe, you can make light brown look dark red, you can make a light eye look darker, you can make a light muzzle look darkerer. But you can not make a deep rear look correct (an average person eye will catch) the big change done to the thigh, you can not make a shoulder angle that is 140 look 100.
In a stack you can make the topline look roachy, flatter, and you can make fore chest development look a bit better, but that's all. You will never make a badly structured dog look correct, you can not make a steep front upper arm look correct and so on

Seeing a dog in flesh is better, seeing it in movement is best. Pictures give a fair idea of proportions, lengths, angles, general appearance. In flesh you might find the color degree different, size bigger or smaller, and you can see the dog's presence and character.
I have seen lots of dogs in flesh stacked for pictures, then their pictures, no difference at all in angles and lengths, also proportions. But from one camera to another color varied, impression of dog size varied, also alertness varied according to moment of shot

Agree with Ibrahim on the extent of Photoshoping... But still u can never trust these urma, magicon, etc pics.... WO only get to see them in pics and that too just the picky ones...., casual pics of the dog roaming around , in alert, at rest and other phases can give an idea but still wouldn't do justice... In person is the real deal... IMO..

I have not looked at the pedigrees, DOB, of any of the VA dogs yet, as I am just reading this thread now; but what about the progeny groups for them? How did their offspring place in the younger classes? Does anyone think this did or should play a role in who was placed where? To me, when we are discussing which dogs may be having a major impact on the direction of the breed for generations to come, the progeny should play a a significant role. I hope it still does.

Theresa

Ibrahim

I own a rescue gsd, he is a mother-son inbred and his topline is terrible. When I say terrible, I mean terrible in the exact opposite way every modern gsds topline is. Instead of decending or roachy he has a bump on the latter part of his back and croup as well as practically inexistent withers. Also is his chest development very bad, but with the proper stacking (I tried it out) I could shoot pictures that would show an above average male.

khalid Azeem

I`d also like to hear an explanation about the different use of the title VA last year, I have only heard unconfirmable rumour concerning this.
Photoshopping is very common in succesfull showline dogs, especially with the deep red tones as well as dark heads (which are so popular in males), another factor is that many showlines are supplemented Beta carotene for a red pigment, also decreasing white spots.

Theresa

In my understanding the rogeny groups are always perceived as the major event at BSZS, but I have in the last years found myself disagreeing more and more. To my knowledge Pacco has produced most consistently out of all VAs over a couple of years, to bad for his movement...

Most upsetting about BSZS for me is that ZW is no criteria at all. With some exceptions (like Leo von der Zenteiche and Schumann von Tronje) the ZWs of most VAs are unacceptably high- which in my understanding cannot simply be argumented as an occurence due to mating to so many females.