update bird photos on ABC site

[Sharon Yorks]

John,

Could you please replace the photos of the blue male and the buff male that are up on the website with the two I listed (reply #9) in this thread. The ones on the website now are very poor representations of what those varieties should look like.

Thanks!

[John]

please replace the photos

Boy, am I a good boy or what?  (no answer required )

[Sharon Yorks]

Could you please double check those photos? Blue is on his nose and buff is missing.

[John]

Blue is on his nose and buff is missing.

??

[Jean]

John,

Do you know why my buff pullet was removed and the current picture placed there?  The picture is of very poor quality.  The bird's head almost disappears like an optical illusion.

[John]

Do you know why my buff pullet was removed and the current picture placed there?

Sure.  For the same reason I made all the other changes...someone said a photo was better than what was there, like you are saying now.  I didn't make any of the decisions, but if you email the photo of the bird you want there I will decide between the two.  Or you can post both here and ask for input. 

[Mike Gilbert]

 I just checked, and the buff that is up there right now is far and away the best photo of a buff female I have seen.   The color is superb, and the type is very good, although the tail may be a bit high.   Yes, the head is somewhat obscured, but that is a minor point compared to the overall quality of the photo.   I would recommend  leaving it until something better becomes available - which may be some time.

[Birdcrazy]

John, what was that old saying "You can't please all the people all of the time, just some of the people some of the time." Sometimes doing your best turns into a thankless job! I think personally you are doing a great job and really are an asset and backbone of the ABC. Thank you for your dedication and hard work you do behind the scene.

[Jean]

Current photo



my old photo

[John]

Jean,

They are both very nice looking buffs and we all know how difficult it is to get them to pose and get that perfect photo.  The first impression I get looking at both is that the top bird is showing more leg/shank and that makes the bottom one appear more (too) fluffy.

What you others think?

[Jean]

The legs do appear shorter on my bird, but I believe it is because of the way she was standing.  She was Reserve of Show in that photo.

My eyes just tweek out when I look at the other photo because of the way the head seems to disappear. 

I do believe we need to see if we can get a better photo in the future.

But which ever bird you decide to keep on the forum is up to you since you are maintaining it.  I was just curious when I looked at the photos when this topic was brought up.

[Mike Gilbert]

From the APA Standard description of the Ameraucana female:
Back:  Medium length, relatively broad, slightly elevated at shoulders.
Question:   which bird is slightly elevated at the shoulders?   Which one slopes up from front to back?

Tail:  Carried at 45 degree  angle above horizontal.
Question:  which bird is closest to the 45 degrees?  The one has a flat back and tail carriage like a Rock.

Both are fine birds, but I do believe the one is too fluffy and the other one is just about right.  A person may or may not like the color depictions in the Standard, but they are darn close to correct according to the way the Standard was written.   I did not say they were perfect. 
A famous Polish Breeder once said, "We are breeding chickens that have crests, not crests that have some sort of chicken attached."   I had to laugh when I read that.   I think we have to apply the same logic when it comes to muffs and beards in our Ameraucanas.    There are almost as many judges opinions on what is correct type for Ameraucana as there are judges I suppose.    It is up to us to get it right.

[Birdcrazy]

Well put Mike.

[John]

Both are fine birds,

Sometimes it is just the pose when it comes to photos.  If we were to judge both birds in hand we may judge differently.