meta Has Photo Enhancement Gone Too Far? :: The Bullvine - The Dairy Information You Want To Know When You Need It

Has Photo Enhancement Gone Too Far?


Changing Backgrounds



VG 2yr Old Base Background




Lower Background




Royal Background



Mountain Background



Composite Image

Shine vs. No Shine



The Bullvine Bottom Line


What are your thoughts?  Please share in comments box below.






  1. You say the cow has not been altered but I know for a fact that the top line gets added
    In now on every picture patty takes. As well the tail gets put in the right spot and the puffiness gets added. Like you say though where do you draw the line. I’m sure people the have the knowledge on a certain program can touch up other parts of the cow as well. I say you can’t
    Trust most of the pictures out there.

  2. Bryan Quanbury

    I always find it interesting when it comes to adding shadows. Most dairy cattle photographers like do a deep black shadow, which has become the expected norm. Problem is, in real life to get the type of shadow the sun would have to be directly behind the photographer. Since the sun is in the sky, the shadows should be short and not as hard an edge. This really comes down to those that understand light effect and Photoshop vs. those that are looking to just “add a shadow”


  3. Bryan Fieldhouse

    If you are talking about putting in “hair” or “shaving cream” before shooting the picture. That has been a practice by all photographers for many years. The interesting thing is since most went digital with high-resolution cameras, it has actually become more noticeable. When going back and adjusting the colour range of old photos you see this all the time. I am comfortable with this practice. The one that gets me is the adding in the topline digitally afterwards.

    As far as the tail getting put in the correct spot and puffiness added. Having never seen this hard to comment. Have seen that hands that hold the tail get removed, but that is the extent of my knowledge.

    The part I would like to address her is naming Patty specifically. Bryan you and I have known each other for many years, and I do have a lot of respect for you. But the one comment I will argue you with greatly here is Patty’s ethics. I have a world of respect for Patty, and feel that the amazing things she has done for the dairy cattle industry and Canadians specifically, could almost be unmatched by anyone. I have always found her to be of strong ethics and in doing so I feel that she deserves a lot of respect. While others have gone to using many digital shortcuts I find that patty has held true to a strong ethical base.


    • Brian,

      Take a look at any of the Royal shots or shots that you know have not had the background changed. Notice how there is limited shadow. And that is with spotlights blasting at the cow. The suns light is much much more diffused. Also a good tell is when the light on the cow is on her rump and yet the shadow is being applied as if it is coming from the front end. They are key small details that they human eye picks up (does not know why) and just gets that it's not correct.


  4. I don't really have much of a problem with changing backgrounds, but when you change the actual body parts of animals, that is a problem. There is one nominated heifer pictured twice last fall by 2 different photographers, you wouldn't know it was the same heifer. That is where I have an issue with modern technology. Lenghtening necks or bodies, adding depth of rib, certainly does not help our industry.

    • Shelley,
      That is the reason I mentioned in the article about NOT touching the conformation ever. I think this comes down to a ethics issue. If the image is intended to promote the conformation of the animal (which is why breeders are picturing the animals) then the animal needs to be left alone. For me “Lengthening necks or bodies, adding depth of rib” is not acceptable.

  5. My comment is in regard to the opening sentence of this article. The analogy regarding mens preference for legs or boobs isn’t really relative to the article and in my opinion isn’t very professional. As a female in this industry (one of many I might add) I find it in poor taste.

    • Judy,
      I would like to pass on my apologize for any offense I may have caused you. In an attempt at humor, I understand that it did not go over that well. And yes there are many great woman in this industry and do apologize for any offence that I caused.

  6. Harry Stromeyer would be rolling over in his grave.

    I know of a photographer who quit taking pictures for a major bull stud because they basically wanted him to make 72 point 2 year old’s to look like 85 pointer’s. That is just plain wrong. I want to know exactly how the daughters of a bull look. I can understand to a degree a background change where as there is no suitable place to take a picture. However this whole thing to me is getting out of hand. I don’t blame this on genomics either. that’s an entirely different subject.

  7. I have no problems with the altered background. But I do have a problem with altering the cow. The cow should be as she is photographed, with the acception of the top line.. as most cows are top lined any how for shows.. I dont agree though with the extreme flatness of the top line like some one has put a ruler on it, and I dont agree with taking bone out because naturally.. this can not be done.  I believe the clipping and fitting of animals is getting a little extreme, the ring around the tail  and the fins on the tail head for example, no doubt udder fill as well, it is all meant to blend and look natural.
     We have been commented on how our cows look as good in the paddock as they do in the show ring and as good as how they are photographed. This is how it should be.
     A photograph of a cow can make her look better or worse depending on who is photographing them, what angle etc. The top end of cattle photographers have to have this good eye to stand the cow to her best advantage.
     For one to fix a fault on a cow through digital manipulation is wrong. To change a background I dont think is. Not all farms have a beautiful scenic back drop.
      For someone to get a photographer to make an ugly animal look pretty through digital manipulation is so wrong and these breeders/owners etc should be reported.

Leave a Reply

Send this to a friend