Post Pics Of Orps/ Orpingtons HERE

[galanie]

Whenever I see those old prints like this one

It makes me want to grab the sides of it and stretch it out like this

 

[fowlman01]

Whenever I see those old prints like this one

It makes me want to grab the sides of it and stretch it out like this

Wonderful example of why you have to know the description of the bird. This new world of digital prints has things like this happen all the time. When it was scanned and or reformatted, it skewed the proportions and this is not unusual. If you bred for the top illustration, you would be in a world of hurt in a couple years.

The profile of an Orp is a lot easier to get than many of the other breeds.

Walt

 

[aveca]

im sure that picture was askew from the kindle company and digital scanning into college bookreader library.. to make it fit their format.the clevenger ad didnt come out that way..it looks like it should.but i cant get it to load from tablet..


this is exactly why i asked this question....what is correct...

 

[OSUman]

What is correct changes from show to show depending on the judges interpretation of the standard.

im sure that picture was askew from the kindle company and digital scanning into college bookreader library.. to make it fit their format.the clevenger ad didnt come out that way..it looks like it should.but i cant get it to load from tablet..


this is exactly why i asked this question....what is correct...

 

[aveca]

thats what I thought OSUman..i see variations, but just always wanted a gold standard picture to hang up and strive for..i dont always have time to fumble through the description, thou it answers lot of questions..

and walt..you critisize my grammer..sometimes you are amazingly condacending for an educator.

 

[galanie]

I understand Aveca's question, or at least I think I do. I don't always know what they mean in the SOP either. For instance, what does "moderately long" really mean? Proportions would be helpful. We rely heavily on the visual whether we realize it or not. The eye sees the proportions that make "moderately long" make sense. I read some fascinating references to shape on another breed where they used a rectangle overlaid on the bird's drawing to illustrate the proper proportion of that breed's body and shape.

In this electronic world, it's not as if we can take a pencil to the screen and draw the ideal line on the picture of an almost perfect one and say "There! That's what I mean." As the past couple of pages illustrate, language can be inexact. What is clear to me isn't always clear to others and vice versa.

I, for one, am unsure what the comb following the head means. I think it means that the base of the comb should follow a line that the head would make if there were no comb present, but as I said, I'm unsure.

I'm also guessing the reason for all requests for a bird with the right outline and look IN BLACK is because an artist can't just take a buff bird and color it black. A child with a box of crayons can but anyone wanting to create quality artwork can't. The play of the light on the feathers makes it so that all the artist can really do is stretch this part a bit or take that line down some. Or do what I did, and make only a profile for my egg carton logo. And mine isn't perfect SOP but the outline of my favorite hen lol.

Edit: And any critisims of the above are welcome. This was from a photo when she was not laying yet. She no longer carries her tail that high but it's still above a 25 degree angle.

 

[zooweemama]

For SOP Buff Orp standards- I have a question. My friend has hatchery BOs. They are big, curved backsides (tails go straight up more than I see on SQ in pics), very very orange in color, large combs and wattles (which vary in size greatly from bird to bird even though they are all the same age) and the feathers look a lot tighter and coarser than my BOs (not hatchery stock). Her birds are a few weeks older than mine. But none of our birds are over 36 weeks old. My BOs have a more buttery orange, softer and looser feathers. I am not familiar with APA standards yet (getting the book this Fall) and am seeing you guys chat about feather quality. Which feather quality is more SOP? Dark orange, tighter feathers or soft buttery orange with looser feathers? Thanks!

 

[zooweemama]

I understand Aveca's question, or at least I think I do. I don't always know what they mean in the SOP either. For instance, what does "moderately long" really mean? Proportions would be helpful. We rely heavily on the visual whether we realize it or not. The eye sees the proportions that make "moderately long" make sense. I read some fascinating references to shape on another breed where they used a rectangle overlaid on the bird's drawing to illustrate the proper proportion of that breed's body and shape.
In this electronic world, it's not as if we can take a pencil to the screen and draw the ideal line on the picture of an almost perfect one and say "There! That's what I mean." As the past couple of pages illustrate, language can be inexact. What is clear to me isn't always clear to others and vice versa.
I, for one, am unsure what the comb following the head means. I think it means that the base of the comb should follow a line that the head would make if there were no comb present, but as I said, I'm unsure.
I'm also guessing the reason for all requests for a bird with the right outline and look IN BLACK is because an artist can't just take a buff bird and color it black. A child with a box of crayons can but anyone wanting to create quality artwork can't. The play of the light on the feathers makes it so that all the artist can really do is stretch this part a bit or take that line down some. Or do what I did, and make only a profile for my egg carton logo. And mine isn't perfect SOP but the outline of my favorite hen lol.

Could one not take a photo of the ideal Orpington shape and simply render it a nice crisp black and white? Photography is my 'day job' and I am also pretty darn good at editing. I can change feather color but it will look funky and unreal. I think the best option is to take a great quality photo of a perfectly shaped Orpington and have a photographer render it a high quality b&w. If the emphasis is on shape and not color- I think that would actually be the best sample to hang up for all Orpington breeders. Then a second set of images of close ups of the feathers...condition, gloss, accurate color (which is EXTREMELY hard and sometimes that involved knowing how to correct white balance and not being heavy with the saturation when processing)- for EACH color variations. ...so a pro would be best to do that. But I am only commenting as a photographer- I am not yet familiar with breed standards of any fowl as of yet. Still learning.

Also it's important to note that since correct body shape is captured accurately- the photographer needs to be skilled in what he is doing to avoid barrel distortions or to correctly in post processing (ACCURATELY) so that image is true. Different focal lengths with distort the image- especially the edges/middle

 

[galanie]

Play around with a photo of a chicken that isn't black and you'll soon see the problem with what you're saying. At first I thought that might be a good idea but load any of those in something akin to Photoshop and start playing... Just doesn't work. Black reacts to light very differently from the way lighter colors do.

 

[zooweemama]

A very quick funky mock up playing with colors. Now get this into the hands of someone who DOES not know how to get correct colors and fix distortion...you end up with 'off' examples. The brown was to illustrate trying to make it brown. A lot of masking would go into it to make it look more realistic but the hue/shades of chocolate could be off. I think that a bw image of a premium example is best with the feather samples being in color would be a good sample to hang and work off of.



(the first image is the original)