Arabian "Type" Miniatures

Miniature Horse Talk Forums

Help Support Miniature Horse Talk Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Which of the two are most like your ideal "Arabian Miniature" in relation to type?

  • Horse #1:

    Votes: 6 6.4%
  • Horse #2:

    Votes: 50 53.2%
  • Horse #3:

    Votes: 38 40.4%

  • Total voters
    94
Thanks Reo and DisneyHorse for commenting on "photoshopped" pix!
default_aktion033.gif
default_aktion033.gif


I have worked hard, been extremely careful in my selection of which horse to use in my breeding program and have culled, culled, culled in order to get to the point in my breeding program where the horses look like they do in the professional pix WITHOUT being photoshopped to enhance their neck or head.
default_yes.gif
default_yes.gif


It has been a sacrifice and has taken nearly 30 years - and yes, we still have tweeking to do before I feel like I have met MY personal goal as a breeder - that is what it is all about for me.

Thanks again for mentioning it.
 
Since I commented on photoshopping earlier in the thread, I want to clarify my intent. First of all, as it pertains to the thread I have no problem with people ascribing their horses to a certain type. I'll have to dig through my old MHWs, but I'm fairly certain as far back as the 80s that the registry even ran articles designed to help breeders identify types. I think one article that was republished later broke them down into four breed types: Arabian, Thoroughbred, Quarter Horse and Draft. This was probably because those four types are the most recognizable to people without a full-sized horse background, but three of them have stuck and now it seems like everything has to be made to fit into one of them.

While I can clearly see how some bloodlines and programs DO demonstrate the traits of a specific type, as do some individual minis regardless of their background, my point about the photoshopping was that these days it's common for people to take a horse – any horse – and try to make it fit into the vogue type by addressing just a couple traits. Sweating the neck, razoring the face and photoshopping in the right musculature isn't all it takes to be Arabian in type. I feel if we encourage this kind of oversimplification in type – for example to break the Arabian type down to an extreme neck and a high tailset (traits that are also common to other breeds) – then we could inadvertently encourage some amateurs to breed for individual traits at the cost of balance and overall correctness, which are prized by ANY breed. An example of this would be the pro photos which depict minis with necks that are visibly longer than their legs - you won't see that on Michael Byatt's site.

In regards to the three horses here, I could tell you which I think is closer to Arabian type, but I think all of them could more aptly be compared to other horse breeds. They're all nice enough horses in their own right, though, which is why I think it's a shame that some people would probably consider it an insult if you said they are not Arabian in type simply because that's the popular designation right now. I personally don't care if someone wants to compare their minis to Schnauzers, but if divisions are ever made on a breed basis I hope the definition of a type is more comprehensive, and that proportion and overall correctness still come first.

I'm sorry if my earlier comment took this thread off topic, but it's something I think about a lot considering how often the "Arabian" designation is now used. I sure hope that makes sense to somebody, because it took a long time to type.
default_doh.gif
 
Hey Tiffany, I remember that article!
default_yes.gif


I knew what the people in this thread meant. But each time it's said in threads, I wish they would also say "not all pro pics" are photo shopped
default_smile.png


People very new to minis read that pro pics are fake and then they see mine or anyone elses and think ALL are shopped. That's all I meant
default_saludando.gif


In a thread on another forum here, made by a new person, (coming from big horses) they said that all Splash pintos were deaf. I didn't say anything but it chapped my behind a bit.

The things people hear and repeat as true!
default_rolleyes.gif


I guess I don't look closely enough, can someone PM me the photographer that does shop pics? Or point me to a shopped pic? I wanna see!
default_laugh.png
 
But each time it's said in threads, I wish they would also say "not all pro pics" are photo shopped
Fair enough. Let me add to my earlier post: Not all pro pics are photoshopped.

I think I've said all I need to say now.
default_saludando.gif
 
I personally don't have a problem with someone describing miniatures as types. Arabian doesn't come to my mind when I look at the pics of the three horses listed. I try not to label our horses anything other than appy “type” and most of the commentary about our horses comes from what someone else sees to discribe them. I am thrilled to have the freedom to raise miniatures and produce what I feel is a competitive and beautiful little horse.

You know, I agree, and get a bit irritated too when I hear professional photographs are photoshopped. Most of our professional photos were taken by Liz McMillian and we've been present while the photos were taken. Liz's handlers know how to get the bests poses, have horses using their necks to the optimum, and know when to snap the pictures when the horses are at their best. Not to mention, she understands lighting and all the many little things that go into making a great photos possible. Liz knows the business of photography.

Dawn
default_saludando.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know a LOT of folks whose professional pics are not 'shopped' or 'chopped' LOL And I have personally seen the ones at Lost Spoke for example, and must say that I think they are even more stunning in person that in the photos (JMO) so that can work both ways when folks look at photos of horses. It is hard to capture on film sometimes, the living, breathing beauty of such magnificant animals. I admire the photographers who can do so!

I also agree that it is nice that Minis can come in various 'types' for what each individual likes or desires.

I also dont recall anyone here saying anything bad about the originally posted horses. I think they are lovely, just not what I would all typically Arabian type, but they are very nice horses. Interesting discussion.

REO, I have seen conversations on the Forum too that chapped my hide as well with misinformation and somewhat silly things about equines, but I guess everyone has to learn and to air it on a Forum and be able to be educated with the truth is a great way to clear up those myths and rumors, and keep them from continuing to be spread. (But then, there are always those who have their minds set and wont hear of anything else, LOL)
 
I would have to go with horse number 2, she is more up headed, clean throat latch, better shoulder and better hip, though she is seriously parked out trying to get the flat croup. Though to be truthful, I would say they are more like other breeds than an Arabian.

As for todays pictures not looking like the real horse, I will have to agree with Tiffany. Every year I look at photos of horses in the World Magazine and look forward to seeing them at the World. It just amazes me every year that the real horse looks nothing like the photos. I have been to some sales rows of horses for sale at the World. Each stall would have a photo of the horse and when one looked inside the stall, one could never find the horse in the photo. There would be a horse inside the stall, but sure as heck did not look like the photo.

I am not saying that the photo was doctored, maybe just some incredible photography, but the real thing looks nothing like the picture. Many professional shots can bring out the best in an otherwise mediocre horse. The use of a skunk skin, reflective light, another horse or mare if the subject is a stallion. All of these gimmicks will encourage a horse to arch its neck and reach out or up. In real life, these horses do not stand there looking like that all of the time.

I have been told that many Europeans are very unhappy when they get their horse they bought because it looks nothing like the picture. Frankly, I would rather buy a horse with its picture taken by the owner than by a professional. At least then you know what the horse really looks like.
 
I think the best photographers don't need to photoshop, they don't change the look of the horse, why, because they don't need too. The best ones can make a donkey like a million bucks. Some of your amateur photographers they are the ones that photo edit because they can't get the best out of a horse. I personally cannot stand photoshopped photos, especially when they are obvious and done by breeders themselves. Makes me not want to buy from them. If they can lie about the picture then what else can they lie about.

Here's the thing if you can't go visit the horse in person your going to have to ask for alot of pictures and make the seller go out there and take new ones. Do not buy off pro shots because yes they aren't going to look like that once you get them off the trailer. Again is all about buyers being educated and making smart purchases.

Here is a list where I think should be the bare minimum on pictures getting sent for sale horses:

Right shot

Left shot

Front shot

Hind shot ( tail out of the way )

Head shot

Bite shot

Movement shot or video

Again I don't see any problem at all with breeders getting pro shots done of their horses and advertising them and putting them on sites. However they need to have regular shots of their sale horses atleast.
 
This is a very interesting thread and I agree that to describe a horse as a "type" is fine as we can all conjour up in our minds a "type" of horse if it is said to us.

I have 2 stallions by the same stallion but are chalk and cheese. Sunny is what I would call a TB in "type" and more middle weight and Banner is refined to middle weight (he falls between the 2 IMO and thats all it is my opinon) and has more Araby "type" features. He can cover the ground like a dressage horse when the mood is on him but he is not an Arab but has certain features that resemble one.

I worked in a racing yard and even in the TB's we had different types. One boy we had could have been a hunter he was big in every way but he was a marathon runner and jumped like a stag. We had a stunning colt that was by Tirol who was so elegant with such a gorgeous head that he resembled an Arab more then a TB. You would stop in your tracks look at him. He was built for the flat.

I think that "type" is what it is and I dont think there is any harm in it. Its when people say they are a true arabian horse in miniature that its more misleading.

As for photo editing the only thing I do (only thing I can do lol) is to crop the pic as much as possible then remove whatever part of myself remains in the pic and the lead.

Photo editing is good to improve a photo ie. brighten, remove red eye or to remove an object once the horse is left alone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I almost see alot of them as yes Arabian LIKE but more like an ArabianxThoroughbred LOL

In eli for example he has the topline but I still wouldnt call it table top like an arabian but you could say it's what I'd aim for. Hes got the long thin neck but with a little less hook when naturally standing in this photo. The head is pleasant and has a bit of a dish to it but not as extreme as an arabian. I like to think he is an Thorab LOL. But really my point is it is hard to one type a mini, Very few possess everything like a trueblooded arabian there is always etleast a small part that is very differant.

ashlandeli.jpg
 
I very much agree with you Devon! There are some that may have one or two traits that resemble one of the 'biggie' breeds, but there are really really few where I will even look at a picture and think, 'wow, he/she looks like an arabian.' Or 'wow, he/she looks like a quarter horse', and none yet that I've seen in person. When I hear people say they have an arab type mini I think of one that's refined. When I hear someone say they have a quarter type mini, I think of a moderately built mini. So I don't even envision certain characteristics other than bone types when I hear people compare their minis to biggie.

Most of my horses look more shetland type than anything else. IMO MOST people's horses look more shetland type (remember there's more than 1 type!) than anything else. Doesn't make them any less conformationally correct.
 
Devon just so you know, a arabian crossed with a Thoroughbred is called an anglo-arabian, not a Thorab.
default_wink.png
 
Devon just so you know, a arabian crossed with a Thoroughbred is called an anglo-arabian, not a Thorab.
default_wink.png
I was kind of on a tangent not being specific in breed names thought more people would understand if I wrote it that way

thanks though
 
gallery_3776_51_26612.jpg


Interesting topic and I love reading all these different folks opinions. Thanks,
default_yes.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You guys make Adobe Photoshop sound like a new thing. It has been around for 20 years. I know it's off topic but I have to comment on this "photo shopping" thing. Not a professional photographer but an enthusiast who has worked with editing software out of necessity. I must say that most pro photographers (if not all) post process their photos. Adobe Photoshop was around and used when digital photography was just on the horizon, if only to adjust curves, color balance, contrast/brightness/saturation. It is not a big deal, and it only becomes a big deal if the model in the image is truly altered by the photographer. Not just out of place hairs, lead ropes, or wee wees in the pic.

That said, the pro photographers of the past still had their tricks, and there are grooming tricks, and lens angle tricks to enhance the appearance of the model. They use(d) an arsenal to make the horse look his best. Heck, I'm a plain jane that can look pretty good with the right grooming, angles, clothing, and a sucked in stomach.
default_smile.png
It makes one have a completely new appreciation for what is natural. If a horse can look good no frills just in his pasture he is an example of quality!

I love the pics made to look natural, too. Kind of like those Night Hawk pics
default_smile.png
To be presented as "less than perfect" will make for less disappointed visitors to your farm. It also says that the animal can look good without trying too hard.
 
I too, appreciate pictures of horses pulled straight from the pasture, brushed off, knots untangled and tidied up. Looking at dazzling horses that are clipped, shaved faces, sucked in tummies, not a a hair out of place and so much oil on their faces that flies slide right off. . . . .all the horses start to look the same to me. They are all posed the same, all arched necks etc.

I just posted pictures of my new mare and she is woolie, wet, not fancy looking but you can tell she does have nice conformation. She isn't overly exotic nor very tiny boned, but I LIKE some substance to my mares - especially the brood girls!

I like to see horses in their natural state because around here, thats how they look all year around! If you can't appreciate their beauty and conformation without the glamour and sparkle - why bother to have them?

EDITED TO ADD: You can take any plain looking horse and make it look AMAZING with a clip job, pose just right, photographer and some grooming - just like Tab said. Any woman and man can look great too, with the same things!

Think about how many more "Buckeroos" or "Nighthawks" there are in the world that haven't been with a trainer or the right owner to get them the "star status" --- many are living in backyards across the nation as overweight ponies. Just because there isn't a fancy farm name infront of it doesn't mean it isn't of excellent quality. It takes a good eye to see the horse that the "little plain horse" can be!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is obviously an OLD topic lol, last post was in 2010... But I just have to throw my two cents in, though they are a dollar late and a dime short.
default_smile.png
I don't like the "arab style" classification at all. One, because they are not arabs, two how can you classify a type with a type that is constantly changing...all horse breeds and types change constantly in accordance with the newest show fads etc. Arabs now have some of the most ridiculous heads that are so overly exotic they look freaky and ugly...to me. Quarter horses are standing on straight pasterns and tiny feet etc...So why compare our minis with breeds that are also ever changing? Why do we want our minis to have all the arab characteristics anyhow? I prefer a balanced horse in miniature. If they look balanced, correct and good in their skin...then wha-la a horse in miniature. Not ALL horse breeds have flatter than flat croups and dishier than dished heads, so why should all of our miniatures. I once read someone tell another her mare had a goose rump and it was a fault. It was NOT a goose rump... it was a nice rump with substance and very well balanced for that particular horse...no, it wasn't a flat croup but who got to decide that was the miniature horse croup anyhow? I think it would be better stated to use comparisons like "refined" minis vs "stockier" minis etc. And if you have a bulky mini that has a great head and well balanced conformation and that horse is stunning yet doesn't have that "arab" look, I still think that horse should be welcomed for its balanced body, replicating a horse in miniature and should not be compared to an arab type and looked down on...they are suppose to be miniature horses, a horse in miniature meaning a smaller head in comparison to body, a leaner look, longer legs, well balanced and conformed...they are not miniature arabs... I don't like how flat backed the arabs themselves and arab type minis are getting, they look like table tops and not horses...I dislike how showing always pushes and pushes for more and more extremes that end up not being natural at all...you would NEVER see a wild horse with a flat table top back, overly dished head, straight up and down pasterns etc... I have seen LOTS of minis too that were very nice but looked down on or thrown out with the bath water because they didn't have the right look when in reality they were very obese which makes any horse look bad or had poor trim jobs on their hooves causing muscles to take on unnatural postures or even old injuries that needed the proper care to help the horse back to where he was meant to be... Strict diets, sweating, photo tricks etc can make any horse look good. I also prefer natural photos and natural coats.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It would be intesting to see current (or "aged") pictures of Horse #2, if they are available.
 
omg was that 2010 ?? I remember reading that and it doesnt seem that long ago!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top