Ok just incase others need to know?

[Reble]

Well not to cause any more problems for the new change, but AMHA has excepted the same pictures I sent to AMHR :aktion033: for transferring our filly.

I agree AMHR sent back all the paperwork but not the money. I did have to call to make sure I had credit, which I do have. So off my pictures go again.

I also agree why not just email us to let us know a little sooner, if pics are not acceptable, being new to them, is also new to us.

With me it would have been nicer if both AMHR / AMHA could be together on something?

There was no need to make pictures different, would have made it easier for all, if we just had to duplicate the pictures sent to AMHA..... :new_shocked:

Change is just hard to adjust too

:

 

[Suzie]

This is a great thread, I am learning a lot by what is being "sent back"- sorry guys but I am learning by your "mistakes" ..

What about cropped photos? Anyone sent those in? My computer software will allow me to crop photos and print out any size (3 x5 and 4x6) but is that acceptable? Do they consider that photo "retouched"? I never seem to just get one foal in the pic- mom is always close by, so I want to crop them out. Any experience with that?TIA!

BTW I have not gotten back any of the stuff I sent in so far but reading this thread, I expect it all to come back shortly!! I have made the same "mistakes" as most here.

 

[Becky]

My program on my computer doesn't print exact 3 X 5 or 4 X 6. I can print anywhere in between. Will that be acceptable??? I've got one to do now.....

 

[Lauralee]

I feared this would begin to happen with AMHR regarding the pictures. I have three registrations sent in, the first dating back to around January 20....and I suspect that the same thing will happen to mine.

I hope they get it straightened out soon. I did not see in the first article where 4 x 6 was mentioned. So I sent some of mind in as 3 x 4's, like AMHA requires. Now I see in the second publish of the article, it says 3 x 5 or 4 x 6. Too late, already sent mine weeks ago. If this was mentioned in the first article, I missed it. I can accept redoing the pictures because of the size, and I understand it if the computer program needs the pictures to be a certain dimension. It is my fault if I missed the size being mentioned in the first article. Perhaps that information should have been in bold the first time, if it was of importance.

Also, in the article, some of the pictures that are cited as "appropriate", actually show the horses breaking the "new rules", according to the way some of us are already finding out. Am I the only one that noticed this?

For example, in the article, the pictures of the pinto mare....well her feet are not shown due to the grass, and I can't see her right hind leg very well due to her tail in one shot, and can't see the right foreleg very well in another. Yet these are marked as acceptable. I also can't easily see the left foreleg of the foal, in its picture, but it is marked as acceptable.

The pictures in the article look fine to ME, as in my opinion, they serve to accurately identify the horses by their markings and features. Being listed with the article and quoted as good examples, leads me to believe that the office is not going to be all that strict on being able to see the hooves, or to see all 4 legs clearly. This I gathered by the examples that the AMHR published as acceptable. I think that taking a reasonable, common sense approach to using the pictures as basic identification of the horse. Apparently not, though, as some of you here are having pictures returned for exactly those reasons.

So I expect that mine will bounce back to me too.

Just when AMHA finally got the picture thing down pat, AMHR just had to add to the confusion. Until AMHR takes a common sense approach to the pictures, the grumbling will continue.

 

[kaykay]

this sending the whole packet back is just ridicules in my opinion. Like charlotte i sent one in early jan. just now got it back. AMHR has to be sending some serious postage money to send all this stuff back. Wouldnt it be better to just send a post card asking for the pictures to be redone? Before I got this back I had sent another one in and yes there are horses in the background. Wish I had seen this before I sent it. In order to get all 4 feet to show you almost have to take the pic of the horse walking in the pasture?? Maybe i should just take new ones and send them now?

 

[Charlotte]

The pictures in the article look fine to ME, as in my opinion, they serve to accurately identify the horses by their markings and features. Being listed with the article and quoted as good examples, leads me to believe that the office is not going to be all that strict on being able to see the hooves, or to see all 4 legs clearly. This I gathered by the examples that the AMHR published as acceptable. I think that taking a reasonable, common sense approach to using the pictures as basic identification of the horse. Apparently not, though, as some of you here are having pictures returned for exactly those reasons.

Ditto Lauralee.

Will whoever is respoonsible for this program please give a clear and concise set of rules?????

Also on page 107 of the Feb Journal is shown an acceptible picture of a foal running. On the letter I got it says:

horse should be stationary

and that's bold and underlined. This conflicting information is causing confusion and the sizing is going to have to be revisited using modern digital print protocols.
I have been registering horses in PtHA & AMHA for years and their picture requirements are all different, but they are reasonable about the sizing with identification being the primary issue, not that the picture fit exactly within a certain space.

I'm FRUSTRATED! Now I have a shaggy, very preg broodmare who will get stuck with ugly pix on her papers if I have to take more at this time of year!

Charlotte

 

[Ashley]

I guess I dont see why it should be hard to get the right pics. I do what AMHR is asking with my AMHA pics. I make sure all the legs are of set. The forlock is pulled back. For the head shot I do a close up and one showing the whole front.

I guess I shouldnt have much of a problem with AMHR then.

I am just worried about the turn around time as I have some transfers I need to send in, but will wait until the end of the year if its going to take forever as I need the papers for showing.

 

[Mona]

:new_shocked: Well now WHY ON EARTH would the horse have to be "stationary"??? WHAT would the reasoning in that be? If the horse in in motion, and all markings can clearly be seen, what difference does it make?? That is absolutely absurd!!

:

Yes, I agree, these photos are a step in the right direction for AMHR but they definately need to rethink some problem areas.

I also agree that they should not be wasting all that time and money mailing entire packets back to request new photos. Make a quick phone call, send an email, or mail a brief note.

: Seems to me, that would be a much more efficient means of taking care of it.

:

 

[JMS Miniatures]

It sure sounds like AMHR can't make up their mind on these pictures.

When I sent in pictures of my filly for the color change and asked for the new registration, I haven't heard or received anything in over a month. I had to call them to see what was going on and turns out they were holding them there all this time cause the pics were the wrong size.

Last month I posted I received the new registration papers and showed everyone and I showed the pictures that I sent in to AMHR. I will post the pictures I sent in again to show you examples that were perfectly fine with mine.

Here what the new registration papers look like incase anyone is interested.

If they require the horses to be stationary now than thats redicoulous. The way they show the pictures in the Journal might be the right way, but the way they make the horses stand just does not make them look good at all. Action shots are the best way to go IMO. If they are trotting you see all of their legs.

 

[kaykay]

I dont understand how your pics passed as you cant even see the foot at all in the pic on the top right??

Im really glad they started doing pictures but I dont think they were really ready to implement this. Im starting to think they should have done one year of voluntarily asking people ot send pics to work the bugs out.

as far as stationary the pics on their site show horses moving?? Im so confused

 

[Cathy_H]

and I showed the pictures that I sent in to AMHR. I will post the pictures I sent in again to show you examples that were perfectly fine with mine.

..................From what I am reading I am surprised that they took your pictures as part of the legs are hidden in grass................... I just spent over 3 hours learning my new printer/computer to get our four pictures done................ Two of these are of the horse moving in the dry lot - now you say they have to be stationery??????? What about the foal trotting in the accepted picture & the accepted picture above? TOO much inconsistency going on if you ask me......................Sooooooo I have a question does the picture have to be exactly 3x5 or 4x6? One of mine is 3 3/4's by 5 1/4. I cannot get the computer to do the exact size. . ............ As I said before we mailed this horses paperwork back in November & they mailed them back because they did not get to it in 2006 - how were we to know that!!!!!!!!

: They are sitting here to be mailed but now wonder if we have to retake them.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Wanted to add - I'm calling AMHR tomorrow - perhaps if they get bombarded with phone calls they will come on the LB forum & clarify their wishy washy requirements!

 

[wpsellwood]

I couldnt get my pictures to come out exactly either. Im sure they are coming back and the ones I sent in to hardship my colt. :lol: this is me staring at the mailbox, also you would think if they are close thats would be good enough??

 

[chandab]

I just got back my mare's AMHR papers for a transfer.

Here are the two pictures they used on the papers:

[i did edited out another horse that was in the background of each picture, but not the mare in question.]

The one on the bottom got stretched on her papers.

Top pic was printed as 4x6, bottom printed as 4.5x4.25.

And, they included a little slip of paper about appropriate photos (my scanner was being a pain, so here's a copy/paste):

ASPC/AMHRJASPR PICTURE REQUIREMENTS

FOUR PHOTOS REQUIRED:

IN ALL PICTURES - the horse should be stationary, should be the ONLY horse in the picture, must include ALL of the horse - from nose to tail and hooves to ears and MUST comprise 80% of the picture. Pictures MUST BE at least 3" x 5" and cannot exceed 4" x 6". Photos may be DIGITAL IF PRINTED ON QUALITY PHOTO PAPER; PHOTOS MAY NOT BE E-MAILED.

ONE (1) of Left side - all FOUR legs must be visible. Do not stand in show position. Do not have head turned to such a degree that all the neck is not visible. Do not block any part of the horse's body with any object - horse may wear a halter in the picture.

ONE (1) of the Right side - same guidelines as above.

ONE (1) of the Face - horse should be facing directly forward looking at the camera; forelock should be pulled out of the way so that the entire face can be seen. This is especially important if the face has any markings.

ONE (1) of the hindquarters (please be directly in back of the horse to take this picture); tail does not need to be pulled away unless it hides markings you would like noted.

AMHR used these two pictures for the papers and sent back the extra side pictures I had sent in, I didn't know what would be appropriate, so I sent a couple extras that I had.

 

[Reble]

ONE (1) of the Face - horse should be facing directly forward looking at the camera; forelock should be pulled out of the way so that the entire face can be seen. This is especially important if the face has any markings.

So is it frontal from ears to toe, or just Face.

I just resent mine today... Now I wait :lol:

 

[Lauralee]

It sounds to me as if they are making up the rules as they go! Each bit of correspondence from the AMHR office and voila! new rule!

 

[JMS Miniatures]

Actually I was more nervous about the full frontal and hind views cause they aren't ear to hoof. I'm just guessing since you can obviously see her legs have no markings at all on them they didn't care about the grass.

Now with Chandab's mare the 1st picture you can't see her hind left leg at all and shes a pinto and they accepted them. Its kind of like a set up picture, but they accepted it. Thats just very strange

Beautiful mare btw :bgrin

 

[chandab]

Now with Chandab's mare the 1st picture you can't see her hind left leg at all and shes a pinto and they accepted them. Its kind of like a set up picture, but they accepted it. Thats just very strange

Beautiful mare btw :bgrin

Thank you. I think she's pretty special.

Perhaps they accepted it as the marking on that leg was pretty visible in the other picture. I'm not going to quibble, they accepted them and I have my papers back after about 8 weeks. [i wrote the check 1-11-07, so it was mailed 1-13 and I got them back today. :bgrin ]

 

[Minimor]

Now with Chandab's mare the 1st picture you can't see her hind left leg at all and ...

actually the left hind leg IS visible in that photo--can't see the hoof but you can see the leg (slumped) and can see where the white marking ends and the black part of the leg begins, so I can see why that photo is acceptable.

I've been wondering why people say horses look so awful when stood with all 4 feet visible--hunters get shown in "hunter pose" all the time & look great--and basically a hunter pose is what is required for the side view photos. Works for me.

What doesn't work for me is the time frame. I'm planning on gelding a couple horses in early April and was planning to show one of them in early June. I'm figuring now I won't have his papers back in time to show him as a gelding, so I guess I'll count on showing something else and leave him home.

 

[chandab]

What doesn't work for me is the time frame. I'm planning on gelding a couple horses in early April and was planning to show one of them in early June. I'm figuring now I won't have his papers back in time to show him as a gelding, so I guess I'll count on showing something else and leave him home.

Maybe by the time you get him gelded and send in the papers they will be working through this new process more quickly and you'll get them back in a more timely manner.

[i think they probably had a rush the end of December with people trying to get under the wire for no pictures and got behind. Just a thought.]