Jay Farrell wrote:

That may be, but you didn't see tattoos on women anywhere near like you do today, in the 80's even.

The old days, like when this thread was started....


Why bump zombie threads, I am sure the same rants are posted weekly...

Misfit Doll wrote:
Let me take you to "the other side" of this tattoo rant.  They are beautiful. They are art. It takes one hell of a backbone to deal with the crap and meaningless ridicule people give to those who have tattoos, let alone who are heavily tattooed.

Exactly, they are someone elses art. I'm not interested in copying someone elses art. I'm not a photocopier. Besides they distracting and screw up the composition.

Outside of photography it's not my business and I have no opinion one way or the other.

Please, models without tattoos go and fill out those fields. I beg of you.

Misfit Doll wrote:
They are beautiful. They are art.

They are beautiful to you and they are art to you!  However, they are not beautiful to everyone and they are not art to everyone!  Everyone has their own opinions as to what is beautiful to them and what is art to them!  We all get to make our own choices based on our own aesthetics!

Fotticelli wrote:

Exactly, they are someone elses art. I'm not interested in copying someone elses art. I'm not a photocopier. Besides they distracting and screw up the composition.

Outside of photography it's not my business and I have no opinion one way or the other.

Please, models without tattoos go and fill out those fields. I beg of you.

Nobody said anyone was trying to be a photocopier.  Taking photographs of tattoos is not doing that.  If you were to try to recreate that tattoo with a tattoo of your own, then that would be copying someone elses art.  Photographing them is simply capturing their beauty and essence. They are only distracting if you have half a brain and cant concentrate on what you should be doing in the first place anyways, taking a picture, and not gawking at the model. I do agree though, a model with tattoos should list that in the stats.  If they are unsure of what there tattoos are considered (some, many, none) then they should list the tattoos in the bio portion.  Not doing so would be false advertisement.

J-PhotoArt wrote:

They are beautiful to you and they are art to you!  However, they are not beautiful to everyone and they are not art to everyone!  Everyone has their own opinions as to what is beautiful to them and what is art to them!  We all get to make our own choices based on our own aesthetics!

exactly why I said, to each his own.

Misfit Doll wrote:
Let me take you to "the other side" of this tattoo rant.  They are beautiful. They are art. It takes one hell of a backbone to deal with the crap and meaningless ridicule people give to those who have tattoos, let alone who are heavily tattooed.  Yes people have been getting them for thousands of years, including women. Women of the 30's and 40's were heavily tattooed, they just hid them under their clothing.  It was the era.  Maybe a fad, maybe not. Tattoos being called a fad is just like calling gay people a fad.  More people are openly gay now days than in earlier years.  The only reason I can think to as why, is that the times have changed, and just like having tattoos, people aren't afraid to be their true selves and aren't afraid of what anyone else thinks of them.  I will tell you from experience.  It is hard looking this way, especially being a female.  I am constantly judged, stared at, crap talked about me and passed over on things because of the way I look.  Tattoos have evolved from a "fad" to a "lifestyle".  You have to have a strong sense of self and be able to handle all the looks and verbal abuse that is thrown at you.  I am fairly new to the modeling business, but in my short time I have managed to get myself into many magazines, and have been praised for looking the way that I do.  As photographers, you should be willing to work with all different types of models, you wouldn't turn a paying plus size model down because you don't like full figured girls would you? Didn't think so. To each his own, I fully agree and understand that.  But in this industry, you have to think outside the box and take chances in order to move from ordinary to extraordinary.  I have been turned down for a few castings because of my tattoos, and the photographers simply said "you have too many tattoos".  That is fine, in fact I expect it.  It takes a very confident person to photograph a person of "color". For those of you who automatically turn down someone with tattoos, I think of you as having lack of confidence in your work and in yourself.  Models with tattoos are already in wardrobe and fully accessorized.  That takes a special type of photographer to capture both the beauty of the model and the beauty of the artwork, yet still displaying it all with simplicity.  I call those of you photographers who can not achieve this "busy photogs" you have to fill your lens with so many props and crazy clothing and accessories that the photos become more about all of those things, when it should be about the beautiful person that sits before you. I am not by any means, talking crap about or to anyone.  But I stick up for those who look like myself and just ask all of you non believers to sit back and think about how just because we look a little different, doesn't mean that we do not have the capability to look absolutely stunning in front of a camera.

I think I love you