DCurtis wrote:
For this upcoming project, tattooed skin is a hinderance. But, I will say that tattoos can also be a plus depending on the project. Tattoos can add a desired texture to 'the canvas'. I can imagine a concept where you have a female model and a fancy wedding or prom dress, and the tattoos add to the overall image - a desired irony perhaps. I would also say that a tattoo on a model can add a poignancy to the mood.

This upcoming project, I will be working with a model who is about 400 lbs, his 400 lbs is a big (no pun intended) plus, his tattoos are not so plus.

I guess I just don't like the absolutists and extremists.

Well, it looks like we are on the same page!

Good luck with this projects, that sounds amazing!

DCurtis wrote:

udor wrote:
Consider a photographer who wishes to do a Rococo styled photo essay with a wedding dress and a French couch. And, on the models back is this Japanese tattoo thing. Surely, you can imagine how the tattoo might conflict with the photographer's vision.

But why would you book a model that has tattoos if you know that is not the look you're going for? That makes no sense.

Alannah The Stylist wrote:

DCurtis wrote:

udor wrote:
Consider a photographer who wishes to do a Rococo styled photo essay with a wedding dress and a French couch. And, on the models back is this Japanese tattoo thing. Surely, you can imagine how the tattoo might conflict with the photographer's vision.

But why would you book a model that has tattoos if you know that is not the look you're going for? That makes no sense.

I don't have the fortune to live in the California. I am limited by the market which I live in. In a way it is a positive - here is you palette, go make something brilliant. North Central Ohio is a good place for someone starting out, there are challenges. I'm not a fan of the Rolling Stones, what was their song? 'You don't always get what you want, but just sometimes, you get what you need.'

Jen B wrote:

Hello DCurtis,

Edit:tablet typos and wonky word erasings...

I do not think everyone who adverse or indifferent to tattoos is a vocal tattoo hater. Generally those, the ones who are highly vocal about anti tattoo are the ones I'd call a hater.

Everyone has their own vision, that is right, go for it. Its hardly an occurance to see those who are appreciators of tattoos or merely tattoo tolerant starting threads about those darn 'clean slates' or trying to tell them how to rectify their non inked status with public service announcements or information on the latest updates in how to ink or choose it.

FWIW, if Marc Jacobs ever casts me, I'll post a pic! His style TOTALLY IS my style.
Jen

I just have to say that Ihave NO clue why my syntax is so jacked up and why I cannot word my thoughts in a better manner!!

Gah.
Jen
P.s. I think it still makes sense but, wtf on myself?!

DCurtis wrote:

Some artists, photographers, dilettanti, dabblers, hobbyists, and GWC's of the human subject prefer to work with a blank canvas. And, some of them express their interest in working with a blank canvas, or a clean slate...

Really, it comes down to supply and demand. Those who suggest models not get themselves tattooed are just trying to effect supply.

Good for you, and them. Naturally, choose your clean slate and your vision. Supply and demand is relative to what the aritst is seeking, your demand is based on your choice. Great. Good. Now, someone else's is based on their choice. The demand for your choice is different than the demand for their choice. So, its basically do what you want and move on.
Jen
P.s and generally tattooed folk don't give a rats bottom.

Vi Synster wrote:
There's some cosmetic companies that make insanely good foundations for people, where tattooed models can EASILY be covered up with foundation cosmetics so the whole "I don't agree with tattoos, it'll screw up the image" really doesn't hold any ground when you have something who actually knows what they're doing when it comes to makeup.

for people wanting to get rid of tattoos, I always recommend finding a good cover-up artist, since a lot of "DIY removal creams" typically put a LOT of stress on the selected area of skin.

Most of those foundations are too dark for my complexion. They are also expensive, and seeing as I don't shoot that much these days, I don't think it's a worthwhile investment. I rarely ever wear makeup, so I don't know about wearing foundation on bigger surfaces of my skin. But that's just me. If people don't like my ink, whatever, they'll move on to someone who doesn't have tattoos. As I said earlier, I like working with painters the most because they don't have the same limitations photographers do and that works with me.

udor wrote:

Screw those anti-tattoo, people, who don't know opinions of Marc Jacobs on tattooed fashion models.

If you ignoramuses, don't know who Marc Jacobs is... please..., stop spouting opinions on fashion models and tattoos... because you are not current, and hence not relevant!

Toodles for now!     

Love you Udor!!

JJMiller wrote:
Who is Marc Jacobs?

I think the OP was more about giving a nice quick look inside the process of removing a tattoo. The link does state the most commonly removed ones are ex's names.

I do agree that many are trendy-  the designs, placement, fonts, etc. will look as dated as the tribal/barbed wire armband and/or barcode does today, but that's not my problem, I dodged that bullet shot by my younger self.

Exactly! That was my only point!

IMAGINERIES wrote:
I have no problems with models having tattoos....The problem is that the "tattoo artists" lac creativity......
and many models parade ink work that are so much like magnets on a refrigerator with no cohesion..

I shoot a lot of inked ladies; it's hard not to -- better than >95% have some kind of ink, somewhere, at least in my experience. My feeling: ink almost never ADDS to a person's appearance. Furthermore, the poorly done ones and the "scattered magnets" detract from one's appearance.

Sometimes I do see a cool ink job though:

WARNING 18+

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/43976413

In a way, model photography is a bit editorial, a bit journalistic. A picture of a chick from the 70's will likely sport a tangled forest of bush and a Farah Fawcett  hairstyle. Maybe a fake tan. Maybe she came in wearing something "Annie Hall". A woman from the past 15-20 years will likely have ink. In another decade, maybe scarification. You already see that, now and then. Or subcutaneous LED advertising billboards.

udor wrote:

Screw those anti-tattoo, people, who don't know opinions of Marc Jacobs on tattooed fashion models.

If you ignoramuses, don't know who Marc Jacobs is... please..., stop spouting opinions on fashion models and tattoos... because you are not current, and hence not relevant!

Toodles for now!     

Ah yes, another one of those oh-so-tolerant-of-other's-opinions Zoo Yawkiz "progressives". So only YOUR opinion matters? What a sad little man you are.

Scott Murphy Photo wrote:
Ah yes, another one of those oh-so-tolerant-of-other's-opinions Zoo Yawkiz "progressives". So only YOUR opinion matters? What a sad little man you are.

If you haven't read all of my comments in this thread and taken this out of context, than you are the sad little man!

When someone makes a statement about tattoos and the fashion industry in my town, that is blatantly false, then I will not tolerate a fantasy based opinion.

I have shot over 2,400 fashion shows (as of 2019) and been part of the production team for hundreds of fashion shows here, and have casted thousands and thousands of models for all kinds of projects, especially fashion shows, but also for magazines, designers, lookbooks etc. and knowing very first hand what kind of models are here and how common tattoos on  models are in this market...

I can very much state with certainty that my experience definitely counts more than some speculative opinion that is not based on the fashion industry and not because you think that I am just "another one of those oh-so-tolerant-of-other's-opinions Zoo Yawkiz "progressives".

I know that there are designers that cast for models without tattoos, that was often the case and is still common'ish, but tattoos are more tolerated than in the late 90's and early to mid 2000's, but from then on, the exception became mainstream.

Now, if you prefer tattoo-free models for whatever reason, then, in MY opinion, that's all up to you and I don't have a problem with anybody who has such preferences.

My objection is when someone invents "facts" and "realities" about an industry that they are not part of to suit their own interest and bias.

Otherwise, I have no problem!

Art Silva wrote:
Raise of hands, How many of you are still sporting that Tramp Stamp you got at the Harley Rally several years ago after a few Coors Lite and shots of Jack?
Come on, Lets see those hands now...

Well, on another note, in the body mod scene, we don't call them "tramp stamp", because it's derogatory and implies  by default that the wearer is a promiscuous barfly, or a street hooker.

So, we rather call them "ass-antlers"...