Looknsee Photography wrote:
In a recent issue of Popular Science there was a blurb about tattooing.

Apparently, some enterprising college students took a 3-D printer & replaced the print head with a tattoo gun, and they added a sensor to map the shape of the human skin underneath the tattoo-gun-head.  They successfully tattooed a circle on someone's arm as a proof of concept.

So, someday, you can take your favorite image & have it tattooed on yourself without needed a human tattoo artist.  And tattoo artists could be on the endangered species list, like blacksmiths & hand-crafted chandlers.

Interesting.

My assessment would be that this machine could have a serious impact on the average tattooist who does nothing more than to apply flash stencils on walk in clients.

However, the real tattoo-artist who does custom work, designs the tattoo from scratch and knows actually how to draw and paint (some of the best tattoo artists are also exhibited in galleries with their canvas paintings), will still be in demand..., see Paul Booth or Anil Gupta, two famous NY based artists.

In addition to that... you might need an AI based machine with a lot of sensors to understand the different pressures on different bodyparts on how deep to insert the needle and doing the shading etc.

All in all, I think that it's a nice experiment, but it is probably years, maybe decades too early until this could become a viable possibility... until then... this automated technology is part Science Fiction, e.g. "Starship Troopers" by Verhoeven...

Looknsee Photography wrote:
In a recent issue of Popular Science there was a blurb about tattooing.

Apparently, some enterprising college students took a 3-D printer & replaced the print head with a tattoo gun, and they added a sensor to map the shape of the human skin underneath the tattoo-gun-head.  They successfully tattooed a circle on someone's arm as a proof of concept.

So, someday, you can take your favorite image & have it tattooed on yourself without needed a human tattoo artist.  And tattoo artists could be on the endangered species list, like blacksmiths & hand-crafted chandlers.

Interesting.

Yes...... but, that is what they said about film, Polaroid and paper.  Just look around MM.   Look, I shoot film, therefore my balls are bigger than yours.  So in a few years, the young man will say: My tattoo is not done by machine and my penis is 12 inches longer than yours. 

Looknsee Photography wrote:
In a recent issue of Popular Science there was a blurb about tattooing.

Apparently, some enterprising college students took a 3-D printer & replaced the print head with a tattoo gun, and they added a sensor to map the shape of the human skin underneath the tattoo-gun-head.  They successfully tattooed a circle on someone's arm as a proof of concept.

So, someday, you can take your favorite image & have it tattooed on yourself without needed a human tattoo artist.  And tattoo artists could be on the endangered species list, like blacksmiths & hand-crafted chandlers.

Interesting.

That is about as logical as saying that painting would disappear because of cameras.

Jen

Jen B wrote:
That is about as logical as saying that painting would disappear because of cameras.

I didn't say that tattoos will disappear, nor did I say that blacksmithing will disappear.

But with the arrival of cameras, fewer people are studying painting, and certainly the existence of photography has influenced painting -- painting became less figurative and more abstract.

I agree with an earlier post -- there will still be a market for top end artists, but the middle & lower tier artists might disappear if/when 3D tattoo printing can compete with them in price & quality.

Isis22 wrote:
There are some great tattoo artists who don't use a stencil but do almost all the work free hand. Some people cannot be replaced by a machine. Do you get to tell the machine you need a break? What if you have had enough and you have started to bleed? I need a human for something like this. It's the same for surgery, I will take a human over a robot any day.

Well, I would think that these machines wouldn't run unattended, so yes, you probably can take a break or take care of bleeding.

I'm just thinking -- what if I wanted to get a tattoo of my favorite photograph?  Or perhaps you want a tattoo of your favorite sports logo?  Would you want a person or a machine to reproduce it?  What if the machine version was affordable and the human version was prohibitively expensive?

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Well, I would think that these machines wouldn't run unattended, so yes, you probably can take a break or take care of bleeding.

I'm just thinking -- what if I wanted to get a tattoo of my favorite photograph?  Or perhaps you want a tattoo of your favorite sports logo?  Would you want a person or a machine to reproduce it?  What if the machine version was affordable and the human version was prohibitively expensive?

When you get a tattoo and you start bleeding it doesn't get taken care of. You stop getting tattooed and you come back weeks later to continue. How exactly is that going to work with a machine? No thank you, I want a human doing my tattoo. I don't want something that is not original on my body. There are some things in life you don't get just because they are cheaper. Tattoos and breast implants are two that come to mind;)

udor wrote:
this automated technology is part Science Fiction, e.g. "Starship Troopers" by Verhoeven...

That looks more painful actually then ink needles.

Actually if they could invent a painless tattoo method that might kill traditional machines.

Lovely Day Media wrote:
If the future of tattoos were up to me, there wouldn't be any.

Wow... you really would end one of the oldest art-forms known to man for everybody, taking away their sovereignty over their own bodies, because you don't see a reason for a tattoo for yourself???

I have a lot of reasons to get my tattoos, they have a lot of meaning to me... they are well researched and I went through a great deal of getting them done, including flying to Japan..., but if it were up to you, I wouldn't be allowed to do this. 

Lovely Day Media wrote:
If the future of tattoos were up to me, there wouldn't be any. There is no way I'd ever get ink embedded into my skin for any reason I can currently think of ... unless it was one of those deals where someone said I had to get it AND they forced it on me (knocked me out, etc). There is no image I can think of that is so important that I need it embedded into my skin for all time.

You might change your mind when you get cancer and need a tattoo to get radiation to save your life. How about those women who have had to have a mastectomy and want reconstruction? That often includes getting a nipple tattooed on their chest.

Lovely Day Media wrote:
If the future of tattoos were up to me, there wouldn't be any. There is no way I'd ever get ink embedded into my skin for any reason I can currently think of ... unless it was one of those deals where someone said I had to get it AND they forced it on me (knocked me out, etc). There is no image I can think of that is so important that I need it embedded into my skin for all time.

That's you.

There's a huge population of the world that doesn't agree with you.
I'm not fond of tattoos on the models I'm shooting, yet I'm a hypocrite because I have one.

I waited 10 years to get the one I have, but I wished I had waited 20 because I'm apathetic about it and would just as easily not have it.  Anyway.


I think the near future is that we will develop an ink or a process where the tattoo is semi-permanent.  Either it will fade completely in a few months or years, or it will be able to be chemically neutralized at any time.  The further future, I see implantable OLED screens just under the skin that are powered by our own bodies, able to project still and moving images indefinitely.  Sensors could be included to turn it off and on, or activate the motion.

Isis22 wrote:
,,,,  I need a human for something like this. It's the same for surgery, I will take a human over a robot any day.

A robot is simply a human designed and employed tool.  Healthcare acquired infections kill 100,000 people a year in the US.  Human drivers kill 40,000 people a year.  This week a cop, mistaking his gun for a taser, accidentally killed a guy.  Intelligent use of the right tool, robot, for the job can take a lot of human error out of a process.  And robots don't get mad, passive-agressive, or greedy.  And they never have an off day.
    A skilled, experienced surgeon, whose hands tremble due to age, can employ a robot with excellent precision.  That's a win-win.  Human wisdom and experience, mechanical precision.  The Sistine Chapel took 4 years to paint; my printer, a robot,  can make an 8x10 in 30 seconds, far superior to anything that I could make, and make another, exact copy 24/7/365.

Lovely Day Media wrote:
Alright ... let me rephrase what I said.

If the future of tattoos required that I get one, there wouldn't be anymore. Everyone is and should be allowed to do with their body as they see fit as far as I'm concerned. It's true that I think tattoos (and body piercings) are 2 of the worst things a person can do with their body but the operative word here is "their".

Some people say their tattoos mean something. That's fine ... whatever you say ... I'm just not joining you. I'm not carrying a picket sign to try getting you to stop, either.

What has your disdain for tattoos done to aid in the discussion over robotic tattoo guns/machines?

IMAGINERIES wrote:
So far it is only skin deep.....But 3d .....Can you imagine having your girl friend's face raised above your skin in 3d....

Nobody is tattooing in 3D... They just took a 3D printer (a robot) and slapped a tattoo gun into it so it could receive the pattern from the computer.

But if you want something raised we already have implants and scarring.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
I think the near future is that we will develop an ink or a process where the tattoo is semi-permanent.  Either it will fade completely in a few months or years, or it will be able to be chemically neutralized at any time.  The further future, I see implantable OLED screens just under the skin that are powered by our own bodies, able to project still and moving images indefinitely.  Sensors could be included to turn it off and on, or activate the motion.

You just made me think of that movie "In Time"

Laura UnBound wrote:
What has your disdain for tattoos done to aid in the discussion over robotic tattoo guns/machines?

I was under the impression that the discussion was about the future of tattoos. I've added my 2 cents about my future with tattoos.  If a person wants to ignore my comments, I'm okay with that.

udor wrote:
My assessment would be that this machine could have a serious impact on the average tattooist who does nothing more than to apply flash stencils on walk in clients.

Exactly, the person who operates the tattoo robot does not even need artistic skills, just be well trained on the operation of the robot.  It frees the artists to be artists and then let the robot print the art on the skin.

udor wrote:
However, the real tattoo-artist who does custom work, designs the tattoo from scratch and knows actually how to draw and paint (some of the best tattoo artists are also exhibited in galleries with their canvas paintings), will still be in demand..., see Paul Booth or Anil Gupta, two famous NY based artists.

Imagine, with a tattoo robot, any artist in the world could create your tattoo no matter where you are.  Have your tattoo created in NY and applied to your skin in LA.

udor wrote:
In addition to that... you might need an AI based machine with a lot of sensors to understand the different pressures on different bodyparts on how deep to insert the needle and doing the shading etc.

All in all, I think that it's a nice experiment, but it is probably years, maybe decades too early until this could become a viable possibility...

Technology continues to advance quickly and it won't be decades, or maybe even one decade before the required technology to make a tattoo robot is available.

Recently I witnessed a demonstration of a new generation of welding robot.  Current robots have to be programmed with specific coordinates of the places to be welded in relation to the point where the robot holds the piece.  The new technology scans the piece and determines where the welds need to be made based on a 3D photographic rendering of the piece.  The robot can pick up the piece by any spot or side and quickly determine exactly where to weld.  The benefit of this is the robot can have a 3D photographic renderings of multiple pieces in it's memory, can be fed by a conveyor belt, it can pick up each piece, identify it, weld it precisely and place it on another conveyor belt to the next station.

Pictures of Life wrote:

A robot is simply a human designed and employed tool.  Healthcare acquired infections kill 100,000 people a year in the US.  Human drivers kill 40,000 people a year.  This week a cop, mistaking his gun for a taser, accidentally killed a guy.  Intelligent use of the right tool, robot, for the job can take a lot of human error out of a process.  And robots don't get mad, passive-agressive, or greedy.  And they never have an off day.
    A skilled, experienced surgeon, whose hands tremble due to age, can employ a robot with excellent precision.  That's a win-win.  Human wisdom and experience, mechanical precision.  The Sistine Chapel took 4 years to paint; my printer, a robot,  can make an 8x10 in 30 seconds, far superior to anything that I could make, and make another, exact copy 24/7/365.

Robotic surgeries have not been proven to be any better than human ones. In fact, there are certain robotic surgeries that pose a larger risk of complications. Many of these are female surgeries. I've done the research. If a surgeon is old and his hands are shaking than he needs to effing retire not switch to robotic surgery. I've had 9 surgeries, so far.