|
Forums >
Model Colloquy >
Are tattoos THAT big of a deal?
I've noticed something interesting. If you look through the Travel Notices (under the "castings" tab, not in the forums), In the search parameters there is a field for tattoos and piercings. Models can indicate one of three options: Yes, No, or N/A. What I find interesting is that traveling models without tattoos obviously indicate No, but traveling models with tattoos tend to indicate N/A. There are very few who indicate Yes. It's almost as if they realize that tattoos make a person less marketable. If that is the case, it begs the question 'why get tattoos if one plans on being a model?' It is my considered opinion that these folks wish to have their cake and eat it too. Let's face it though, the modeling industry is very shallow. Models get rejected all the time because they are an inch too short, or 3 pound over their ideal weight, or their hair is the wrong color. It's a cutthroat game. Why intentionally create one more excuse for rejection? Mar 24 16 01:06 pm Link I have no issue with tattoos...But Karl Lagerfeld said "It's like living in a Pucci dress full-time" For those who know who Emillio Pucci was, it is kind of funny!! I remember when every young woman's dreams was to wear one of these dresses... Apr 10 16 06:34 pm Link Most tattoos are a deal breaker for me hiring a model. Good or bad, a tattoo can ruin a line quicker than anything else. Not ALL tattoos, but certainly most. Apr 11 16 09:03 am Link Maxfield Photography wrote: Good observation and a spot on assessment. IMHO Apr 13 16 04:55 pm Link I am seeing answers all over the board - however as bnobody here are the actual clients who hire models, it's mostly just noise. If your goal is to do this professionally then go to some agency open calls, find out if your look is in demand and maybe get signed. If you do they will advise you on how to be most marketable. I am in marketing these days and I can tell you none of my clients have picked models with visible tattoos - but obviously I have not worked with every company in the world. Apr 13 16 05:47 pm Link Maxfield Photography wrote: I never had any plans of being a model, or ever knew it was a possibility for me before the age of 22. Apr 13 16 07:02 pm Link There are about ten different things that instantly make me turn the page when looking for a model, and tattoos is number one on the list. Once in a blue moon I may find a model who is bigger than life and so irresistible that I make an exception; like Jenny in my port. Other than that my photo ideas are simply NOT ABOUT someones tattoos. They become a distraction and upstage any ideas I have. A viewers eyes will always go to the tattoo no matter how small it may be, even if the model is sitting naked with her legs wide open. Apr 13 16 07:30 pm Link I do my best to avoid them. Apr 13 16 07:36 pm Link JerryClark Photographer wrote: How could that model have been so foolish? Apr 13 16 07:45 pm Link I'll say one thing about tattoos - If you have them, it's easier to id you if someone throws you in the river. Fish won't eat tattooed flesh.  Apr 13 16 07:49 pm Link They are the devil !!!! Don't get me wrong, I still respect and love people with them, and totally respect their personal choices and self-expression, but at the same time, there are many types of shoots where my self-expression is more true to my vision without someone else's artistic choices being added by them. Put another way, imagine a painter who needs to start their work with a canvas that someone else has painted on, and you are not allowed, or it would be very difficult to paint over their choices (and often insulting to them), so you need to work someone else's choices into your artistic expression. Say, you want to photograph a very natural, tranquil scene where you want the model facing left into the sun... but she has a tattoo on her left side, or you want to do photo from behind and there is her own artwork there above her bum. The model's pre-existing choices of artistic expression are immediately impacting your vision and your choices. Don't get me wrong, there are situations and settings where I think tattoos rock, or make very little difference, but too often for many of us, it does matter, and the reality is that there are fewer and fewer models who do not have tattoos... and especially if you jump to those who will model nude, the percentage is going to be even heavier towards tattoos versus no tattoos, same as over the 25 years, the percentages have changed, where no tattoos used to be the normal, and now that is the rarity. For the majority of photos, I'd prefer the blank slate, the blank canvas, and I will admit that I often see models that I think are amazing, and then see their tattoos and think "awwww, fuck... tattoos". Personally, I find that a terrible reality to admit, because in an occupation/activity that is SO much about appearance, there is such a rush to personalize your bodies by adding permanent markings, it honestly kind of amazes me. I wish more models were not getting tattoos... just like I wish they would avoid the nose piercings, and lip piercings, and belly-button piercings and stuff, because those also create situations where you are making artistic choices for us, and often are stuck thinking "wow, she looks amazing... just a shame about the _______" Since it is entirely within your control, it would make so much more sense to me to make choices that have the sentence simply read "Wow, she looks amazing!!", but ultimately, it IS your body and your choice what you do with it. Lastly, photographers, don't forget to remain professional and respectful, models are not our property, and have every right to choose to do whatever they want with their bodies. Try not go get upset, or pissed off, or otherwise display your frustration if their personal choices of how to adorn their bodies do not match ours. The most respectful thing we can do is to let it go, and focus on finding those with the look we seek. Apr 13 16 07:51 pm Link I dig tattoos... on other people. It's rare to find a guy without tattoos... and to see a body free from that is so beautiful to me. Apr 13 16 09:54 pm Link Well I shoot a lot of fetish stuff, so tattoos aren't too much of an issue. I shot for men's magazines it was a big deal though; many wanted no tats, or only small easily photo shopped ones. So, personally it's fine, professionally...depends on for whom and what's being shot Apr 14 16 05:34 am Link I have tried to stay out of this discussion, but I will say that I personally hate tattoos on models and would certainly hesitate to hire a model with gaudy tattoos all over her body. Likewise, I love to photograph older cars and would certainly not care to photograph a car with all types of abstract graffiti painted all over it! Apr 15 16 02:55 am Link I love my tattoos and when people say they want to shoot me before I'm covered im offended, tattoos are my life literally because I am in the process of becoming a tattooist myself, I think they're beautiful and give more to an image. if you're artistic I believe you would be able to see the beauty in others artistic decisions. I would never intentionally cover my tattoos for a shoot if someone asked, they are a part of me. they are my skin and I think they're becoming more and more of a normal thing these days. don't let others views cloud your decisions and view on tattoos. they're beautiful and ID rather be painted on & hated on than be a blank canvas because of what others think. Apr 18 16 09:59 am Link Shannon Keeley wrote: Not all photographic artists want another artist's work front and center in their photographs. I don't see the "beauty" in every piece of art I view, do you? I suspect that you do not either, otherwise you would not be offended as well as refuse to conceal a tattoo for the sake of art. Apr 18 16 11:16 am Link Sometimes ink can work in the shot, or at least not detract from it. But most of the time, I find it distracting (and take a lot of shit from some other photographer friends that get on my case when we're doing a group shoot and I shy away from gorgeous models with prominent ink). Some reasons why *I* prefer not to shoot someone with a lot of tattoos: 1. As someone else brought up, it's someone else's art. It would be like taking a photo with someone else's photo prominently displayed right there with the model. It's also very personal to that person, and meaningless to anyone else viewing the photo. 2. They are unnatural. It's a distraction. I don't mean that in an offensive way - I say this in context with the kind of photos I take (mostly artistic nudes). As I said above, sometimes they can work, but for example, if I'm in the desert southwest, have a model up against some gorgeous red and yellow sandstone, a big, blue, black, purple, green tattoo is going to stand out and become the focal point of the photo when it shouldn't be. 3. Some are just plain awful, sorry. Placement may have a lot to do with it. Having a full back piece may not bother me if I'm going for a frontal shot. It's also why I like doing small group shoots, because the variety of models coming make it more flexible for me to get what I want for a specific shot without feeling "stuck" working with the same model that may not work for everything I want to shoot. But for a one-on-one shoot, I prefer few-to-no tattoos, usually. Apr 18 16 12:58 pm Link As far as shooting goes, tattoos are neither a plus nor a minus in the industry. Some photographers hate it, some don't care, and some love it. To each his own. However, from a copyright standpoint, it could prove to be a liability should the photo gain notoriety. A tattoo can be considered copyright protected by the tattoo artist and taking a photo of it and publishing it can become a nightmare. http://www.inkedmag.com/articles/who-owns-your-tattoo/ Apr 18 16 03:36 pm Link Man, that would suck to have to pay your tattoo artist royalties every time you do a photoshoot. Unfortunately for inked models, photographers have a very simple way of avoiding that problem - hire someone else. Apr 18 16 04:49 pm Link Jerry Nemeth wrote: I shoot stock and the object is to have a pretty woman, clean and well made-up selling the buyer's product, Basic photography says shoot the eyes, then gravitate to other parts of the body that draw your eyes. I see a tatted lady, no matter how beautiful she is I immediately go to the "sketch pad" on her body. Sometimes I'll start there and maybe never get up to her face. If God wanted us to have tats he would have given us drawing paper for skin. On the other hand, there is a market for tatted people like INK magazine. My personal opinion is that you will look prettier in your own skin and not in a decorated version Apr 20 16 02:43 pm Link I love tattoos! <3 Apr 23 16 11:12 pm Link Copyright, a tattoo can be considered copyright protected by the tattoo ARTIST and taking a photo of it and publishing it can become a nightmare. You could have to pay royalties for a photoshoot. Fortunately, photographers have a very simple way of solve the problem, book a un-tattooed model. I've worked with a few tattoo models, and had this copyright problem with one, none so far with the other two. So I must decline booking, and paying models with ink. Apr 24 16 01:14 am Link I'm heavily tattooed - they certainly influence the sorts of shoots you get, but I certainly don't regret them! Apr 26 16 11:51 am Link MoniqueWie wrote: For most of the commercial work I have done, tattoos are excluding a lot of models. Depending entirely on the look, size and placement of it, it may ruin some chances of work. If it's not coverable by wardrobe or you can otherwise hide it, it's going to lose you some jobs. Unless you are going to do biker-chick and tattoo magazines, tats seldom work well. Apr 26 16 12:00 pm Link DougBPhoto wrote: Extremely well put!!! Apr 26 16 12:08 pm Link Jules NYC wrote: Totally agreed. Tattoos always strike me as being akin to drawing a moustache and glasses on the Mona Lisa. Apr 26 16 07:27 pm Link IMAGINERIES wrote: unfortunately 98 percent of tattoos are not as visually appealling as anything Pucci created Apr 26 16 07:43 pm Link Funny, when I was in my teens, tattoos were for non-conformists. Now, the opposite seems to be true. Excuse me while I chase some damn kids off my lawn. Apr 26 16 08:59 pm Link Electroglow wrote: Good point. I think I actually remember Ozzy Osbourne saying the same thing! Minus that stuff about the lawn. Apr 27 16 07:14 am Link Maybe it's already been said, but there is way too much 'bad ink' out there. Cheaply done tattoos, maybe done by a 'friend', or some tattoo artist just starting out, or just tattoo's of really stupid stuff. Sorry, but bad ink is an automatic deal breaker for me. I won't waste my time photoshopping out bad ink for a model that doesn't value themselves enough to demand 'good in, or no ink'. May 08 16 09:02 am Link I shoot stock images and have shot models with tattoos that showed in the final images. The a couple of the stock agencies required a copyright release from the tattoo artist before they would accept the image. So I find that a tattoo will limit the way a model can be posed for the images I require. May 21 16 09:18 am Link Rob Photosby wrote: The last guy I dated had Lady Death tattooed on his back, the devil and angel and it was done craptastically by his ex-girlfriend (stenciled that is). She was a mediocre artist and now it's forever stained on his back. May 21 16 09:42 am Link AlternativeLens wrote: If I ever go on a dating site again (which will probably be never), I'll use this as part of my profile, but without apologizing for it. May 21 16 09:47 am Link MoniqueWie wrote: well you're tall so will probably have no problem getting paid shoots. Most paid shoots I encounter are nude. Sleeves and large pieces can't really be photoshopped. I've had the ones on my stomach covered but not my arm. May 26 16 10:05 pm Link Tattoos are a deal breaker for me even if the model is paying me unless I am shooting some alternative theme where they help. May 26 16 10:46 pm Link Usually I would much rather a model was tattoo free (I have done shoots where I specifically wanted tattoos) Jun 02 16 01:06 pm Link Stan Marquardt wrote: Interesting and silly that a stock agencies would require a copyright release for a random model's personal tattoo. I have read the arguments on here before and really don't care to chase that down the rabbit hole. Jun 03 16 12:21 pm Link I have shot stock for years and have never had to have a release for tattoos, including full arm sleeves, I love you Bianca! Jun 03 16 12:36 pm Link if i shoot a model in a dozen different costumes and locations and there is a bunch of body graffiti spilling out, then that will diminish the uniqueness of those sets. doesn't mean i don't want to shoot with that, but it does mean i don't want to shoot much with it. Jun 03 16 12:59 pm Link Carlos Occidental wrote: This has been my experience, (as a model who has two tattoos.) Jun 04 16 06:49 am Link |
