|
Forums >
Model Colloquy >
Are tattoos THAT big of a deal?
MoniqueWie wrote: Depending on what requirements are for the shoot they may be a big deal. Jun 04 16 07:48 am Link So long as they aren't visible gang affiliated tattoos, I'm not sure why they would be. If push comes to shove, the photographer can have them edited out. Jun 04 16 08:02 am Link CrystalWat wrote: when you have to do a designers catalogue with fifty looks to create it's not just one tattoo removal, it's fifty tattoo removals , multiply with five minutes and it makes four hours of work extra. If there's a second tattoo involved, make this eight hours. I inform my client of this, charge extra. Now if they still want to use a tattooed model without the tattoos being visible, then it's up to them. Jun 04 16 09:24 am Link CrystalWat wrote: Unless you are a Photoshop expert and have actually retouched out tattoos (especially large ones) and know how much time it can take to get a natural result, then I suggest your comment is uninformed at best and misleading at worst. Jun 04 16 11:21 am Link CrystalWat wrote: Many things are possible, but not everything that is possible is worth doing. Jun 04 16 04:47 pm Link Everything is possible but sometimes photographers seems to have enough with flaws people didn't choose. I mean things like boobs and ducklips people choose but other types of operation scars are very often not on purpose. Many things that you can do to look beautiful, like bleeching your teeth and suntans, may cause cancer and give some people eating problems which isn' t advices photographers usually claim, from what I have heard. I guess they are acting at their common sense here and try to do what people can not be blamed for or the client pays for. I guess tatoos will qualify into the genre one has to take responibility for. Look at it the positive way. They have enough with my wrinkles  Jun 04 16 06:13 pm Link Some shoots I don't want skin alterations. I'm not good at photoshop. Models with tattoos need not apply to those kind of shoots. Jun 04 16 10:52 pm Link Monique, While I believe it is generally true that tattoos limit the work you will get in fashion and glamour, should you decide to shoot nudes one day, there are many skilled and recognized photographers, both here and over seas, who still seek out models with body art. The majority of very accomplished fine art nude photographers I know prefer no tattoos, so even with nudes the number of jobs offers will be fewer I imagine. Still, having a niche is not always a bad thing if you work hard and market yourself appropriately. I wish you the best. Jun 05 16 05:32 am Link I'm coming late for this but here's my experience. I've been a full-time model in Paris for 6 years now. Some of my (well-established) model friends got tiny tattoos some time ago. It doesn't stop them from working but every now and then someone will just MENTION it. It's not a big deal. In all those years I've 1 or 2 (tops) models with huge tattoos. I believe they weren't modeling full time. It sure was part of their "look". But that was THE one look they could do. Jun 07 16 11:41 am Link Magda Kulpinska wrote: Valuable answer. Jun 07 16 12:04 pm Link Always a pleasure  Jun 09 16 03:21 pm Link Magda Kulpinska wrote: This probably sums up all the best answers so far in this discussion. Jun 09 16 03:46 pm Link As a fine art photographer I would prefer no ink on my models. Sometimes it cant be avoided . Jun 10 16 09:33 am Link CrystalWat wrote: OR...they can just save the aggravation and time and use a model without tattoos. Jun 10 16 09:57 am Link Here in Shakey Town, there are nice well-paid gigs as body doubles in the movie/TV industry. All sorts of doubling, including nude. Nude doubling pays well and also can be an entry into union membership. Ink is a big drawback, especially for the nude work, but also for much non-nude work. Concealer takes time, is often imperfect, and washes off in rain, weather, etc. Friends of mine have been flatly refused by agencies ("Don't even send me pictures...") when they admitted to being inked. And in general, the higher-end modeling and the more mainstream you go, the less they'll tolerate tattoos.Playboy, e.g., hates tattoos. I've shot lots of people inked and non-inked. My opinion doesn't matter; what matters is your goals and how tatts affect those goals. And btw, I've had a few "reader photos" published in various tattoo magazines and biker mags. Jun 11 16 03:09 pm Link CrystalWat wrote: This common misconception is 99% wrong. Jun 29 16 09:34 am Link CrystalWat wrote: Jeez I so fucking hate it when people say this!!! A better alternative is to just find a model who doesn't have tattoos that need editing out. Jun 29 16 10:00 am Link It depends on the type of tattoos, the location, the size and how many tattoos. Jun 29 16 12:05 pm Link MoniqueWie wrote: To cover up tattoos.. Try an alcohol base makeup, such as skin illustrator or SKT skin coverup Jul 18 16 11:48 am Link MoniqueWie wrote: 1. Depends on the photographer Jul 18 16 06:22 pm Link Connor Photography wrote: Best answer yet. Jul 21 16 09:04 pm Link It depends what kind of work you're going for - most TFP work or work with amateur photographers who need to/are willing to pay for models and also topless/nude work it won't matter about tattoos . If agency work is what you're aiming for - although there are a couple of fashion girls about at the moment with "special bookings" sections of big agencies - in the most part tattoos are a no no - I have a small one on my hip and even that has been a deal breaker for commercial and fashion jobs (Im also an agency model - Ford). x Jul 22 16 04:16 am Link EVERYTHING is that big of a deal. If you are a blond and they are looking for a redhead, you won't get the job. If you are tall and they are looking for a shorter model, you won't get the job. If you are small-breasted and they are looking for busty, you won't get the job. The list goes on and on. And includes tattoos. Whether you have them or not will limit your opportunities. That being said, there are more openings for blonds that redheads, more openings for tall than short, more openings for busty and more openings for no tattoos. So, are tattoos a big deal. Yup. Everything is a big deal. Jul 22 16 04:25 am Link Dannielle Levan wrote: Hi, Jul 22 16 06:50 am Link Kat Von D has some great makeup to cover up tattoos. No matter how big, or colorful. Kinda exspensive covering a lot of tatoos (My right side is covered, a big thigh tattoo. Theyve never affected me getting work though) but if it's something that could make or break an opportunity, it's worth it. (: Aug 10 16 08:11 am Link It really depends on so many things. First of all: What kind of tattoos you have, the size etc. It is a little different if you have a small patch on your back then having a full sleeve. Second of all is the placement. If you have tattoo's in really obnoxious places (sleeve, legs, that kind of thing) it will be a problem. And also, what kind of stuff you have tattooed. Someone with skulls all over will be less interesting for fashion photographers when they actually accept a tattooed model then someone with some elegant b/w roses or anything. As a photographer myself I don't have any problems with models with tattoo's since I've got a few big ones myself, but it really depends on what you're shooting. If the client insists on a model without tattoos and we're shooting, for example a dress, I wouldn't mind if the girl had a tattoo which is covered by the dress at all. But if it's for lingerie or anything more nude and it is visible you have to listen to the client (or Photoshop it away but yeah ..). As to the other side, I frequently do some model gigs myself as well and I've never had any problems so far with my tattoos. I have a fairly big sternum piece, a piece on my left upper leg and a small piece on my back. So far I haven't had any problems at all since most of the time it's possible to cover it. In my TFP work I'd like to have models with a bit more of attitude so frequently I'd work with tattooed models Aug 12 16 04:22 am Link Koryn wrote: I agree with most of this. However, I do have several people I have worked with, who have told me that they have not hired certain models on the pretense that they are too heavily tattooed, these are usually people whose work is in galleries and is more focused on skin, body shapes, 'classical fine art nudes' if you will. And I do have people pretty regularly comment on my having no tattoos and how that compliments my look/body type. I have even heard artists put down models who are my friends and wonderful models because they have tattoos!! Ugh. That really just drives me crazy and is so vapid, in my opinion. Aug 23 16 10:56 pm Link I own and operate a Horror/Parody themed t-shirt site I design and shoot for, so my market usually caters to tattooed individuals and attractive models in my gear is a high selling point. That being said, living in Florida, it seems EVERY female has tattoos, and I've come to enjoy finding and shooting those who have none more so for my photography body of work. Sep 28 16 06:41 am Link Depends on the nature of the work. Some may be adverse to having another artist's work appearing in the art they are making. Often tats are used to make a statement, does the decision maker agree with the statement? If yes, do they want to bring more attention to the statement? There may also be an age related view of tattoos in general in society. Younger may be more likely to like/approve, older just ask why did (s)he do that to themselves? Sep 28 16 06:54 am Link Yes it is a big deal. As a fine art photographer I prefer models not to have tattoos . Sep 28 16 08:04 am Link i don't know if they're a big problem or not, but as a general rule I've never known a tattoo, especially a really large one, to enhance a female model's appearance imo. If anything they are usually a distraction at the very least and an eye sore at the very worse. Sep 28 16 03:28 pm Link MIDNIGHT EXPRESS wrote: Can you also use this on heavy stretch marks? Sep 28 16 06:13 pm Link MIDNIGHT EXPRESS wrote: Vodka may help to blurr the photographer's vision! Risen Phoenix Photo wrote: Hey Risen... where the hell are you parking your new avatar??? Sep 28 16 06:31 pm Link For me personally, I prefer no tattoos. My focus tends to lean toward capturing a youthful natural look. Today that is getting harder as more younger girls have at least one or two tattoos - in fact it is becoming difficult to find a girl with none. When I do find a model with no tattoos, they are much more appealing to me, both because they match my natural look concepts, and because they are more rare today. Bottom line for me is that if a model has everything else I am looking for and I don't find one with no tattoos, I'll go with one or two if they can be hidden, are subtle, can be edited out, or look ok for the shoot but for the most part, it can be a deal breaker for me. Dec 18 16 08:42 pm Link MoniqueWie wrote: I have no tattoos, no piercings (other than earlobes), and no body modifications at all. The number of times I've received emails from photographers gushing over how they never find models with tattoos and we must work together is interesting to me. I guess I'd never realized until I started doing this just how many people have tattoos. Jan 08 17 04:55 am Link There's a bizarre legal twist which could arise. The tattoo artist or the copyright owner of the 'flash' owns copyright in the tattoo. He could theoretically sue or shake down a photographer/videographer over copyright infringement. See, e.g.: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 … wsuit.html Involving a closely-related legal issue involving copying of Mike 'The Ear-Chewer' Tyson's tattoo as part of a gimmick in a vulgar movie. Jan 10 17 11:51 am Link |
