Augustine wrote:
Kickfight can explain it to you.

If I ever stop laughing at this thread, maybe. But right now it's too just hilarious. OMG the inanity.

And I bet the irony quotient just skyrockets from here.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Trolls should be slapped. Often and repeatedly.

Trolling is a form of "humour" where someone says something that is unfunny and offensive, and then later points out that it is a joke - usually the same time and the same way one would backpedal a real statement.

Dice is funny. Fozzie Bear is funny. Because we know they're telling jokes, even if the whole act is that the jokes suck.

Trolling is just an excuse for people that aren't terribly smart or funny to share the things they ought to keep to themselves.

If you need a whole new name for excellent trolls - satirists - that should tell you something. Really good photographers are still called photographers.

Perhaps lacking soapbox, some seek a work around.

Rays Fine Art wrote:

What's wrong with being gullible?
Gulls should be as able as boys.

I think I read somewhere that gull-abling was a thing back in the mid seventies. Sooooo kinky.

CRoadStudios wrote:
But it's unfair that we allow non tatted models to get paid more, right?

Well, I can't say I have offered clear-skinned models more.  But I have offered tattooed models less.

CRoadStudios wrote:
Been hearing about expanding trend of high-standards photographers only shooting non-tattoo models, and paying extra premium fees for the opportunity.

Ink-free models, a/k/a the New Diversity, are "cashing in on my Clean Skin Privilege."

What should we do about it?

There are some heavily inked, at least sleeved models around who have a very tight athletic body and have absolutely gorgeous faces and THEY are getting premium pay, BECAUSE of their looks and ink!.


E.g.: Cleo Wattenstrom:




... or Alysha Nett




... or Ruby Rose




... or Anastasia Shcheglova




I have a ton of more examples...

Models with no ink are not as rare as they are made out to be by the anti tattoo crowd...

I guess it's psychological, if you are passionate against tattoos... all you can see are models with tattoos and get nuts over it.

CRoadStudios wrote:
But a gorgeous, self-respecting model without tattoos and other bad habits can still market herself at 40, but at 40 a model with 20 year old tattoos on old skin will be...     doing what?

So... a model with tattoos has no self respect?   

Also... I am 51, a decade beyond what you consider "old skin", with decades old tattoos... and I have no wrinkles and my skin looks GREAT and my ink is in excellent condition!

Zack Zoll wrote:
He does look really good. He could pass for a guy ten years younger - albeit one that needs to sleep more.

Not that it changes the conversation any - I'm just pointing out that is actual fact, and not just ego talking.

That said ... Most of the stuff that makes tats look horrible over the years makes skin look horrible too. Many(not all!) of the people with ugly, faded, spread tats also have leathery skin from being in the sun too long without sunblock, and from not using moisturizer.

I think a better question - one we don't have an answer for - is if 20 years from now there will be a large market for tatted 50 year olds.

Right now, we equate tats to youth - at least with women. Twenty years from now, who knows? There are enough tatted women now that maybe by then Dove and Aveno will be marketing 'tattoo restoration cream', with colour resuscitation(tm) technology.

Thanks Zack!

... and yeah... I still need to catch up on sleep...

The quality of the longevity of a tattoo depends a lot on the skills of the tattooist and especially the aftercare in the weeks after the tattoo got done. Too many people apply Vaseline on a tattoo, because their tattoo artist recommends it out of habit, while the petroleum in Vaseline has healing properties, that literally "pulls" more pigment out of the skin.

Also, if the tattooed person is an avid sunbather or tanning bed enthusiast... the skin will age super fast and it doesn't matter if there is a tattoo or not.

CRoadStudios wrote:
Been hearing about expanding trend of high-standards photographers only shooting non-tattoo models, and paying extra premium fees for the opportunity.

Ink-free models, a/k/a the New Diversity, are "cashing in on my Clean Skin Privilege."

What should we do about it?

I was just going to lurk, but ...

Does nobody get that with his follow up comments, he/she is being sarcastic.

Why does it always take someone who lives sarcasm to spot it. 

Abbitt Photography wrote:
I think the point behind the OPs post is that we have created numerous policies designed to offset those who are more demanded (more privileged).  The 9 points I "suggested" in my previous post were analogous to actual policies that really have been set in action.

To use another real life example:   More males than females have the physical ability to meet the physical standards required to be a firefighter.  In response to this male "privilege" some fire departments have been required to lower standards for females and/or instigate quotas for female hiring.  I think the OPs point is that by the same logic and to be consistent tattooed models deserve to receive some sort of benefit or advantage to offset the "privilege" non tattooed models have by being more in demand.   

I put privilege in parenthesis because such advantages are clearly not due to anyone being granted any actual privilege but privilege is in fact the word often used to describe any difference or resulting advantage used to justify corrective measures to supposedly create a level playing field.   Here, in this thread, people are quick to point out tattoo choice is not actually a privilege but in other situations this argument has been readily accepted as a reason to create corrective measures.  I think the point is, if we are going to be consistent then tattooed models are every bit as entitled to some sort of corrective advantages as are female firefighters or women owned small businesses.   

Personally, I disagree with the whole notion of advantaging some groups over others to offset such "privilege" but I see his point.   If we are going to provide advantages to some groups to offset such "privilege" why should the same not apply to tattooed models?

Well said.

But you are taking this whole thing too seriously.

CRoadStudios wrote:
But it's unfair that we allow non tatted models to get paid more, right?

When they get more money for clean skin, that widens the pay gap between the two classes of models.   

Disparity in modeling pay shouldn't be tolerated.

What about the horrendous disparity between photogenic expressive talent and that which is neither? How horrible!

CRoadStudios wrote:
But it's unfair that we allow non tatted models to get paid more, right?

When they told you life would be fair they lied to you shamelessly...

When they get more money for clean skin, that widens the pay gap between the two classes of models.

We call this "free enterprise". Matt Damon gets much more money than James Doe from the Bumfuck Theatre in Indiana. Even if James is a ten times better actor than Matt. Supply, demand.

Managing Light wrote:
Love it!

You da man!

Don't make jokes about this. Some politician will come along and take this seriously... :-/

Julia Steel wrote:
I think it's completely fair! I should earn more money modeling than a tattooed person because I will use that money to stimulate the economy and save America, and the tattooed model will just buy more tattoos for herself or drugs for her makeout parties.

Will tatted models really makeout?

Herman Surkis wrote:

Well said.

But you are taking this whole thing too seriously.

Not so much too serious as a few days on my back with too much time on my hands and only my iPhone to occupy my time with.  Thankfully that's changing!