Doll Face Imagery wrote:
I personally am in LOVE with tatted models. I seek them out over non-tatted ladies. I love to photograph women who have made art pieces of their bodies! I too am pretty covered in tats and had lots of jobs when I was modeling before I started being the photog instead of the subject!

P I X I E wrote:
Yeah, some of my art nudes have been in art expos in the past. My tattoos were visible on the photos. Gawd, what was the photographer thinking?

Most of the photographers on this site are trying to copy work that was shot about 50 years ago. Thus they don't like tattoos. In new art, some models have tattoos, some don't. There are fewer people making new art.

Ally JH wrote:
Hey there, just a quick question on behalf of a friend whos looking to get into modelling, so not on here as of yet.

She is interested in getting into artistic nude work (not glamour/playboy style) but is quite heavily tattoed, ie sleeves and a couple on legs, feet and back I think. But is otherwise fairly natural looking - no fake tans, cosmetic surgery, bleached out hair.

Anyway, question being would her tattoed look impact negatively on getting art nude work? Is it more desireable to have a more natural look or would it not make a big difference?

I couldn't really give her any advice on this subject and whats more desireable for the genre, so any advice would be greatly appreciated I'm sure.

Cheers!

I enjoy models that have Tattoos.... And sometimes, the more the better....

Thornton Harris wrote:
Most of the photographers on this site are trying to copy work that was shot about 50 years ago. Thus they don't like tattoos. In new art, some models have tattoos, some don't. There are fewer people making new art.

This. Exactly. Although I think that number might even be 100 years ago in some cases, and you also have to throw in artwork like drawings and paintings done by the well known leaders of the day like Schiele and Klimt.

You just didn't find tattooed female models in traditional artwork or in fine art photography as recently as 50 years ago. The exceptions were very few and far between.

Someday just to be different, I may choose to do a photo session with a female who is totally covered in tattoos.

Über Dami wrote:
some photogs will love it, some will loathe it.  as for everyones bickering over copyright issues and releases for tattoo work let's set this very straight....1. a copyrighted logo tattooed on a model in an image that is sold of course can cause a huge issue for the company that logo is associated with. ...

Tattoos as copyrightten images? Who would be the one to get sued, the person bearing the tattoo, the person who inked the tattoo or the late comer who happened took of picture of the other two's collaboration?

This is such a crazy idea! I think a tattoo belongs to the wearer created by the artist who made it. I seriously cannot imagine any tattoo artist wanting the wearer to keep it covered and 'not dare' let it be seen or photographed.

Crazy idea.
Jen

Gennaver wrote:
Tattoos as copyrightten images? Who would be the one to get sued, the person bearing the tattoo, the person who inked the tattoo or the late comer who happened took of picture of the other two's collaboration?

This is such a crazy idea! I think a tattoo belongs to the wearer created by the artist who made it. I seriously cannot imagine any tattoo artist wanting the wearer to keep it covered and 'not dare' let it be seen or photographed.

Crazy idea.
Jen

Doesn't matter what you think.  It's what the law says that counts.  The copyright belongs to the creator of the art work in its original fixed permanent form.  The medium doesn't matter.  A good place to visit:  http://www.copyright.gov/

Kent Art Photography wrote:
She is unlikely to be successful;  anything that breaks up the lines and flow of the body is bad.

This, 100%!!

Ally JH wrote:
Anyway, question being would her tattoed look impact negatively on getting art nude work? Is it more desireable to have a more natural look or would it not make a big difference?

I can pretty much guarantee you that having tattoos WILL lose her jobs. The philosophy being many people don't want their art to compete w/ someone else's. Course growing a thick skin & handling rejection is part of the territory regardless of what content they end up doing.

That being said, there will be many people (like myself) who are either indifferent about body art or are fascinated by it & thus having it will be an asset.

If its something your friend wishes to do, tell her to go for it. A person only lives once.

Nicolette wrote:
Meh.. Just to break shit up for a minute, I shoot art nudes for a living and I have 8 tattoos. 4 of them are fairly large. None of them are concealable. Yet, I've been in books. I've had images of me sold in gallery showings. I make a fairly comfortable living.

Yes, I market myself for genre's outside art nudes as well. A successful model can shoot more than one genre. I try to make sure I'm capable of shooting more than one genre. But, most of my money comes from shooting art nudes.

I've done just fine.
/shrug.

If you notice, no one paid much attention to commentary from actual, working/income-earning nude models who posted in the thread.

Kind of the way of MM.

There's this magical, unwritten rule that applies to posts in Model Colloquy. If the OP is seeking experiential information, particularly information relevant models' experiences, the first page will be full of photographers bickering with each other, with maybe 4 random interjections by models - which no one seems to read.

Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
Yes it has an impact. She'll get work from photographers who want to shoot models with tattoos and will not get work from photographers who don't want to shoot models with tattoos. There is a preference and it does affect availability of gigs. Sometimes it will work in her favor, other times not. She'll probably have to work harder networking to access favorable markets and individuals.

Plain and simple, nuf said....

Nicolette wrote:
Meh.. Just to break shit up for a minute, I shoot art nudes for a living and I have 8 tattoos. 4 of them are fairly large. None of them are concealable. Yet, I've been in books. I've had images of me sold in gallery showings. I make a fairly comfortable living.

Yes, I market myself for genre's outside art nudes as well. A successful model can shoot more than one genre. I try to make sure I'm capable of shooting more than one genre. But, most of my money comes from shooting art nudes.

I've done just fine.
/shrug.

ShivaKitty wrote:
If you notice, no one paid much attention to commentary from actual, working/income-earning nude models who posted in the thread.

Kind of the way of MM.

There's this magical, unwritten rule that applies to posts in Model Colloquy. If the OP is seeking experiential information, particularly information relevant models' experiences, the first page will be full of photographers bickering with each other, with maybe 4 random interjections by models - which no one seems to read.

Ain't it the truth... Sigh.

ShivaKitty wrote:

If you notice, no one paid much attention to commentary from actual, working/income-earning nude models who posted in the thread.

Kind of the way of MM.

There's this magical, unwritten rule that applies to posts in Model Colloquy. If the OP is seeking experiential information, particularly information relevant models' experiences, the first page will be full of photographers bickering with each other, with maybe 4 random interjections by models - which no one seems to read.

Trufaxx.

JadeDRed wrote:
If she is heavily tattooed then she must accept that will define her as a model and she will mostly need to look for people who want to hire a tattooed model. As long as she accepts those limits she should give it a go and see if the market is there.

The only problem is when people dont accept what they are and try to chase jobs they are unsuitable for, that just wastes time and breeds bitterness. She has to accept she WILL be rejected on the basis of her tattoos.

yup. i know a lot of girls who do art nudes and are heavily tattooed out in my area, but that isn't the only type of work they do. they work with photographers who look for that sort of thing. it's a niche...but it's a popular niche.

and no, BDSM/fetish isn't the only kind of work you can do. i'm heavily tattooed. though i don't do art nude, so it hasn't been something i've had to consider...i do have to seek out alt gigs. but there is far more to the alt world than "bdsm" at one person seemed to suggest. there's far to to fetish itself than bdsm, even!


your friend should just try to break into modeling, period. and follow the types of gigs and networking that comes out of it. modeling is a social thing, based heavily on that sort of thing...finding the gigs that want you, or getting to a position where the ones that want you just come in.

as JadeDRed said, if she accepts what her look her is and who she is and uses that within her modeling pursuits, she'll be fine. If she picks a niche before she has any gigs...that doesn't work out so well.

twoharts wrote:
tons of model have tattoos. she will have company. small tattoos can easily be photoshopped out or hidden on set. large ones (or full sleeves) can be problematic. i prefer no tattoos given a choice.

some photographers think tattoos are cool and others do not. i saw a playboy-type model refer to tattoo whores the other day. so even the models are divided on this one.

To a model that calls another model a "tattoo whore", remember this..

"The only difference between a tattooed person and a person who isn't tattooed is that a tattooed person doesn't care if you're tattooed or not."

Nicolette wrote:
Meh.. Just to break shit up for a minute, I shoot art nudes for a living and I have 8 tattoos. 4 of them are fairly large. None of them are concealable. Yet, I've been in books. I've had images of me sold in gallery showings. I make a fairly comfortable living.

Yes, I market myself for genre's outside art nudes as well. A successful model can shoot more than one genre. I try to make sure I'm capable of shooting more than one genre. But, most of my money comes from shooting art nudes.

I've done just fine.
/shrug.

ShivaKitty wrote:
If you notice, no one paid much attention to commentary from actual, working/income-earning nude models who posted in the thread.

Kind of the way of MM.

There's this magical, unwritten rule that applies to posts in Model Colloquy. If the OP is seeking experiential information, particularly information relevant models' experiences, the first page will be full of photographers bickering with each other, with maybe 4 random interjections by models - which no one seems to read.

Quoting this for emphasis.

A few more MM models I can think of off the top of my head who are significantly tattooed and make an income shooting art nudes (among other genres):
Cam Damage
Echo Nittolitto
Lauren Peralta
Palesaent

I don't know if the girl the OP is talking about can be as good as these women, but maybe she has the same flair.

Raquel Rayne wrote:
Quoting this for emphasis.

A few more MM models I can think of off the top of my head who are significantly tattooed and make an income shooting art nudes (among other genres):
Cam Damage
Echo Nittolitto
Lauren Peralta
Palesaent

I don't know if the girl the OP is talking about can be as good as these women, but maybe she has the same flair.

Too many photographers speak with 'certainty'.

and you know what?

Just like Rachel posted... the answer is "it depends".

There are so many GWCs on this site that as long as the model "gets naked"... they will be happy to call it "fine art" if that is what it takes to get a naked model in front of their lens.

There are artists on here too, I'm not contesting that, but it really seams to me that a model will make money if she has a great look and willing to do nudes (tattooed or not... generally speaking of course.).

ShivaKitty wrote:
If you notice, no one paid much attention to commentary from actual, working/income-earning nude models who posted in the thread.

Kind of the way of MM.

There's this magical, unwritten rule that applies to posts in Model Colloquy. If the OP is seeking experiential information, particularly information relevant models' experiences, the first page will be full of photographers bickering with each other, with maybe 4 random interjections by models - which no one seems to read.

And there is a second rule that a model will incorrectly posit that the OP was asking particularly for a model's experiential input (when, in fact, they were asking for input from no one specifically), often based solely on the model's incorrect belief that "Model Colloquy" is for discussions between or seeking responses from models.

I believe that a model's perspective is limited only the jobs that they either got in spite of having tattoos or where they were told that they weren't getting the job because of their tattoos. They will never know about the jobs they weren't told they didn't get because of their tattoos.

Photographers will know exactly how many jobs they did or didn't give to a model because of or in spite of tattoos.

Nicolette wrote:
Meh.. Just to break shit up for a minute, I shoot art nudes for a living and I have 8 tattoos. 4 of them are fairly large. None of them are concealable. Yet, I've been in books. I've had images of me sold in gallery showings. I make a fairly comfortable living.

Yes, I market myself for genre's outside art nudes as well. A successful llama can shoot more than one genre. I try to make sure I'm capable of shooting more than one genre. But, most of my money comes from shooting art nudes.

I've done just fine.
/shrug.

But you could be making soooooooooooo much more money if you didn't have tattoos! Think of all the gigs you lost because of them!

Sita Mae wrote:
There's a heavily tattooed nude model with whom I shoot on a regular basis, and our photos are being featured in two upcoming anthologies.  I also exhibit images from her on a regular basis.  Sometimes even in actual art galleries.  People buy them.

Go team.

But it's impossible! Tattooed models can't make it to actual art galleries!

Designit - Edward Olson wrote:

And there is a second rule that a model will incorrectly posit that the OP was asking particularly for a model's experiential input (when, in fact, they were asking for input from no one specifically), often based solely on the model's incorrect belief that "Model Colloquy" is for discussions between or seeking responses from models.

I believe that a model's perspective is limited only the jobs that they either got in spite of having tattoos or where they were told that they weren't getting the job because of their tattoos. They will never know about the jobs they weren't told they didn't get because of their tattoos.

Photographers will know exactly how many jobs they did or didn't give to a model because of or in spite of tattoos.

IN short, ladies and gentlemen, PHOTOGRAPHERS KNOW EVERYTHING AND US POOR LITTLE MODELS HAVE NO IDEA OF OUR OWN WORTH/LACK THEREOF.

P I X I E wrote:

But you could be making soooooooooooo much more money if you didn't have tattoos! Think of all the gigs you lost because of them!

For every gig I lost because I have tattoos, I gained even more. Lots of people  really fucking dig my ink, especially my ribs and leg. The few nerds that recognize the tattoos on my back flip their shit.

I've been told I don't fit a project because of my ink. I'm cool with that. I've also been told [and far more often] that someone wants to work with me AND pay me BECAUSE of my ink.

/shrug/