Dolce Acido wrote:

Good Egg Productions wrote:
If I had a choice between two models, one with a tattoo and one without, everything else being equal, I would choose the model without tattoos every single time.

What's your reasoning behind that?

It's really simple.

Consider what a tattoo is.  It's a permanent mark on the skin.  You can't change it.  You can't move it.

It's the equivalent of an article of clothing that you are always wearing.  If you have a side piece, and we're shooting bikini, you could change your bikini, makeup, hair and footwear 10 times, but you'd have that side piece in every shot.

To me, that's boring, as THAT is what I'll see in 10 different shots with 10 different suits and potentially 10 different looks. 

If the model does NOT have tattoos, she can become 10 different images. 

I have nothing against tattoos personally.  I have one.  I don't judge women or men who choose to get them.  But from a photographer's point of view (which I believe is what the OP was asking) I abhor them unless I'm shooting specifically for the tattoos.

Dolce Acido wrote:
Considering getting a side piece tattoo that will glow under black light, what are some photographer's opinions on models with large and unique tattoos? I figured with a tattoo that can glow in the dark, you can make a photo shoot around that one concept, but once it's done, you really can't do the same thing with other photographers, it's almost like copying an idea. I just wanted to know what other's opinion on the matter is.

Thank you

My thoughts; random order:

...  Some photographers love 'em; some hate 'em; some don't care.
...  Some clients hate'em, some don't care, few love them.

My opinions; random order:
...  I try to avoid tattoos in my photography:  They are always distracting.
...  Photographing a tattoo is copying someone else's art.

Covering tattoos with makeup or photo-editing is sometimes possible, but such work is time consuming & expensive.  Modeling is a competitive business, and if one model requires more work, she will be at a disadvantage over movels who don't.

I believe that visible tattoos limit a model's job options.  Some might disagree with me on this point, but I doubt that models hear about why photographers pass them by.

Get the tattoo if you want it.  Don't count on it enhancing your modeling career.

twoharts wrote:
if i want to shoot someone else's artwork i can take my fuji x-pro1 to the museum.

+1

But who cares what photographers think, they are not clients.  More important is that clients are not big on them.  Great if you want, I have some myself, but I am not a model and it will loose you jobs, its that simple.

Efan Bruder wrote:
Ugh.... Tattoos....

I used to love them. You'd get a girl's clothes off (for bed, pool, photos, or whatever reason) and there'd be this tiny decoration hidden somewhere like it was a surprise she had in store. That was when it was happening no more often than 1 girl in 10.

Now, though, tattoos have become so commonplace that all I see anymore is a blob of blue, green, or black discoloration on a girl's skin. I find them always distracting, usually ugly, and virtually never an improvement. They're not original. They're not unique. They're barely even trendy. They've begun to feel like a way for bland, boring people to make themselves beautiful and unique snowflakes, just like everyone else.

Exactly.

I know a pretty girl, who has a tattoo. She says it represents the soul being set free, and the beauty of transformation and growth. It has deep spiritual meaning for her, and she is pretty confident that she will always want that reminder of how beautiful life can be, even in hard times.
Me, I see a giant chest tattoo that cannot be covered, that looks like a Baboon-Satan skull with butterfly wings, and maggots pouring out of it's eye sockets. The line work is detailed... and on paper I would have thought of it as a cool drawing... but I think it has made this pretty girl into an ugly girl with a neat story.

AJScalzitti wrote:

+1

But who cares what photographers think, they are not clients.  More important is that clients are not big on them.  Great if you want, I have some myself, but I am not a model and it will loose you jobs, its that simple.

On Model Mayhem the photographer is more often than not the client for many of the models here.  GWC's, people building their portfolios, and artists hiring models for personal projects are what make up a significant percentage of model income on this site, based on the anecdotal evidence from models I have shot, and what I read in these forums. 

If we are talking about agency standard models in fashion or commercial work then maybe the photographer is not the client, but in most of those cases the client (ad agency or major brand) will prefer a model without any ink.

For the rest of the models who shoot glamour, art, erotic, fetish there is no right answer.

My personal preference is as little ink on a model as possible so it does not distract from whatever else the concept is.  When I pay a model I tend to choose those with no tattoos or only those that would be easily concealed by angles or clothing.

If I am shooting someone's portrait then I don't care one way or the other and will capture their tattoo if they like.

For the OP, you need to decide what your priority is in modelling.  Do you want to do it as a hobby or to earn a living.  If you want to make money at it determine your market.  There is certainly a market for tattooed models, but often the most successful of those have many tattoos.  For many art and glamour shoots a few small tattoos strategically placed will not be a problem, but big side pieces or sleeves will be.

You can always get a tattoo in 2 or 3 years if you decide modelling is no longer for you.

Just my $0.02

Efan Bruder wrote:
...tattoos have become so commonplace that all I see anymore is a blob of blue, green, or black discoloration on a girl's skin. I find them always distracting, usually ugly, and virtually never an improvement. They're not original. They're not unique. They're barely even trendy. They've begun to feel like a way for bland, boring people to make themselves beautiful and unique...

Rarely beautiful and unique, mostly just noticed.

Dolce Acido wrote:
Considering getting a side piece tattoo that will glow under black light, what are some photographer's opinions on models with large and unique tattoos? I figured with a tattoo that can glow in the dark, you can make a photo shoot around that one concept, but once it's done, you really can't do the same thing with other photographers, it's almost like copying an idea. I just wanted to know what other's opinion on the matter is.

Thank you

I don't mind tattoos but my housemate/landlord who does photo-shoots with me does.  He thinks that they detract from the natural beauty of models.  Same as those who have multiple piercings, liposuction and fake breasts.

If a model wants a tattoo, that is her choice but I've noticed that virtually no woman under the age of 25 these days doesn't have a tattoo or piercing of some sort.

Back in the 50's, 60's and early 70's tattoos on women were pretty much a cult thing - but these days they are virtually the rule rather than the exception.

I've never done a shoot with a glow-in-the-dark tattoo before, but it sounds very interesting all the same. 

Cwen  wrote:
From what I understand, UV ink just isn't a good idea. I had looked into them for a while myself.

A few years ago, I was designing a piece involving UV reactive ink, so I got the MSDS sheet and showed it to a friend of mine who is a chemist, to ask her what she thought.  She started laughing; it turns out that the science community has been using UV reactive ink to mark fish and animals for decades now.  Medically, she said that it's no more dangerous to humans than normal, present-day tattoo ink is.  That said, for other reasons, I opted not to get the design done, anyway.

Art of the nude wrote:
My ideal is no tattoos.  You hit on the reason.  They dominate images, and they tend not to change.  So, you're taking pictures of someone else's art, just like every other photographer.

Now, I don't rant about tattoos, and I often shoot models who have them, but it's a negative.

This pretty well sums up how I feel about tattoos.  The model may be expressing her personality, but for a shoot, the idea is to embody my concept, or sometimes hers as well, not a tattoo artist's concept (yes, it's her concept as well as his, but it's not mine).

As you can see in my port, I've worked with some very good models who have ink, and will continue to, since most young women today have some, making un-inked models harder to find.  All things being equal, though, a model with no ink is preferable to me.

A certain tattoo may be ideal for a certain shoot, but for every other shoot, it's a distraction.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
It's really simple.

Consider what a tattoo is.  It's a permanent mark on the skin.  You can't change it.  You can't move it.

It's the equivalent of an article of clothing that you are always wearing.  If you have a side piece, and we're shooting bikini, you could change your bikini, makeup, hair and footwear 10 times, but you'd have that side piece in every shot.

To me, that's boring, as THAT is what I'll see in 10 different shots with 10 different suits and potentially 10 different looks. 

If the model does NOT have tattoos, she can become 10 different images. 

I have nothing against tattoos personally.  I have one.  I don't judge women or men who choose to get them.  But from a photographer's point of view (which I believe is what the OP was asking) I abhor them unless I'm shooting specifically for the tattoos.

Yup!!

twoharts wrote:
if i want to shoot someone else's artwork i can take my fuji x-pro1 to the museum.

At the Metropolitan Museum of Art!

Bodypaint by Andy Golub and Craig Tracy, model is Trisha Benton, location: see above... the painting being flashed is of and by Chuck Close. (Who received a photo signed by Andy Golub and me).



Art can be more complex than simply taking pix of other artwork...

Dolce Acido wrote:
Considering getting a side piece tattoo that will glow under black light, what are some photographer's opinions on models with large and unique tattoos? I figured with a tattoo that can glow in the dark, you can make a photo shoot around that one concept, but once it's done, you really can't do the same thing with other photographers, it's almost like copying an idea. I just wanted to know what other's opinion on the matter is.

Thank you

That sounds interesting.  My opinion on tattoos varies depending on how it looks.  I really like quite a few that are tastefully done.  Others I am fine with ... but not excited about.  Then there are some I just shake my head and go "Why that?"  So it really is difficult for me to have a solid opinion until I see it.  Just remember that tattoos stay with you pretty much forever ... a large one would be expensive to remove or have alterations done if you were to find yourself not 100% happy with it.

You sound like you are not so 100% sure you want to "live" with it?  My suggestion is to have a body painter design it and paint you first.  Take your time ... decide after you've had it painted on you?  Either way, it wouldn't stop me from wanting to shoot with you, but some others ... it might?

StevesPhotography wrote:
15 years ago tattoos were edgy and cool and almost always well done on a woman because only women who were really into it got tats and they sought out good artists.
Today the overwhelming amount of ink I see is crap and tats are so mainstream now that it stands out when a models does not have them.
My least favorite location for a tat is the upper chest, forget doing anything to minimize that or that necklace that would complement the outfit? Might as well just for get it. Double+++ fugly points for text tats in that area. You know it's a distraction when you realize you are reading the model.
Tats are nothing but a pop culture fad that is no longer interesting or indicative of anything, certainly not rebellion.

I agree that tattoos have become mainstream.  It's becoming almost rare when I shoot with models who have no tats!  Everyone seems to have 'em!

Stanley L Moore wrote:
I am off an age that was taught tattoos were very low class. Worn by criminals and rough sailors and soldiers.

I was taught the same... and yet... I disagreed with my father's opinion... made up my own mind, did research and got tattooed by one of the greatest traditional tattoo artists' in Japan, and continued with another known artist from Yokohama, who lives now in New York.

StevesPhotography wrote:
Tats are nothing but a pop culture fad that is no longer interesting or indicative of anything, certainly not rebellion.

Sorry, but you know nothing about the cultural significance and history of tattooing.

You can easily dismiss this as "nothing but a pop culture fad", but you ignore it's thousands of years old tradition reaching into the modern time.

People of all cultures had such traditions and many who decide to get inked do the research and know quite well why they are getting the ink and it does have often a significant meaning to the individual.