Madalyn wrote:
I have gotten the hint Photographers dont favor tattoos, but with watching Miami Ink last night, there was a girl who got a Star Tattoo on the back of her neck so she can use that in her picture as "her signature"...I just dont get it, is that kind of Tattoo Okay? and Why?

I love models with tats! Bring 'em on! In fact, the more the better!

Unless I'm shooting something "fashiony", or pin-up, or figure, or portrait, or anything else that a tattoo would look bad in.

Tattoos are fine, but like un-naturally colored hair, or "out of place" piercings, they are going to limit your market and marketability.

Madalyn wrote:
I have gotten the hint Photographers dont favor tattoos, but with watching Miami Ink last night, there was a girl who got a Star Tattoo on the back of her neck so she can use that in her picture as "her signature"...I just dont get it, is that kind of Tattoo Okay? and Why?

Your question is not very clear. Perhaps you could be more specific.

Madalyn wrote:
I have gotten the hint Photographers dont favor tattoos, but with watching Miami Ink last night, there was a girl who got a Star Tattoo on the back of her neck so she can use that in her picture as "her signature"...I just dont get it, is that kind of Tattoo Okay? and Why?

Describing "photographers" as one group is a bit like talking about "food service professionals." This could be everybody from the guy who drives the fish truck from restaurant to restaurant, to the girl behind the counter at McD's, to the head chef at Gotham in Manhattan, to the accounting manager at Olive Garden. It's just too broad a term to really mean anything in this context.

Some photographers actively dislike tattoos -- others won't shoot you if you don't have them. And then, there are a million variations in between, all depending on the type of photographer, the kind of work he does, if he is working for a client or not, and a million other variables.

Paul

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:
Extensive tattooing will definitely limit your opportunities, but as Envy can probably attest, it'll also make other people wild to work with you.  I'm extremely partial to extensive tattoos in my personal work, for example.  Location probably has a lot to do with it - the bigger the city, the more diverse, the more photographers there are, the greater the odds that an unusual model will find work.

Good luck.

I must be having bad day. Everyone but me can make sense of the question proposed.
Is she asking if "star" tattoos are ok as opposed to ones with depictions of evil monkeys flinging shit?

OR

Is she asking if tattoos in general hinder your desire to be worked with by some photographers?

I'm stumped.

Envy wrote:
Is she asking if tattoos in general hinder your desire to be worked with by some photographers?

That's what I thought she was asking.

Or maybe it was more about why are some okay, and others aren't?

Now I'm confused too.  See what you do to me?

Jessalyn_54 wrote:
I have over $1500 in tattoos on my body (as you can see in my port) but they are easily concealed (not on purpose, that's just where I wanted them) so during shoots I can expose them or not, depending on what the photographer and/or I are trying to achieve. all of the photographers I have worked with so far really love my tattoos and want to show them off. nobody has said to me "no I won't work with you because of your tattoos" they just think of a cool project that might work with it

I love your tattoos.  Now come shoot with me! 

Jessalyn_54 wrote:
nobody has said to me "no I won't work with you because of your tattoos" they just think of a cool project that might work with it

Umm, chances are, the photographers who won't work with you because of your tattoos won't even enter into negotiations with you -- i.e. you'll never hear from them in the first place.

I won't photograph a tattoo.  I find them ugly (all of them), distracting, vain, & stupid.

Envy wrote:
I must be having bad day. Everyone but me can make sense of the question proposed.
Is she asking if "star" tattoos are ok as opposed to ones with depictions of evil monkeys flinging shit?

OR

Is she asking if tattoos in general hinder your desire to be worked with by some photographers?

I'm stumped.

YOu hang out with JJ too much, you have an attitude now!

I think she asks whether a visible tatoo that would be like your signature - instantly recognizable -  is OK
and
whether photographers like models with that kind of signature tattoo.

I am guessing one that you cant hide ! huh!
now I am confused !  geez Envy..

No shit flinging !

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Umm, chances are, the photographers who won't work with you because of your tattoos won't even enter into negotiations with you -- i.e. you'll never hear from them in the first place.

I won't photograph a tattoo.  I find them ugly (all of them), distracting, vain, & stupid.

THAT was pretty violent.

And you're right, a photographer wouldn't contact me in the first place. But every photographer who has contacted me that did NOT know that I had tattoos has not been turned off by it, that's what I meant

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Umm, chances are, the photographers who won't work with you because of your tattoos won't even enter into negotiations with you -- i.e. you'll never hear from them in the first place.

I won't photograph a tattoo.  I find them ugly (all of them), distracting, vain, & stupid.

Vain how?  Just curious, I know it's a little off topic.

MMDesign wrote:
It's called Freedom of Expression. Do what you want and don't worry about what other people think... unless they're your parole officer.

Or unless they ask you what you think.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Umm, chances are, the photographers who won't work with you because of your tattoos won't even enter into negotiations with you -- i.e. you'll never hear from them in the first place.

I won't photograph a tattoo.  I find them ugly (all of them), distracting, vain, & stupid.

I am not usually very opinionated, but I'd have to agree on this one. In fact I'd add that they are not just tasteless, the are a bad taste - again, that's according to MY bad taste.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Umm, chances are, the photographers who won't work with you because of your tattoos won't even enter into negotiations with you -- i.e. you'll never hear from them in the first place.

I won't photograph a tattoo.  I find them ugly (all of them), distracting, vain, & stupid.

Wow... so me commemorating my mom having survived cancer twice is vain... Thanks... for clearing that up for me!!!

Kismet Filmworks wrote:
A lot of models have tats.  It's my feeling that a tat can mess up the look of a image if it's out of context. However, that's why God created created make-up.

*nods*mmmhmmm

keithg wrote:
Ink places a date on any image. If timelessness is a goal, it gets in the way, and screams 21st century fad/fashion.

--Keith

Given the centuries that tattooing has been around and popular, across a wide range of diverse cultures, don't you think that theory is difficult to support?

bang bang photo wrote:

Given the centuries that tattooing has been around and popular, across a wide range of diverse cultures, don't you think that theory is difficult to support?

I dunno mine have nothing to do with fad or fashion in the least....the Maiori people  have been doing them for god knows how long as well as the Japanese and Chinese ....then there is the case of the ice man with tattoos...

I suppose it depends more on the style of tattoo and colors used, if you want to get technical it depends on the needle configuration used as well and of course the design ... my tattoos looked 60 years old when I got them and thats exactly how I wanted them. My friend gets his with a stick and a hammer over seas ... doesn,t look to fad or fashion to me....

On another note Mehron makes an excellent tattoo cover...that works well under all types of light...

Lightwave Photography wrote:
What I noticed is so many of these aspiring models get the same tattoo design, usually a butterfly on the lowerback or stars and almost always poorly done.

In theory, I think a tattoo might be ok on a model if it was original, creative and well done.  I have rarely seen this to be the case though, usually the same old same old designs that look really bad.

Yeah hence why I try to break away from the really lame cliche tattoos

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Umm, chances are, the photographers who won't work with you because of your tattoos won't even enter into negotiations with you -- i.e. you'll never hear from them in the first place.

I won't photograph a tattoo.  I find them ugly (all of them), distracting, vain, & stupid.

I love to see people so open minded as yourself. I mean lumping all tattoos into  the "ugly" category, I mean thats genius. I know I have seen people often complain about the artistic merits of nudes and all but bravo... you have REALLY  hit the nail with the hammer, way to support art This is one of the finest posts I have ever read.

*starts slow clap*

Lightwave Photography wrote:
What I noticed is so many of these aspiring models get the same tattoo design, usually a butterfly on the lowerback or stars and almost always poorly done.

In theory, I think a tattoo might be ok on a model if it was original, creative and well done.  I have rarely seen this to be the case though, usually the same old same old designs that look really bad.

This is the reason I waited until I found someone who could design one for me... one that suited me and was sized to look as if it belonged.

I love mine it is a part of me more than just something drawn on me.