...Stacy wrote:
I think it's funny that this thread became about tattoos,  and people opinions, once again.  All because some chickie in a bikini wanted to be on Miami ink with her friends.  You don't have to defend your  tattoos,  and you don't have to defend the reasons you like or dislike them.  You just have to bake me brownies, and mail them to my house in a sealed container, so they don't get stale.  (please put the frosting in a seperate container.)

Well if I was a halfway decent cook I would send you brownies haha

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.

Jessalyn_54 wrote:
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

Wasn't meant to be "violent".  I'm just saying that if I see a model with a tattoo, I won't even bother to contact her.  If a model I hire shows up & reveals a tattoo, I find ways to position her so that the tattoo is not visible.  If the tattoo is on a body part that I want to photograph, I send her home.

My point -- you just don't know about the opportunities that are lost because people who feel like I do don't go around & tell models "gee, I would have loved to work with you, but I won't because you have skin stains."

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

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

Vain, because they are ornamentation meant to be a statement for people (either everyone or selected individuals) to see.  People who get tattoos seems to feel that the skin stains enhance their status and their "coolness".  Despite claims of substance, tattoos are, by definition, only skin deep.

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.

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

So, why must you inform everyone who sees you that your mother is a survivor?

So, every photograph of you must, by definition, therefore commemorate your mother's survival, regardless of the photographer's vision for the image?

Did she survive breast cancer?  If so, why not lop of your own breasts to commomorate her survival?  As far as I'm concerned, tattoos are self-multilation.

Look -- I didn't say that people should not get tattoos -- people can do whatever they want to their own bodies.  I'm just saying that I won't photograph them.  I find them ugly and distracting.  They have no place in my photography.  Stain your skin from head to toe, for all I care; just don't expect every photographer in the world to line up for the opportunity to copy your tattoo artist's work.

DigitalSwede wrote:
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*

Good imitation of a clever person.  You almost sound clever yourself.

Why should an artist, trying to make an artistic statement, be open minded & politically correct?  If a tattoo is art, isn't photographing a tattoo a form of plagarism?

Sorry, I've seen more than my fill of tattoos, and they have several things in common:
   >>>  The details are often not razor sharp.
   >>>  They fade over time.
   >>>  The color palate is limited.
   >>>  Most are poorly executed.
   >>>  They warp as the wearer's body changes.
   >>>  Their style & subject matter often are cliche'.
   >>>  They eventually go out of style.
   >>>  They distract the eye from the pure human form.
   >>>  They are often worn by people who can't settle on a hair color.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Wasn't meant to be "violent".

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

That was violent. Just by saying "I don't like tattoos" would have been enough but you had to go on and say that they are ugly, vain, stupid, etc.

Everything and everyone is stupid, vain, ugly, in some way shape or form. People sculpt their bodies with muscle in vanity. People style their hair a certain way or color it a certain way in vanity. People paint their nails in vanity. People choose their clothes in vanity. And all of this beauty/ugly is in the eye of the beholder.

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, personally think there are better ways to honor people or document your life etc...but that's me.  My best friend has two for her husband that passed.  As a photographer, I don't like them, don't want to work around them, waste time covering them with photoshop or makeup and find them sort of dirty looking.  Again, that's just me.  A lot of people find them very sexy.  I do mostly commercial work so they don't work well with my types of jobs.

Saedcantas wrote:
That said I would work with other models who are tattooed quite happily and may photograph them myself in the correct context. As much as I can look at some tattoos and say they are a nice design, to me getting a tattoo is just about the least creative, least imaginative and unattractive thing a person could choose to do right now.

who is to say that a person gets a tattoo be to creative, imaginative, or attractive? In many pictures in my port you cannot even tell I have tattoos OR piercings. Yet I have 17 piercings and over $1500 in tattoos. I didn't get them to be creative. I didn't get them to be imaginative. And I sure as hell wouldn't have gotten them if I didn't find them attractive. What is attractive to one person is beauty to another (so of course I know you are just expressing your opinion)

I just don't appreciate everyone (including looknsee) automatically "labeling" people who get tattoos (maybe not the people, but at least the tattoos themselves) as ugly, vain, uncreative, unattractive, and so forth.

If you want "uncreativity" or "unimaginative" tattoos you look to the people getting tattoos that everyone else is getting "just to have one". tribal crap on the arm. over done. star/butterfly on the hip or ankle. over done. tribal on the lower back. over done. I'm not criticizing those tattoos I'm just saying that they aren't creative or imaginative. those are fad tattoos.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Wasn't meant to be "violent".

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

Jessalyn_54 wrote:
That was violent. Just by saying "I don't like tattoos" would have been enough but you had to go on and say that they are ugly, vain, stupid, etc.

Everything and everyone is stupid, vain, ugly, in some way shape or form. People sculpt their bodies with muscle in vanity. People style their hair a certain way or color it a certain way in vanity. People paint their nails in vanity. People choose their clothes in vanity. And all of this beauty/ugly is in the eye of the beholder.

Hey, I don't confuse opinions with facts.  Yes, it is my opinion that tattos are ugly, distracting, vain, & stupid.

It is not clear, from your second paragraph:  do you agree with me?  You seem to say that body building, hair styles, nail painting, fashion, etc. are all potentially acts of vanity.  I agree to that.  Add to your list tattoos, and I agree to that, too.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
It is not clear, from your second paragraph:  do you agree with me?  You seem to say that body building, hair styles, nail painting, fashion, etc. are all potentially acts of vanity.  I agree to that.  Add to your list tattoos, and I agree to that, too.

what I meant was that I don't think that "tattoos are vain" is a valid reason for disliking them because everything we do is vain.

Jessalyn_54 wrote:
who is to say that a person gets a tattoo be to creative, imaginative, or attractive? In many pictures in my port you cannot even tell I have tattoos OR piercings. Yet I have 17 piercings and over $1500 in tattoos. I didn't get them to be creative. I didn't get them to be imaginative. And I sure as hell wouldn't have gotten them if I didn't find them attractive. What is attractive to one person is beauty to another (so of course I know you are just expressing your opinion)

I just don't appreciate everyone (including looknsee) automatically "labeling" people who get tattoos (maybe not the people, but at least the tattoos themselves) as ugly, vain, uncreative, unattractive, and so forth.

If you want "uncreativity" or "unimaginative" tattoos you look to the people getting tattoos that everyone else is getting "just to have one". tribal crap on the arm. over done. star/butterfly on the hip or ankle. over done. tribal on the lower back. over done. I'm not criticizing those tattoos I'm just saying that they aren't creative or imaginative. those are fad tattoos.

For the record, I never said that tattoos were uncreative, and I've always stated that it is my opinion only that they are ugly, vain, etc. 

We are not discussing personal choices here -- we are discussing the suitability of a tattooed model for photography.  It is my statement that I won't photograph a tattoo, and there are tons of successful & wonderful models who will never hear from me because they have a tattoo on a body part that I would want to photograph. 

You might have your reasons for getting stained.  Unless you are a personal friend of mine, those reasons are irrelevant.  You may think your tattoo is making a personal statement, while I may think that you are just trying to buy your way into the cool kid's table.  It doesn't matter.

Jessalyn_54 wrote:
what I meant was that I don't think that "tattoos are vain" is a valid reason for disliking them because everything we do is vain.

That's more clear.  Thanks.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
For the record, I never said that tattoos were uncreative, and I've always stated that it is my opinion only that they are ugly, vain, etc.

you're right, you didn't say that, I was quoting Saedcantas

Saedcantas wrote:
The opinions voiced in this topic arent about you or your tattoos, I understand how you'd like to defend against peoples opinions that you disagree with but try not to take it too seriously or end up feeling like we're all digging at your tats in particular

but they ARE about tattoos

yes, there are some in this thread that are saying how this relates to photographing tattoos but then they throw in "personally I think it's a shitty life decision and here's why" so by everyone throwing in that part to their post then it does turn it into a thread about tattoos (yes, not MY tattoos in particular that's why I have only reference mine a few times just as an example)

Jessalyn_54 wrote:
but they ARE about tattoos

yes, there are some in this thread that are saying how this relates to photographing tattoos but then they throw in "personally I think it's a shitty life decision and here's why" so by everyone throwing in that part to their post then it does turn it into a thread about tattoos (yes, not MY tattoos in particular that's why I have only reference mine a few times just as an example)

Sorry, but we won't all always agree with your rationale for the things you do.

Take smoking cigarettes, for example, especially 'way back in the 70's & 80's, before the anti-smoking campaigns got traction.  Smoking was (and is) a fad.  You may think that smoking makes you look cool, but I don't.  And yes, I can formulate an opinion (not necessarily a definitive opinion, but an opinion) about a person simply by knowing that they smoke.

I think tattooing is a fad, a fashion.  Like smoking, it has quite a bit of traction, but like smoking, it will eventually become more & more unacceptable. 

Can I be friends with a person who has a tattoo?  Yes, indeed.  Already am.
Will I photograph a tattoo?  Never again.
Will I cover a tattoo with makeup or photoshop it out of my image?  Not my style.

If you are a model & you believe that having a tattoo will not impact your appeal as a model, I'd say you are deluded.  The trick, however, is that normally, photographers won't go to the effort of contacting you to tell you that they don't want to work with you.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Sorry, but we won't all always agree with your rationale for the things you do.

Take smoking cigarettes, for example, especially 'way back in the 70's & 80's, before the anti-smoking campaigns got traction.  Smoking was (and is) a fad.  You may think that smoking makes you look cool, but I don't.  And yes, I can formulate an opinion (not necessarily a definitive opinion, but an opinion) about a person simply by knowing that they smoke.

I think tattooing is a fad, a fashion.  Like smoking, it has quite a bit of traction, but like smoking, it will eventually become more & more unacceptable. 

Can I be friends with a person who has a tattoo?  Yes, indeed.  Already am.
Will I photograph a tattoo?  Never again.
Will I cover a tattoo with makeup or photoshop it out of my image?  Not my style.

If you are a model & you believe that having a tattoo will not impact your appeal as a model, I'd say you are deluded.  The trick, however, is that normally, photographers won't go to the effort of contacting you to tell you that they don't want to work with you.

I'm really not sure why you quoted me because you different reference anything in my quote....

but anyways tattoos are not a fad, they have been around for thousands of years and will continue to be around for thousands of years.

and I never said to myself "hm....I want to get a tattoo because it will help me model". I've had these tattoos longer than I have been modeling: they are the a one reason that many photographers have approached me.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
If a tattoo is art, isn't photographing a tattoo a form of plagarism?

If you think the female form is a work of art is not photographing that a form of plagarism? If you shoot it in a creative fashion it will be an alteration or something totally different than the tatoo itself. Also, since you wont photograph a tattooed model chances are you won't be focusing on shooting her tats anyways.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Sorry, I've seen more than my fill of tattoos, and they have several things in common:

Looknsee Photography wrote:
>>>  The details are often not razor sharp.

If you arent focusing on the tattoo and you know how to use DOF then  more than likely you won't want the details to be razor sharp, and if they are and you want to shoot a tatoo then even better.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
>>>  They fade over time..

Which  can work for or against you, some tattoos in my opinion look better after having been nonretouched for many years. Sometimes, its even is a historical marker. ( think tattoos that the Nazis gave out during the Holocaust) Also, some people actually do  go and get their ink revamped from time to time too.


 

Looknsee Photography wrote:
>>>  The color palate is limited.

All color palletes are limited... Also, sepiatone will still work    dont worry.

 

Looknsee Photography wrote:
>>>  Most are poorly executed.

I'd like to see your vast resume on tattoo knowledge.

   

Looknsee Photography wrote:
>>>  They warp as the wearer's body changes.

Once again the warp can work for or against you. If you are primarily shooting beauty or glamour I could see it as being a deal breaker, but think about the endless limitations with  using those warped images.

 

Looknsee Photography wrote:
>>>  Their style & subject matter often are cliche'.

There is a lot of similar stuff out there, but there are also some that are amazingly custom made for the individual as well.

 

Looknsee Photography wrote:
>>>  They eventually go out of style..

Right... thats why they are more popular than ever before.


 

Looknsee Photography wrote:
>>>  They distract the eye from the pure human form.

I guess it would depend on whos eye you are talking about beacause as Ive seen here and many other places a photographer's eye can make them very unique.

   

Looknsee Photography wrote:
>>>  They are often worn by people who can't settle on a hair color.

And?  Im seriously  hoping there was more to this.

Also, a lot of people color their hair as far as the masses go in our society... I mean to think... a model altering her appearance. Oh my!


Also, no a photographer doesnt need to be PC... hell Im even up for pushing the envelope when it comes to that subject. But I would seriously like to know your qualifications for being able to  determine the "common" things in tattoos as an artform. Resume please? I am in no way suggesting you have to shoot tattooed models just merely point out how rash your generalizations are.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

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

Vain, because they are ornamentation meant to be a statement for people (either everyone or selected individuals) to see.  People who get tattoos seems to feel that the skin stains enhance their status and their "coolness".  Despite claims of substance, tattoos are, by definition, only skin deep.

You cannot see my tattoos unless I am naked.  I did not get them for you to see.  I did not get them for anyone to see and think I was "cool".  I can prove that in other ways, and I did for 20 years before I had my first.  "Man" has been permanently marking their skin since they figured out how.  You don't have to like them, or photograph them, but don't be one of those people who is fooled by the obnoxious teeny boppers who get little cliches to fit in.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
If a tattoo is art, isn't photographing a tattoo a form of plagarism?

DigitalSwede wrote:
If you think the female form is a work of art is not photographing that a form of plagarism?

I don't think the female form is a work of art.  However, a recording of the female form can be a work of art.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Sorry, I've seen more than my fill of tattoos, and they have several things in common:

Looknsee Photography wrote:
>>>  The details are often not razor sharp.

DigitalSwede wrote:
If you arent focusing on the tattoo and you know how to use DOF then  more than likely you won't want the details to be razor sharp, and if they are and you want to shoot a tatoo then even better.

I typically want sharp skin details without blemishes or stains or other distractions.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
>>>  Most are poorly executed.

DigitalSwede wrote:
I'd like to see your vast resume on tattoo knowledge.

What would be the point of that?  Do you think I am unqualified to formulate my opinion that tattoos are ugly & not worth my time to photograph them?

Looknsee Photography wrote:
>>>  Their style & subject matter often are cliche'.

DigitalSwede wrote:
There is a lot of similar stuff out there, but there are also some that are amazingly custom made for the individual as well.

I attempt to make fine art photography.  How can I make a fine art photograph if my "canvas" is already signed by another artist?

Looknsee Photography wrote:
>>>  They eventually go out of style..

DigitalSwede wrote:
Right... thats why they are more popular than ever before.

Ah... that's sarcasm, right?  So, what, exactly, is your point?  Let me ask you this:  can you name something that was fashionable 30 years ago that is still fashionable today?

Looknsee Photography wrote:
>>>  They distract the eye from the pure human form.

DigitalSwede wrote:
I guess it would depend on whos eye you are talking about beacause as Ive seen here and many other places a photographer's eye can make them very unique.

How unique can a photographer's eye be if his photographs feature the work of another (tattoo) artist?  The only "eye" I'm talking about is mine -- I make my photographs for me, and if anyone else enjoys my images, well, that's a bonus.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
>>>  They are often worn by people who can't settle on a hair color.

DigitalSwede wrote:
And?  Im seriously  hoping there was more to this.

They are more permanent than the tastes of the people who get them.

DigitalSwede wrote:
Also, no a photographer doesnt need to be PC... hell Im even up for pushing the envelope when it comes to that subject. But I would seriously like to know your qualifications for being able to  determine the "common" things in tattoos as an artform. Resume please? I am in no way suggesting you have to shoot tattooed models just merely point out how rash your generalizations are.

Again, there is no point to this direction.  Since I haven't made any generalizations, they can't be rash (or valid, for that matter).  When I say that tattoos are ugly, vain, poorly executed, etc. -- those are opinions, not generalizations, and I don't need a resume for that, do I?

BrodieB wrote:
I am just stunned in some peoples belief that their opinion is so freakin important that they belive they have the right to put someone else down while making it.

I snipped most of your post.  It sounds defensive to me.

First, this is a forum.  People (especially the original poster) asked for the opinions of others, and those opinions were provided.  We didn't jump on the soap box & shout our opinions out to the world -- we were invited.

Some opinions differ from others -- just because two people disagree, that doesn't mean that anyone is putting someone else down.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Vain, because they are ornamentation meant to be a statement for people (either everyone or selected individuals) to see.  People who get tattoos seems to feel that the skin stains enhance their status and their "coolness".  Despite claims of substance, tattoos are, by definition, only skin deep.

Melissa Lynnette wrote:
You cannot see my tattoos unless I am naked.  I did not get them for you to see.  I did not get them for anyone to see and think I was "cool".  I can prove that in other ways, and I did for 20 years before I had my first.  "Man" has been permanently marking their skin since they figured out how.  You don't have to like them, or photograph them, but don't be one of those people who is fooled by the obnoxious teeny boppers who get little cliches to fit in.

Perhaps I should clarify.  I primarily make fine art nude photographs.  Thus, tattoos on any visible body parts are of significant interest to me, because most of the time, the models I photograph are uncovered.

While "man" has been marking their skin for a long time, it has only become fashionable here in Western civilizations (like the USA) for the past couple of decades.  Who was getting stained in the 70s or 80s?  Back then, only soldiers & motorcycle enthusiasts were getting tattoos, and certainly very few women were getting them.

You may think that your tattoos are unique & personal; I may think that they are fads & fashionable.  We are drifting from the main point -- having a tattoo will impact a model's appeal, and the model is likely not to hear about jobs that she won't get because of her skin stains.

Madalyn wrote:

...Stacy wrote:
I think it's funny that this thread became about tattoos,  and people opinions, once again.  All because some chickie in a bikini wanted to be on Miami ink with her friends.  You don't have to defend your  tattoos,  and you don't have to defend the reasons you like or dislike them.  You just have to bake me brownies, and mail them to my house in a sealed container, so they don't get stale.  (please put the frosting in a seperate container.)

Well if I was a halfway decent cook I would send you brownies haha

I make great brownies (both the magic kind and the more mundane)...

Glenn Francis wrote:
OK, here it goes on record:

I HATE tatoos - period.  Anybody, anywhere - male or female - especially female.

I specifically hate them on models because I end up spending half my life photoshopping them out.

Same with piercings except ears and belly button.

-Glenn

THANK YOU!!! Atleast some one is BLUNT and just not  bitching for the fact of bitching

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Vain, because they are ornamentation meant to be a statement for people (either everyone or selected individuals) to see.  People who get tattoos seems to feel that the skin stains enhance their status and their "coolness".  Despite claims of substance, tattoos are, by definition, only skin deep.

Perhaps I should clarify.  I primarily make fine art nude photographs.  Thus, tattoos on any visible body parts are of significant interest to me, because most of the time, the models I photograph are uncovered.

While "man" has been marking their skin for a long time, it has only become fashionable here in Western civilizations (like the USA) for the past couple of decades.  Who was getting stained in the 70s or 80s?  Back then, only soldiers & motorcycle enthusiasts were getting tattoos, and certainly very few women were getting them.

You may think that your tattoos are unique & personal; I may think that they are fads & fashionable.  We are drifting from the main point -- having a tattoo will impact a model's appeal, and the model is likely not to hear about jobs that she won't get because of her skin stains.

Well then, since I don't do nudes and am never in Oregon, problem solved.  I'll continue to get work, and so will you. 

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Sorry, I've seen more than my fill of tattoos, and they have several things in common:

This is a GENERALIZATION look up the word....

Looknsee Photography wrote:
>>>  Most are poorly executed.

Also, I think in order for one to make a valid  point on the skill level of tattoos needs to have some knowledge of the craft. I mean on a technical level I dont think you can define the "execution" of a field you know nothing about. Lots of people can say things like " Thats an awesome picture." , but does that mean they know a damn thing about the technical craft? I think everyone here can agree they have seen some very non-technical images that were bad as well as a few that worked. So, once again I think you do not have any valid point in saying they are "commonly poorly executed."

Looknsee Photography wrote:
>>>  They eventually go out of style..

Look up the history of tattooing it spreads many, many, many generations ( hundreds and hundreds of years). Another interesting fact is this... every generation they have become more and more popular as well. This is something that I dont think would go along the terms of a "fad" as those usually have very short life spans and tattoos have been around and growing more popular way too strongly.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
>>>  Again, there is no point to this direction.  Since I haven't made any generalizations, they can't be rash (or valid, for that matter).  When I say that tattoos are ugly, vain, poorly executed, etc. -- those are opinions, not generalizations, and I don't need a resume for that, do I?

Once again when you state that THEY ALL HAVE SOMETHINGS IN COMMON.... ( insert lines of opinion here) that is a generalization. My you are the clever one