|
Forums >
Model Colloquy >
Tattoos/No Tattoos
I prefer models with no tattoos. And I find it rather annoying when a model indicates she has no tattoos, and then shows up for the shoot looking like an art gallery. Sometimes I can see the tattoos on their MM page, but not always. I feel like the model is deceiving me. If you have tattoos, don't indicate on your profile that you don't! I feel that it detracts from what I am trying to draw attention to. Please don't waste my time. Mar 11 20 07:08 pm Link You have been on MM since 2010 I assuming you know how broken the site is ? Glitches mean that a model enters she has tats bio page reads no tats Last week talked to new model who put no nudes on bio but glitch enters yes to nudes(She used a phone to create profile so that may be source of lots of the problems) Mar 11 20 08:36 pm Link Some tattoos I can work with, but most I cannot, so I always ask a prospective model directly about tattoos and other body modifications beforehand, and, if they have tattoos, I ask for photos of them. Mar 13 20 06:50 pm Link If the tattoos are done well, I'm not opposed to them because I'm a hobbyist and they add some variety to my shots. I did have a problem with a model I shot last year who had lots of shoulder tattoos and asked me if they were OK. I said yes but then she showed up to the shoot after she had a couple of laser removal procedures done. The tats were faded enough that I couldn't enhance them in post to make them look good, so I had to take them out altogether and it caused me a lot of extra time editing. I have more of a problem with models not showing up groomed/ready to shoot per our agreements vs. tattoos being a bother. Mar 17 20 04:31 pm Link MFPhoto wrote: How odd that you couldn't discern that the model was a walking art gallery when you looked at her portfolio. Mar 17 20 06:10 pm Link Jen B wrote: I can understand why you might think that because, most of the time, you can see a model's tattoos, but some of the time you cannot. Mar 19 20 06:19 am Link MFPhoto wrote: I agree and there is no end to this topic. Mar 19 20 06:39 am Link Your ad here Mar 19 20 06:39 am Link A couple of the modeling agencies I shoot for stipulate either no tattoos or one that can be removed with the click of a mouse. No matter how pretty the model or good the image, the eyes are drawn to something our brain thinks should not be there. If this is a fashion shoot, you want the viewer's attention on the fashion, not on the tattoos she has on her hands, arms, thighs or wherever. Personally I abhor tattoos on men or women and find them trashy, but when you are in the business of producing images for clients you provide what they want. Jun 20 20 09:13 am Link MFPhoto wrote: The Tats and Piercings listings are totally unreliable. Sometimes MM fills it in even if the model leaves those listings blank. Also the "some" specification is totally open to interpretation. Jun 20 20 01:23 pm Link Ten years ago, MM did not have a category for tattoos. I forget when it was added, but several models probably have never bothered to update their profiles to the tattoo and piercing questions. If "no tattoos" is your thing, ASK. If "some tattoos" is a question to how many or where, ASK. Do your research. Look closely at the model's portfolio, the credited images, IG, FB, Twitter, wherever. If you see tattoos, now you know. However, not seeing any tattoos does not mean the model had not gotten inked last night. ASK. It could also be someone retouching the tats out. ASK. This is really not much different than needing a brunette and discovering the model bleached her hair over the weekend. You have to ASK and make sure they know what is expected. COMMUNICATE your expectations if something is a deal breaker. Do not play the ASS-U-ME game. Jun 24 20 10:33 pm Link While I tend to prefer un-inked, some tats are really interesting and I like most piercings. It's funny, you see a picture of a model sometimes -- maybe from the back or side -- and you say "she looks kind of familiar....," then you see the ink -- "ah yes, it is definitely...." whoever. Aug 02 20 01:44 pm Link MFPhoto wrote: I feel your pain. Aug 02 20 02:56 pm Link MFPhoto wrote: Is it too much to ask? Aug 03 20 05:37 am Link MFPhoto wrote: Me too. When I first started out I would photograph anybody, but with more experience, I have become more discerning. Aug 03 20 08:33 am Link Inked models reply to my casting calls that clearly state no tattoos, informing me that the ink can be "Photoshoped". This puts them at a disadvantage, as it incurres additional expense, and delays. Clients dislike such things as extra time and money. It is after all, my money. When I see inked subjects on the walls of major museums, I'll may reconsider. Aug 06 20 08:14 am Link Jefferson Cole wrote: Don't you love it when people tell you what you can or should do? Aug 06 20 11:33 am Link Mark Salo wrote: One recent respondent said she can hide the tattoo with make up. My Carl Zeiss lenses show the make up on top of the underlying ink, and the ink. Aug 06 20 11:57 am Link MFPhoto wrote: I shot models with all kinds of ink levels. I find I prefer them to either have no ink or are Ink models (walking art gallery). I do shoot them very differently - with an ink model it’s about the ink first. When the model has a little ink I find that it can distract without being enough work with it. That being said - many models have claimed no ink or don’t show it in their portfolio. Then show up with some. That’s unprofessional in my opinion. On the other hand I’ve worked with models that are very professional about their ink and piercings - they gave me an inventory. Aug 29 20 05:52 pm Link MFPhoto wrote: This is definitely something to discuss in the pre shoot conversations. The site defaults to erasing it somehow. I'd ask ahead of time. Especially when it is a factor. Sep 13 20 03:58 pm Link Jefferson Cole wrote: Had I any clue I would start modeling at age 46, I wouldn't have gotten my ink in my 30s as I'm sure it hindered things, however, I was living my life and I do not regret the ink. Will I be in anything professional? Not likely with the ink. Sep 13 20 04:00 pm Link Jen B wrote: I like your tattoo because it is unique. Sep 13 20 07:14 pm Link tattoos would never stop me from shooting with a subject I was interested in shooting with. Sep 17 20 05:32 am Link I shot a model with a face tattoo the other day. My new interest is models with epidermal implants but that is rare to find them. Sep 17 20 06:37 pm Link I've had a local model email many times so today I said 'no ink, I'm old and back then woman did have have any'. So she goes off so bad that I report her emails to mods. I would never put a sticker on a nice car. Sep 18 20 01:29 pm Link Tattoos and implants are the reason I gave up shooting. I shoot erotic work and it's sad that I'd now rather see a woman with her clothes on than see vanity-induced self mutilation (which is what it is.) People say that's harsh, but most of the models I've talked to regarding erotic work seem to think that their tattoo is a unique thing - and it's not. It's like a Harley, if you really want a unique Harley, leave it bone stock as everyone thinks that you can't own a bike like that without adding a lot to it. It's like putting a Walmart bumper sticker on a beautiful Ferrari, it cannot possibly make what was made perfect any better. I adore the female form in most every shape and size, but I find the practice abhorrent. If it were something truly unique, like the one or two women in any city back in the 50's that had ink at that time that would be one thing, but it's hard to show your individuality by being like everyone else now. There's just so much of it. There is no way to elevate beauty by turning into a human doodlepad. Sadly most of the women who are more expressive in that they like to shoot nude or erotic work seem to think it's the way to be. When I see photographer's profiles like Holly Randall's (IMHO one of the best shooters) who say "At the moment I am looking more for natural beauties with little or no tattoos. I have nothing against tattooed models, in fact some of my favorite models are tattooed, but at the moment **my client base is looking for girls without a lot of ink.**" that says it all. Sites like Kindgirls that show many East European models almost none have ink, piercings or implants. A few do and most photographers edit it out. The market doesn't want it yet you can't convince local models that it's a bad idea. I won't take the time or cost to do that much editing. I give up. Let the negative comments flow.... Oct 02 20 05:59 pm Link 
Model Posts: 6640 MacMurdo - permanent station of the US, Sector claimed by New Zealand, Antarctica david durkee wrote: Really? Because your profile says that you were out of work so long you had to sell your photo equipment. Oct 02 20 07:04 pm Link MoRina wrote: Yep I did. Back at work and have all new gear, and I shoot different projects now - pets, live music (well after Covid I will again), portraiture, etc. But anyway... here's a quick newsflash for you... you are in charge of your body only, and not the bodies of all women. Women do not exist solely to please you and your personal taste. We make choices based on what we want, not what some random photographer decides is right for us. You are entitled to have preferences, but you aren't entitled to bash women for not conforming to your personal standards. I'm not telling women they shouldn't get tattoos or implants, even though I hate them. Women are responding to social pressure to do these things and you don't seem concerned with that. They can do whatever they want. Seriously. I hear you saying that I'm trying to tell women what they can and can't do. I'm not. But when your body is how you make a living (if you are a model) and you are greatly limiting the work you can get simply to respond to social pressure or a cave in to a low self image, it's just plain stupid. Oct 02 20 08:04 pm Link If normal forum practice applies, the OP determines the theme of the thread. This thread, then, is not about whether models should ink themselves. It is about whether inked models should hide the fact. Models should do whatever they want with their bodies without criticism from the sidelines. They can ink themselves from head to foot if that is what they want to do. Some photographers may also prefer not to shoot tattooed models, and that is THEIR right. Models HIDING tattoos and failure to disclose a significant physical attribute is just dishonest. As dishonest as a photographer's portfolio full of demure, implied nudity and fashion, and on the day demanding open leg, bondage and dildo play. Oct 02 20 08:26 pm Link Focuspuller, you are right. I should not have drifted from the OP's topic. I find the model profiles so unreliable on what they put in there to be largely irrelevant - I look a the portfolio to see what is the truth. Many models write No when they do have ink or n/a. To me it's like age of 115 when they are 25, or no measurements. Still keeps them from getting work. The ones that are serious put accurate info in those fields or they get missed in a search. Beautiful work on your port, BTW. Oct 02 20 10:05 pm Link david durkee wrote: The issue is a little check box on a Models portfolio page which indicates Tattoos or No Tattoos. Oct 03 20 07:02 am Link FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote: What amuses me are the models with waists larger than their hips. Oct 03 20 08:52 am Link Mark Salo wrote: another system issue that reverses the waist and hip measurements. Oct 03 20 08:56 am Link Mark Salo wrote: FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote: My understanding is that the input fields are correctly labeled, just displayed out of order. Oct 03 20 09:31 am Link |
