I agree with Ray on this matter.
I took some wedding pictures for a good friend of mine, and his wife has tattoos on her back. At first, I thought she was an idiot for wearing a strapless wedding gown that didn't hide the tattoos.
While I was editing the photos, I went ahead and took the tattoos out of one of the images. No small feat considering that the tattoos took up most of her upper back.
I showed the finished picture to my girlfriend who agreed that the picture looked A LOT better without the tattoos, but she also said something else I didn't expect. She told me not to show the bride the edited picture. If she went through the trouble of getting and wearing a wedding gown that would prominently display the tattoos, she's obviously proud of them and will be pissed that I edited the picture.
When I showed my buddy and his wife the final pictures, I didn't show them the edited one. His wife LOVED the one with the tattoos. I never did tell them that I made a copy of the picture with the tattoos removed. Now don't get me wrong, I do like her tattoos (maybe not the size of them on her back, but they do look nice nonetheless). I just don't agree that she was displaying them at her wedding. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Oh well....
To sum it up. If the model's paying you for the shoot, then don't remove the tattoos. She's well aware that the tattoo is there, and if she went through the trouble of displaying it for the photo, most likely she'll be offended if you digitally remove it. If you paid (or if it's a mutual type of shoot), then go with your gut.
I'm with you though, that I think that the final image looks better without it.
By the way, here's a shot of the tattoos in question. The bride was dancing with her father in this shot. Image cropped to protect them from ridicule. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
