Originally Posted by TheGoldy
My main point was, if you as the photographer knew going in that she has tattoos and that you didn't want them in your shots, you should tell her BEFORE you agree to snap even one picture that your intention is to remove them or whatever it is you intend to do. If, after both of you know what's up, she agrees, then she has no right to be offended when you do it. It's when you do the cover-up or whatever AFTER you've had your session with her that it's a problem, IMHO. The photographer isn't the only one with expectations about the final product, or am I totally off-base here?
This all depends on the final product. A for instance; if the final product is more towards the "rough and tumble-rock n' roll" end of the spectrum, I am going to want the model with a lot of ink and maybe interesting piercings. If I am going towards a more classic glamour look, then I don't want to see the ink. And sometomes, a model you have worked with before will get a tattoo and not tell you, or is new to working with you and not mention she is inked.
That changes the equation.
Sometimes, the ink adds something, but I find that kind of rarely. For me, and again, just my opinion, I get distracted by a models tattoo. There are a number of otherwise incredible images on G1 and other sites, where the model has a tattoo and my eyes go right there, distracting from the overall aesthetic. In others you just see part of a tattoo and left asking yourself "What is wrong with this picture?"
As for the models say in the final outcome, it depends, as in all things; on context. If the model is being hired as part of clients project, then no, if it is a collaboration or part of TFP/CD then yeah.
Again, I think it depends on context, but when you see ink when you are not expecting it, how do you handle it?