Tattoos

[girlfair]

Yes, that was the biggest part of it. Mind you, I'm not OFFENDED OR GROSSED OUT by Tattoos, they are not my cup of tea, personally, but I've shot some beautiful women who had very well done and artistic body drawings that were very pleasant to work with, but this was just a big, clunky, blotchy tattoo. It was not attractive or flattering in any way to the model. As her photographer for the moment, I thought (at the time) it was, sort of, my "job" to notice and point that stuff out. Now of course, I understand the consequences of "going there" and am guarded with the subject. As you've read, the other posts mirror that position. I've got to agree with the other post, though, about 20 years from now there'll be a slew of attractive middle aged women wishing they'd never done it. Heck I've got a lot a male friends, some older than me who wish they'd never gotten them.

Here's Krystal. You wanna talk tattooooooos! And more body armor than a storm trooper! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[JonScott]

As others have said, that particular ink isn't particularly lovely or attractive. Removing it is an improvement.

And as other others have said, the catch phrase "is it for show, or is it for dough?" comes to mind.

Here's my two cents worth:

I do my best to present the model honestly and accurately; so maybe glam in its purest form isn't for me - whatever. I figure that if a model, for some reason, shows one of my images to someone, and they get hired based in part on that image, and then they show up and they have ink that doesn't appear in that image, they might lose that job.

Other times, I'll leave it simply because I know that the ink has a significant meaning to the model (case in point, Tasha Moth [yes that's her real name] below).

i wouldve talked to her about the tattoo and its probable removal before the shoot. i would have given HER copies with the tattoo, and removing it for my use & display.

nice gurl!!!