Brings up a good question ..

http://sports.yahoo.com/nascar/blog/...=nascar,142135

Miss Danica Patrick recently posed for Swim Suit Illustrated and allowed the photo editors brush out her tattoo. Now I'm sure it was an honor for her to be in this and that's why she consented to it.

But my question to my fellow models on here is: Is there any publication that you are willing to photo shop out your body modifications for? What about for a movie?


Personally... I'm kinda a package deal with my photos.If a piece is being ran about me or I'm posing for clothing/nudity/whatever I like to show my modifications. It's part of me and has meaning. Zits don't have much meaning so those can be airbrushed :1orglaugh

However if an acting role came up and I felt the tattoos didn't enhance the story, I would have them covered. That being said, I'm attracted to roles that generally call for body modifications


Your thoughts .....

Personally I'd never photoshop anything out unless it's a zit, mole, other skin blemish, or pothole scar.

I'd photoshop tattoo out if only part of it show. But if it is full or mostly open in view then I leave it lone.

As for piercing, if it doesnt show well in picture, I photoshop it out. I try to get it show in pic every time but if it look weird then it is out.

I totally digs scar, piercing, and tattoos (as long as it is in good taste, not some trashy faded ink of some stupid stuff that you get in prison or from random 13 years old with dirty needle and ink made out of piss and ashes mixed) So I always try to get them show in every pics.

For the girl in that magazine... If she got paid then... I guess she doesnt have much saying. If tattoos mean so much to her, she'd remember to ask them about it and hammer out something with them. Since she probably will have other chances to do such big shooting, she can learn from this mistake. Business is all about learning from your mistake and not repeat it next time.

She had plenty of say in it,
She was the first female driver in the pro Indy circuit. She isn't new to the sport scene by any means.

I don't have many tattoos, just the one atm, but I have enough trouble getting work with augmented breasts. I was shot down for FIVE shoots this week because my tits didn't come with the body. it's not like I was looking to be shot for Itty bitty titty committie stuff either, they were looking for hourglass figures. it frustrates the hell out of me to be treated like a leper because of my otherwise innocuous "body mods". For some reason they would have shot me if I had more tattoos than the loverly Miss Voltaire Blue, but my tits are "fake" (I don't put them on the night stand while i'm sleeping) so they shot me down and weren't even nice about it.
/Rant

I've covered up my tattoo for "Normal" jobs, and if necessary I could cover it up, and in the future, them, for a shoot, as long as the director is nice about it. esp as i've seen other directors get frustrated trying to shoot around things like bruises, piercings and tattoos. In the pron biz, I've seen directors get sued by companies like LayBoy, because a model had the bunnie tattoo and it's a trade mark of theirs that appeared in a photo that wasn't. Same reason you can't wear Logos in films without royalties/compensation to the owner of the logo.

... and somewhere along the line I got way off topic.

~K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keiko

... and somewhere along the line I got way off topic.

---

no no that was all on topic. Their loss by the way... :thumb:

As for dani P...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mainline_Iodine

She had plenty of say in it,
She was the first female driver in the pro Indy circuit. She isn't new to the sport scene by any means.

---

yes yes I was going to say something like that. She is not a unknown model for a photo-shoot... she is a sporting celebrity. It's hard to fathom exactly what that airbrushing means is it SSI policy due to the tastes and/or marketing strategies of their advertisers?

The little I know about Dani P I like so I can't imagine that it was her ultimate decision to brush or not. (Actually I know nothing about her apart from racing except she looks pretty good and speaks nicely). Her celeb status means that to agree to that brushing would be a bit insulting I would think. I just don't understand. Sure I understand that if you are doing modelling work for a product that doesn't want association with body mods then they have the right to pick whoever they want and if you want the work then you probably should consent to the airbrushing... if you even get asked... do you?

But anyway refusing to shoot someone (eg. keiko) because their boobs are too big or augmented is ridiculous except in very specific narrow circumstances that I can't even think of and don't really at all care to :D

well it aint exactly blue blood magazine, you dig?

if any people that get paid to sit around and have their pictures taken don't like the way that they are being represented, then I will glady switch them places and they can work at my day job. but that doesn't allow tattoos to be shown either and you actually have to do real work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

well it aint exactly blue blood magazine, you dig?

if any people that get paid to sit around and have their pictures taken don't like the way that they are being represented, then I will glady switch them places and they can work at my day job. but that doesn't allow tattoos to be shown either and you actually have to do real work.

---

There is work to modelling. from cold calling to reams of paperwork, as well as strenuous physical activity. It takes a lot of muscle control to hold poses that look sexy and effortless while the photographer takes his sweet time getting the shot. Modelling is a job you don't go home from at five pm. Every day involves diet, exercise, and a rigorous beauty routine to make us look "hawt" simply for your viewing pleasure.

Next time you think Modelling is easy, I want you to get up at 8 am, shower, shave everything from the eyebrows down, put on full make up, 4 inch stilettos, suck in your stomach, arch your back, hold your breath and smile for the next three hours. Remember, you have to look sexy the WHOLE TIME, and make it look easy. If it wasn't work, we wouldn't be paid as well as we are.

~K

*glares at her connection* I hate it when the wireless gives out while i'm trying ot edit my posts.

Addendum: I am not belittling whatever it is you personally do for a living, Morning Glory.

RE: first rant-- Let's say that whatever it is you do, you're good at it. There's a job posting looking for someone who can do this thing well. You respond to this ad. The response says "well yeah you can do this, and do it well, but I don't like the way you do it, so go away." How would you feel about that kind of blow off? does that sound professional, or even polite? No. And that's what I was ranting against.

~K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keiko

Let's say that whatever it is you do, you're good at it. There's a job posting looking for someone who can do this thing well. You respond to this ad. The response says "well yeah you can do this, and do it well, but I don't like the way you do it, so go away." How would you feel about that kind of blow off? does that sound professional, or even polite? No. And that's what I was ranting against.

---

What a coincidence: I just had this issue with that douchebag who led me along for twelve e-mails thinking he wanted me as his Industrial project's new vocalist, and then decides my voice isn't what he's looking for after hearing ONE recording. His loss though.

Ok, i see your point Keiko. I wasn't really trying to say that modeling is no work or so easy, it's just that people seem to have this impression where it's like, "I want people to take me as I am, and they can fuck off if they feel anyways different about that." but as in most jobs, including modeling, most of them you are just there to sell a product and make someone money, and they don't give a shit what you think or what it is that you like. which sucks, but that's how it is.

I'm thinking that modeling is the kinda thing that people say, "that's what I want to do!". So I mean, if you are doing what you want to do, then you are one step above most people, especially me.

PS. Oh yeah and we are talking about professional modeling here. I think that's a whole different animal than what we are dealing with in this topic. I think that a SI shoot is probably not a major hassle, and I mean if people are coming up to you and offering you those things (especially if that isn't your line of work), then my feeling is that you don't have much place to bitch about it. That's what I meant when I said, you can trade it for what I do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

well it aint exactly blue blood magazine, you dig?

if any people that get paid to sit around and have their pictures taken don't like the way that they are being represented, then I will glady switch them places and they can work at my day job. but that doesn't allow tattoos to be shown either and you actually have to do real work.

---

Classic 'I made my life worse than you made yours so you don't get to complain about anything'? Did you let Bikerpunk on your account or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

Ok, i see your point Keiko. I wasn't really trying to say that modeling is no work or so easy, it's just that people seem to have this impression where it's like, "I want people to take me as I am, and they can fuck off if they feel anyways different about that." but as in most jobs, including modeling, most of them you are just there to sell a product and make someone money, and they don't give a shit what you think or what it is that you like. which sucks, but that's how it is.

---

That's 'how it is' because people take it for granted, too desperate with the state of the world to dare do anything but contribute to it. It's not that it cannot be changed, it's just that for everyone with the momentary courage to look for it gets shouted down by three indignant cynics feeling insulted by someone asking to have it better than they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raza

It's not that it cannot be changed, it's just that for everyone with the momentary courage to look for it gets shouted down by three indignant cynics feeling insulted by someone asking to have it better than they do.

---

I believe that is called the messiah syndrome. remember what happened to Christ?

Sure It can be changed if the whole human race got together and held hands and sang Kumbaya. But it aint gonna happen, because everyone who says that seems to forget the difference between complaining about things that they have no control over, and asserting their position through effective effort. The people that do get what they want may utilize rhetoric, but they have some sort of leverage to back it up beyond that.

karl marx hated capitalism and all the ways that it stifled the individual, what did he do about it? Jack shit. Lenin, on the other hand, killed a whole bunch of people and forced everyone else to accept his views, which was more or less not really effective in the long term either.

the belief in the perfect world only works when everyone else believes in it, it doesn't work so well when you have people that don't give a shit about crushing anything in their way. Call me a cynic, but there really is no difference between the way that me and these armchair revolutionaries live, except that I am content with my life while they will never be happy looking for something that doesn't exist, so who is the real pessimist there?

speaking of which,right now there are people that are fighting and dying for the freedom to speak their minds, to worship as they see fit, to not be forced out of their houses and to have the fruits of their labor taken away, and especially just to not have their children shot dead in the street... and I'm going to fucking complain that my boss doesn't like my tattoos and blog about changing the world? ha! gimme a break.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

Sure It can be changed if the whole human race got together and held hands and sang Kumbaya. But it aint gonna happen, because everyone who says that seems to forget the difference between complaining about things that they have no control over, and asserting their position through effective effort. The people that do get what they want may utilize rhetoric, but they have some sort of leverage to back it up beyond that.

---

You're an individual, in control of your own life; there's leverage all around. Denying labour to potential employers that don't live up to your ideals is leverage. Rhetoric itself is leverage, as humans are reliably subject to social pressure. Very few people in our society have reached a point where their actual power has hit a limiting factor other than their will to use it; it's only the illusion of roles and rules that divides us into followers (normal people; you) and leaders (other people, you see them on the news sometimes).

People with the courage to say they want more than the crappy deal normal life offers them are actually plentiful; but whenever one is successful, instead of saying "Hey, it is possible!", people think "Well, there goes one opportunity, one open position for a living dream. Now there definitely won't be any left for me."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

karl marx hated capitalism and all the ways that it stifled the individual, what did he do about it? Jack shit. Lenin, on the other hand, killed a whole bunch of people and forced everyone else to accept his views, which was more or less not really effective in the long term either.

---

Marx wrote a bunch of stuff that got a whole lot of people acting on it. Anyway, you can't point at two people and say that because they didn't conquer the world, it is pointless to stand for your ideals. They tried and made a fairly noticeable impact, but eventually got mostly drowned out again - not because they didn't do anything, but because there where other people, also standing for their ideals, doing things against them. Every war is won by individuals and lost by individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

the belief in the perfect world only works when everyone else believes in it, it doesn't work so well when you have people that don't give a shit about crushing anything in their way.

---

A perfect world doesn't currently exist, and no one that I know believes in it. What I believe in is the possibility of improvement, and the value of it when it occurs on any scale. It's all those little bits that made the changes we've seen in the world so far.

Succeeding in changing your own life is far easier than changing the whole world, and that's all you really need to do. In fact, it's probably the only thing worth doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

Call me a cynic, but there really is no difference between the way that me and these armchair revolutionaries live, except that I am content with my life while they will never be happy looking for something that doesn't exist, so who is the real pessimist there?

---

Oh, stop it; three posts ago you were complaining about your 'day job' and how you'd cheerfully trade with anyone in some other profession you had an unrealistically rosy impression of. A state of content achieved by a defensive disbelief that anything better is possible is a very shallow kind of satisfaction, barely worth the term, and you were showing it right up until just now.

Besides, the idea that people that look for more won't be happy until they achieve the very pinnacle of their ideals is as ludicrous as it would be convenient; the beautiful thing about pursuing your dreams is that every step forward along the way is a delightful experience. Optimism about the future doesn't require condemnation of the present, and even intellectual condemnation of the present doesn't require that you wallow in it and be unhappy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

speaking of which,right now there are people that are fighting and dying for the freedom to speak their minds, to worship as they see fit, to not be forced out of their houses and to have the fruits of their labor taken away, and especially just to not have their children shot dead in the street... and I'm going to fucking complain that my boss doesn't like my tattoos and blog about changing the world? ha! gimme a break.

---

So you're taking a No Child Left Behind approach to life improvement? You're gonna sit and accept all the shit that gets dumped on you until everyone that has more of it has dug themselves up to your level - not to help those others up, but because so long as they're below you they provide you with a means to feel better about yourself by comparison?

there's a difference between fighting for things that are worth fighting for and being a whiny bitch that is crying because everything doesn't go their way.

I'm all for personal improvement, but I see it as a totally hypocritical standard where people feel it is an injustice if they don't get what they want, but they are happy to get what they want by depriving others of doing the same. never compromising and only insisting on having it your way, is not what I would call fair or just.

simply demonstrated in this example: let's assume just for the sake of argument that the larger consensus of the viewers of sport's illustrated swimsuit edition want to see people sans tattooed. The "right" for the tattooed person to show their art conflicts with the "rights" of people to see (or rather to not see) it. The obvious choice is that if you don't want to see it then, don't look at it. But the counter argument would be if you want to have tattoos, then don't model for an audience that doesn't want to see them. Under personal circumstances of liberty, this is a perfectly fine scenario known as live and let live, where both parties can come to an agreement to get what they want.

The problem is that the publishers also want to make money and they are investing their own money and energy into the creation of the magazine so they have a position that can't be harmonized between the two other opposing views. Their solution is to not show tattoos, because it enforces their goals better than the alternative of showing the audience what they don't want to see.

Your attitude of dismissing anyone else's goals that are not in sync with yours is not a way to attain them if they require cooperation with other people, because everything in the world is about conflicting ideas because all people are unique individuals with different perspectives. that's the reality I am speaking of, not the need to endure suffering without protest.

If i don't like my job because it doesn't conform to my personal standards, I can leave, true. But my boss can also hire someone else that fits his standards, and then I'm out on my ass, and where will I be?

If there is a group that is just dying to get their hands on tatooed weird looking people that don't want to take orders and do whatever they want to, I'd love to hear about it, because I have not seem them yet.

I've always said people are more than welcome to retouch my scars out of any image they paid me for. I won't use images like that for my own portfolio, although I might one day add an image that shows my ability to cover them up with makeup since that sells another of my skills.

I want to be in a lot of publications; some my scars are appropriate for, and some they are not. (They're a bonus for Marquis and Gothic Beauty, decided negative for Taboo, for example.) I think that it's my job as a model to sell product, not to necessarily conform to my own standards of beauty at all times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

there's a difference between fighting for things that are worth fighting for and being a whiny bitch that is crying because everything doesn't go their way.

---

And I'd say that declining to model for people that would want part of your image censored is far more of the first than of the latter. No one is talking about crying and doing nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

I'm all for personal improvement, but I see it as a totally hypocritical standard where people feel it is an injustice if they don't get what they want, but they are happy to get what they want by depriving others of doing the same. never compromising and only insisting on having it your way, is not what I would call fair or just.

---

You don't the fulfillment of ideals to others, only to yourself. If you and someone else don't want the same thing, don't work with them. 'Depriving' someone of your cooperation when they're not offering conditions that make you want to give it isn't injustice, it's independence. They can work with someone that better matches their wants, as can you if you need to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

simply demonstrated in this example: let's assume just for the sake of argument that the larger consensus of the viewers of sport's illustrated swimsuit edition want to see people sans tattooed. The "right" for the tattooed person to show their art conflicts with the "rights" of people to see (or rather to not see) it. The obvious choice is that if you don't want to see it then, don't look at it. But the counter argument would be if you want to have tattoos, then don't model for an audience that doesn't want to see them. Under personal circumstances of liberty, this is a perfectly fine scenario known as live and let live, where both parties can come to an agreement to get what they want.

---

And that would be how I'd assert myself, yes. If going with the deal when the conditions are made clear in advance and then crying about how it wasn't what they wanted was an option that anyone here suggested, I missed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

Your attitude of dismissing anyone else's goals that are not in sync with yours is not a way to attain them if they require cooperation with other people, because everything in the world is about conflicting ideas because all people are unique individuals with different perspectives. that's the reality I am speaking of, not the need to endure suffering without protest.

---

What use is the cooperation of people whose goals aren't in sync with mine to me? I could help them attain their goals, but that won't get me any closer to mine. That's the deal you get in your common day job; live for someone else's goals so you can survive to do it again tomorrow.

I'm quite in agreement that the world is full of different people wanting different things, and that is exactly why it is both functional and essential to ignore those who don't approximate your own. If you can't get where you want to be alone, find those rare few that are looking to head out for the same destination; but don't lower expectations down just so you'll have someone to tag along with. I'd rather be on my own and aiming for my personal aspirations than on a professionally guided tour to nowhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

If i don't like my job because it doesn't conform to my personal standards, I can leave, true. But my boss can also hire someone else that fits his standards, and then I'm out on my ass, and where will I be?

---

Out on your ass. Then you'll remember how to stand, and be out on your feet. Then you'll think of somewhere you want to go, and be out on your way. Yay for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

If there is a group that is just dying to get their hands on tatooed weird looking people that don't want to take orders and do whatever they want to, I'd love to hear about it, because I have not seem them yet.

---

Why on earth would I want anyone to 'get their hands on me'?

I can do stuff without someone from the outside coming to 'get me' for it.

Raza my friend, I think we are on two totally different wavelengths here. But from what I can tell of what you are getting at, I'm not trying to disparage people from putting forth that kind of deterministic assertion, just saying that they may be let down if they try it and that they shouldn't be surprised. What it boils down to, for me, is that going your own way or "depriving someone of your cooperation" as you say, in the job market, just does not seem like a formula for success, at least in my experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raza

Out on your ass. Then you'll remember how to stand, and be out on your feet. Then you'll think of somewhere you want to go, and be out on your way. Yay for you.

---

well then it's a great time for a lot of Americans these days.

Quote:

---

I can do stuff without someone from the outside coming to 'get me' for it.

---

So can I, but that usually ends up in a "negative cash flow" situation, and that is often the difference between a hobby and a jobie.

It would be nice to live on an anarchist commune, but right now I am tied to financial responsibilities to provide me with a means of living, and no one seems to want to pay me simply for being my fabulous self.

Well, for me... if I'm getting paid, Photoshop whatever the hell you want out. Get rid of my nose, if you want!

Even if it's a trade shoot, though, I don't get offended if my body mods, freckles, etc. are removed. Sometimes they fit in with the shoot and sometimes they don't.

*nods* Then please allow me to extend my apologies for snapping so sharply at you, Morning Glory. I could excuse it with the "I'm under a lot of stress/you weren't the first person to get under my skin that day/I haven't had a cigarette in more than a week" but I would rather be honest and just say that I'm a hair trigger bitch who felt it necessary to be defensive of criticism both of my body and my chosen career, and I didn't need to react the way I did. I'm too used having to defend my choice in lifestyle/career, and there is a slim possibility that I felt the need to vent my defence of said life at someone and you got caught in the cross fire. Please know that my comments were in no way a personal attack against you.

If someone had taken a random picture of me, whether the picture was taken with consent or not, and photo shopped it or otherwise used it in way that I didn't give them permission to use my visage for, I would be pissed the fuck off. Which is why I don't consent to shoots where I feel that my image would be used to misrepresent who I am and what I believe in. Unfortunately there's a statute of limitations on Model Releases. *shrugs* But that's the risk you have to deal with when you sign your likeness over to someone else.

~K

dude, I don't recall ever hearing you say anything bad to anyone on here Keiko, if you want to chew me out, then I'd say you have every right to it. I know that pretty much most of the time I come off as a total dick, even though that is rarely my intention.

just out of curiosity, how much do models make? like a hundred bucks.........a thousand bucks................tenthousand?

if they tell you they're going to airbrush out stuff can you ask for more?

I've heard of a lot of magazines that do this because its easier to market a clean slate i.e. normal colour of hair, no tattoos etc, just because its easier to sell something that can appeal to everyone.

Omg. I would SO pay to see an epic post-off between MG and Raza. That was almost amazing.

Daring to go waaaaaay back to the original post, SI does a heap of retouching on the swimsuit issue, but in general has nothing against tattoos (hers has been shown in a previous issue). They daren't comment on the decision in this case because her tat shows an American flag, and so there's a whole heap of trouble if anyone suggests it went for a particular reason.

In general, I don't see a problem retouching provided there's consent (as there was here). There are many reasons to shoot someone, and often it's not about depicting the "entire" person, but just an aspect of them. As ~K says there's also an issue of markets (it's common to mask tats off stuff like music videos when they're plain R-rated, or nobody will run them) and trademark infringement from the idiots who get a corporate logo on their ass. It's rarely about making the person "look nicer", it's about making them legal and within the remit of the piece. I've probably added as many tattoos as I've removed.

Well,......
...I Have No Tattoos,...No Peircings,....

a LOT a' SCARs though,..
~ Some I Wish I Could Make disappear in General,...
(*There NOT by Prefered Choice to Have On me),...

sOooooOooooo,....HUmmmm????.....

CAN I "PHOTOSHOP out My FACE? (I'm so UgLy anyway),....
and my "SCAR" along the lower LEFT arm,...
....uhhhmmmmm,...hUmmm,..what else....?........

'uHHhhhuuuuuuuuu,,..

well,..Ok...
I'll get back With you guys when I can Jot down a List
of Noteable things to PhOt0 OUT of Me,...
(which is most a' Me ~ genErAlY,..]

LOLOLOLOLOL,,,,
':-]