Did you ask Tattooer 2 what she means by "flattering?"
"Unflattering the way a horizontal stripe is unflattering" which I assume means she is worried I'll look fat because of the tattoo, and not because I have fat.
That is a really weird and fascinating complaint! Do you expect the tattoos to get a lot of airtime, so to speak?
And she hasn't met me in person, so she has no idea how I'll look. I sent her these photos of a beautiful person who skipped reconstruction, so she could get a sense of what the scars would be like.
Do you expect the tattoos to get a lot of airtime, so to speak?
Not really! I mean, around the house, and at the river or pool maybe. But mostly I assume I'd be wearing a rashguard shirt outside anyway, like I normally do in the water.
I wouldn't necessarily read 'unflattering' as being fat-related. I'm not a terribly visual person, but on large-scale tattoos, I notice a big difference between ones that seem to me to be sensitively laid out on the three-dimensional surface of a body, which look great, and ones that sort of treat it as if it were basically flat, which can look kind of terrible.
So, not exactly that the tattoo wouldn't be flattering to your body, but that the proposed layout wouldn't set off the tattoo for the best esthetic result.
These days, now that it is warm, I see women with tattoos that look like garters. I wonder if that's cost effective, but I don't know the price of garters or tattoos.
Come to think, on the 'horizontal stripes are unflattering' point specifically: I've been biking, which means biking past a lot of attractively muscular shirtless young men jogging, and I've thought exactly that about heart-rate monitors. Something about a black stripe around a guy's torso at mid-chest really doesn't work esthetically for me -- it breaks up the lines of the body in an unappealing way.
You're not getting a stripe, of course, you're getting a band of kittens with space between them and so on, but I wouldn't discount her concerns about the look.
I mean, sort of. Like, there'd be a big difference, looks-wise, depending on the scale and spacing and orientation of each kitten.
Really, I'd go with the pain-in-the-ass second artist. She sounds like the one who's really engaging with it as an esthetic problem.
I'm personally not big on needles or cats, so I'm having trouble relating.
I am wearing a horizontally stripped shirt. I could ask somebody if it is flattering.
I really don't think she is. She's seen two of the kittens, and doesn't have any sense of the scale. She hasn't asked to see the cats. She's not thinking properly about the size of a 6"x6" cat, and then a horizontal squirming kitten, and so on. A band of cats makes it sound like a bandeau top, which is probably what she's picturing, and my mental visual has quite a bit more negative space and vertical disruption than that. Adding flowers?! I honestly think she is concerned that it won't look like a classic tattoo, which fine, that's not what I have in mind.
If she wants to add an anchor, a mermaid, and "Mom", you should look elsewhere.
Also, they print out the tattoos onto cellophane paper and lay them out on your body (apparently, maybe this is common knowledge but I didn't realize it), so I can see exactly what it will look like before committing. Like the third woman said, let's not pre-emptively assume it will look terrible - you can add stuff later but you can't subtract.
Is she ignoring information you've given her, which means she's useless and you should go with the third artist? Or is she expressing concerns in the absence of full information? I mean, if she's warning you against a bandeau top, and that's not what you wanted anyway, it sounds as if you're on the same page.
(And it also sounds as if you've thought about the layout issues yourself, of course. I know I'm bad at that kind of thing -- I can recognize when something's turned out badly, but I'm not good at getting to a good visual myself -- so I'm jumpy about finding thoughtful people to rely on for anything visual.)
16 makes me think #3 is the way to go. Especially since, if they're not getting a ton of airtime, technical proficiency shouldn't be the highest value.
OTOH, it is permanent, hate to skimp on craftsmanship.
She doesn't have full information, and I'm being slightly petty about providing them, and annoyed that she's not asking for details and engaging in a two-way conversation.
But I think the rapport part is really important, and I've been annoyed at lots of details of the conversation. (It started it off on a bad foot that she didn't want to meet face-to-face, which I assume is because of the recent baby, but she is back in the studio sometimes, clearly.)
OTOH, it is permanent, hate to skimp on craftsmanship.
This is really hard to judge. They all have online portfolios, none of them have done something quite like this, but all have beautiful work, to my untrained eye. The first guy has won lots of awards for grayscale portraits.
You didn't mention that before. Go with the invisible tattoo artist just for the experience.
And on my initial reaction, I missed that she was pushing you to include elements you don't want. With that, which seems like a big negative, and if you're really happy with the other pictures you've seen of the third artist's work, I think you'd be right to go with the best rapport.
I bet I could learn how to do tattoos in 9 months. Problem solved!
You can make your own tattoo gun with a needle, the ink tube of a disposable pen, and the motor from a tape recorder. I know a guy who got his tattoos that way even though he wasn't in prison.
Oh, for a whole bunch of reasons I think you should just make this decision slightly easier on yourself and nix #2. Then if you think there is something to her reservations bring them up with #3 but don't waste another minute even considering #2. My 2ยข.
Now, the choice is down to #3 or E. Messily.
How long does a tattoo take? I'm having trouble understanding how they stay in business given the number of them around here and the price of rent. I have similar questions about cell phone stores. I used to wonder about restaurants where I never see anybody eating, but several of them closed.
I think this one will take ~3 sessions, maybe 2 hours each.
That's less than I was thinking but still sounds like a long time to be repeatedly poked.
All these people fretting about horizontal stripes - Breton stripes are pretty much universally flattering!
I also wonder about the economics of tattoo parlors and storefront psychics, too.
We don't have many storefront psychics around here. There is a witchcraft store near campus that, now that I think about it, probably has a psychic around.
Also boatnecks, very flattering on most people.
To be serious about this for once, my belief is that if you insist on getting a tattoo, the proper way is to get seriously drunk and then let nature take its course.
36: But heebie's taken care of that possibility already. So, that means tattoo.
28. coloring takes a long time. Single-color about the size of a drink coaster about an hour, multicolor same size-- longer, actually hard to tell, because filling in color hurts a lot, distorts the sense of time.
Unfogged tattoo poll
20: My sense is that greyscale ages poorly, but that's an opinion about as uninformed as any you'll find around here. You might ask, though.
grayscale portraits
I would love to see these become popular with guys who wear flannel, have full beards, drink PBR. You know they're not going get an awkward portrait of their two year old or a vicious grandmother.
The third woman said that grayscale ages better than color, and that these would age well. But I had a similar impression to you. The first guy, when I asked, showed me his own tattoos and gave me a nonspecific answer about how things bleed generally over time, which was not at all helpful.
I tried all three of those things but none of them worked. Flannel doesn't look right now that it isn't 1994, my beard never really got more than a couple of inches long, and PBR actually tastes pretty awful. Like, noticeably bad even to somebody who drinks a great deal of cheap beer.
Both of mine about 30 years old. Shading holds up, but fine lines spread.
I would argue strongly for a design that would look good as a stencil spraypainted on a wall.
I'd be giving artist #1 serious consideration, but I'm probably putting extra weight on his ability to make perfect copies, if only my brother has a tattoo of a band's logo, and it's slightly misaligned, which is VERY DISTRACTING.
Um, to me, anyway.
I have finally accepted that I am never getting a tattoo.
I've always been skeptical of tattoos generally but the thing that sealed it for me was a close friend who got a very nice and tasteful tattoo on her lower back about two years before everybody and their cat was suddenly getting ass-antlers. OTOH a friend of mine has a nice tattoo of Max from Where The Wild Things Are on her calf, which I'm slightly envious of.
Does anyone have an eye for these things? I would send you links for the three portfolios.
Has anyone mentioned how great the post title is? Because it is.
If you're interested, I can post a torso photo so you can extrapolate what time will do to the ink. If you think a middle-aged tattooed dude's input will be useful, I can look at the portfolios.
Basically though, I think 43.2 for this medium, which is kind of contrary to you starting material. Any artists that do woodcuts or bolder prints that you like?
50: It is indeed. Itty bitty titty kitties!
Also it seems like it could be the beginning of one of those rhymes for jump rope.
Kitty Cat
Titty tat
Silly hat
big wombat
fall down splat
Don't you think the sort of smudgy/blurry nature of the originals will hold up well under a little further smudging?
50 You're so right. It really is.
Maybe I spoke too soon-- this line density would work probably:
http://www.frogtownbooks.com/pictures/4_3.jpg
I would be leery of images with shading like this though:
http://www.cathappy.net/images/newberryphotos/Playful%20Kitten.jpg
51 If you do post it in the flickr pool make sure you include a nipple. We've got to balance things out a bit.
55: The first link. In fact, the illustration on the right of the two kittens fighting is a strong contender, because it seems to capture my own kids so accurately.
I'll post a photo of mine so heebs can think, I guess anyone else sufficiently intersted. I think basically the total quantity of ink determines eventual spread. A line which is initially dark and fine will stay dark but not fine, which changes images composed of lines of differing density. Uniform line drawing, OK. Lots of shadows with a border and some uniform color, fine.
Contrast between fine lines and shade, those contrasts will change with time.
Also for that size and anatomy, I know you're hardcore and everything, but I would consider lining up some painkiller.
I am not knowledgeable about tattoos, but the cat/kitten designs [which I think could make great tattoos] seem to me to be more about very subtle tonal shading, and a soft watercolour-like blend rather than very fine detail. I think that's quite hard to do in tattoos, although I've seen it done beautifully.
I saw a woman recently with a sleeve which was incredibly subtle shades of soft almost pastel, and was in the style of Chinese watercolour. Which isn't a million miles away from the style of some of the cat and kitten illustrations.
A bit like this:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/6e/e8/17/6ee8173e4fdb1c98c90e9080bd138249.jpg
but much more intricately interlocked.
Ok, in the flickr group I started a discussion with links to the three artists' portfolios. Is the copier guy sufficiently better than anyone else that I should use him, hands down?
I can't see any flickr pictures related to kitty tats. ???
I just put the links up, under the discussion section, not in the photo stream.
It's not pictures -- the discussion thing on the group page? Heebie started one with links to her three artists' portfolios.
Also thank you to everyone for humoring this self-absorbed post!
I'm really fascinated to see how it turns out. I think the source material you picked is great, but I'm really bad at things like translating a picture to how it will look as a tattoo.
I'm prepared for it to be...not spectacularly beautiful, because there's no getting around the soft, pudgy toddlerness of the canvas. But I think I'll be very happy with it.
Is this going to go where I think it's going to go given the (awesome) post title? Was this discussed elsewhere in the archives?
Yep and yep, but no worries. Short version: BRCA+, getting mastectomied in December, forgoing reconstruction.
Well in that case: Kitties! Hooray!
Have you talked to a radiologist about the tattoos yet? Assuming that you're having a total mastectomy, that would still leave a bit of tissue left that would have a very slight chance of developing breast cancer. When I was researching my own mastectomy/reconstruction* options, I saw a woman mention that chest tattoos can make mammograms more difficult to read. I don't know if the risk factor is large enough to make a difference, but I imagine that you could have baseline images done before and after tattooing. Though now that I think of it, how do they check for breast cancer in someone without breasts? I don't think a mammogram machine would work...
* It turns out that I am also BRCA positive (1, not 2). I spoke with the genetic counselor about it (she was wonderful, but she's moving to Cleveland next month and so I shall see her no more), and she okayed my decision to go with frequent screening rather a bilateral mastectomy at this time. My theory is that the really bad result--breast cancer--has already happened to me, and the risk of developing a second tumor is only 20% higher than normal. I can live with that risk if it means keeping my boobs for at least a few more years. I'll probably want to amputate them and remove my ovaries before I turn 40, but who knows? Maybe some amazing new treatment will exist by then.
In short, for those not following me at the other place,** I start chemo on Monday, will have a lumpectomy in October or November, will do a course of radiation, and will then continue a targeted version of chemo for another 6 months or so.
**Speaking of which, thank you so much to everyone sending their well wishes and other support. For someone who's closer to a lurker than anything else, I've been amazed and (happily) overwhelmed by how thoughtful y'all have been, including those who let me know that leaving FB comments is really awkward and not their thing but they support me on Messenger.
Pres Auto huge well wishes! So glad you had a genetic counselor who was helpful and supportive of what sounds like a reasonable decision. My own skirmishes with med personnel around a much lower temperature but related issue always seem to end up with bullying to do the next test the next procedure etc etc etc because if you were my mother-sister-daughter I'd want you to. I hope you find a sensible successor counselor if needed.
Thanks for letting us know. Best wishes for you in during and after treatment.
The lurkers support our cybernetic overlords in email Messenger.
72: I know that I'm going to have an argument with my surgeon about this, but I floated the possibility a few weeks ago and he seemed open to "letting" me make do with a lumpectomy as long as I understood that he strongly advised his BRCA+ patients to have bilateral mastectomies.
I have learned this over the past month: everyone who said that I shouldn't worry about the "what ifs," and that I shouldn't think about my test results until I got them, were dead wrong.
I didn't obsess over the results of either round of biopsies, or of the genetic testing, but I did consider the probable results, and I thought hard about what I might want to do in various scenarios. That mental preparation, combined with insisting that I have the time to consider my options (my diagnosis/start of treatment has run about 3 weeks slower than that of friends in similar circumstances in the U.S.), and also taking the time to prepare my partner for the possibility that I might make choices contrary to the norm, has been really important.
If all of the decision making had happened in a week or a week and a half, as I've seen with others, I think there's a very good chance that I'd be sitting here sans breasts and regretting it.
I'm not on the book of the face so I will give you my well wishes right here and hope everything goes smoothly (the opposite of lumpily) as can be.
71: I don't think they do any screening whatsoever on the remaining tissue. You're encouraged to do self-screenings and cross your fingers, and I think the remaining breast tissue is similar to the amount a man has, so my risk will be similar to my dad's risk.
Also I don't get the ostrich advice, either. I know people mean "don't ruminate and fret endlessly" but it really is better to game out scenarios while you have a nice time cushion and aren't in a panicked rush.
I suspect also that folks who said not to worry early are folks who tend to just take the doctor's advice rather than do a lot of research and consider what options are available.
The tattoo thing is that sometimes they involve iron or other metal particulates in the ink, which read as "extremely dense" in scans. That's less true with newer inks and, I think, not a very big deal for modern imaging technology.
75: There's a scare tactic among medical professionals if you proceed "against medical advice" that it will mess up your chances of insurance covering it, etc. Look out for this; it's not true and a really shitty thing to do to patients.
Good luck, Madam President.
Heebie, go with your gut. I'm sure any of the three will be totally fine. If it were me, based on the limited info in this thread and in the flickr pool, I think I'd go with artist 1 (human Xerox).
Good luck and healing thoughts to both of you.
Heebie, go with your gut.
I thought they were up higher than that.
