Question about tattoo outline

I got a shamrock tattoo about 3 months ago and the once black outline has
become more of a dark gray. It doesn't look as good. Would getting the
outline re-done solve this problem? Or would that too just become gray?

Sultin wrote:
> I got a shamrock tattoo about 3 months ago and the once black outline has
> become more of a dark gray. It doesn't look as good.

Because, as everyone knows, nature oulines her shamrocks in black


Kavin

KavinTaylor@gmail.com wrote:
> Sultin wrote:
>> I got a shamrock tattoo about 3 months ago and the once black outline has
>> become more of a dark gray. It doesn't look as good.
>
> Because, as everyone knows, nature oulines her shamrocks in black
>
>
> Kavin

And I guess a gray outline is natural, right? Fucking idiot.

Sultin wrote:

> I got a shamrock tattoo about 3 months
> ago and the once black outline has become
> more of a dark gray. It doesn't look as good.

Okay.

> Would getting the outline re-done solve this
> problem?

It would certainly darken the outline, however I'd first ask the tattoo
artist to offer their opinion on why the outline faded or changed from
black to more of a dark gray.

> Or would that too just become gray?

It might. Again, ask your original artist or, if that's not a
possibility, ask another tattoo artist for their opinion.

I've seen people getting their black ink done over. Fading happens.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...rch+this+group


Best of luck with your tattoo, S.

--
Curt

Sultin wrote:
> KavinTaylor@gmail.com wrote:
[...]

> > Kavin
>
> <snip> Fucking idiot.

For shame. Name calling is such a waste of time, Sultin. And after all
the help Kavin offered. Oh, wait. He didn't offer any help at all.
Never mind.

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

Sultin wrote:
>
> And I guess a gray outline is natural, right? Fucking idiot.

Alanis, I'd know you anywhere.

Come on, big boy. Wanna fight?

I'm not the one with the fucked up (probably small) tattoo.


Kavin

Curt James wrote:

<snipped>

Let's take the advice of an 'artist' who steals the designs of a
cartoonist for his own tatttoos. Wait, are Calvin and Hobbes public
domain?

It doesn't count if the design is on the skinny ankle of an art
teacher.

Kavin

Kavin Taylor wrote:
[...]

> Let's take the advice of an 'artist' who steals

Actually, I bought the book and paid for the color copy. Oh, yeah, and
I also paid for the tattoo work. Plus, although we've never discussed
the matter, I doubt Bill's making much of a fuss over bodyart.

> the designs of a cartoonist for his own tatttoos.

His own what? You are a treattt, Kavin. ;o)

> Wait, are Calvin and Hobbes public domain?
>
> It doesn't count if the design is on the skinny

We can't all have cankles, Kavvy.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cankles

Yeah.

> ankle of an art teacher.

Actually, the tattoo surrounds my calf.

Anatomy major? Guess not.

http://www.geocities.com/curt_james/calvin.html

> Kavin

Run along now and peel all the _Calvin peeing_ stickers off the pickup
trucks in your area, you cartoonists' rights activist, you!

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/22875
http://www.boingboing.net/2003/05/16...istory_of.html
http://www.usedwigs.com/weekly_32.html

Hmmm, "In 1993, Universal Press Syndicate, which distributed Calvin and
Hobbes to newspapers, won a $737,000 lawsuit against a California man
who made T-shirts with pictures of the duo."

Oh, dear. How much do I have in checking again?

Still, "Universal Press Syndicate sends cease-and-desist letters to
sellers before taking any legal action."

Both quotes from: http://ignatz.brinkster.net/cstockcars.html

Guess I'm safe until I get that cease-and-desist letter, eh?

Hth.

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

Kavin Taylor wrote:
> Sultin wrote:
> >
> > And I guess a gray outline is natural, right? Fucking idiot.
>
> Alanis, I'd know you anywhere.
>
> Come on, big boy. Wanna fight?

You do realize this is text, right?

Or will I be reading about you being involved in an IRL fight next?
D'OH!

> I'm not the one with the fucked up (probably small) tattoo.

No, but you are the one with the fucked up (obviously insecure)
attitude.

> Kavin

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

On 24 Nov 2006 22:25:23 -0800, KavinTaylor@gmail.com wrote:

> Curt James wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> Let's take the advice of an 'artist' who steals the designs of a
> cartoonist for his own tatttoos. Wait, are Calvin and Hobbes public
> domain?
>
> It doesn't count if the design is on the skinny ankle of an art
> teacher.
>
> Kavin

A quick search gave 27.200 hits in images and 1.770.000 hits on the net.
Do you really think that each and everyone asked the artist and/or author
permission to post this or that on the net ?

I think it's an interesting discussion if we are allowed to "use" an image
for a tattoo.
The design for my backpiece is based on an image no larger then one inch by
2 inch that I found in an art book on Japanese woodblock prints.
After blowing up the image, my tattoo artist was able to create the final
design. It is still clearly recognizable as being based on that tiny image.

Are we infringing any rights after an image has been published a gazillion
times on the net ?
Maybe so, but should it be punishable by law ?
I don't think so. We use the design or image only for personal use and not
with the intention of economic or financial gain.

Every artist or designer knows about the risks when his work is posted on
the net. It can't be prevented. Maybe the persons who post the work on the
net without asking for permission are far more responsible for their
actions then we are when we use an image solely for the purpose of getting
a nice tattoo.
I simply don't see the harm.
Imagine Disney filing law suits for every time Mickey Mouse is used in some
"illegal manner" ....

--
Hans

"Forty-two!"
"Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years of
work?"
"I checked it very thoroughly", said the computer...

Hans van Eynsbergen wrote:
[...]

re Calvin and Hobbes as tattoo flash

[...]

> I think it's an interesting discussion if we are allowed to "use" an image
> for a tattoo.
> The design for my backpiece is based on an image no larger then one inch by
> 2 inch that I found in an art book on Japanese woodblock prints.
> After blowing up the image, my tattoo artist was able to create the final
> design. It is still clearly recognizable as being based on that tiny image.
>
> Are we infringing any rights after an image has been published a gazillion
> times on the net ?

Yes.

Just as two wrongs don't make a right. So to do a gazillion wrongs not
make a right. Nevertheless, I'm wearing my tattoo of Calvin and Hobbes
with joy. FBI, come and get me.

> Maybe so, but should it be punishable by law ?

Definitely so, but I say the punishment should be a big hug.

(Hey, I'm guilty, guilty, guilty! What did you expect me to suggest as
a punishment??!!!)

> I don't think so. We use the design or image only for personal use and not
> with the intention of economic or financial gain.
>
> Every artist or designer knows about the risks when his work is posted on
> the net. It can't be prevented. Maybe the persons who post the work on the
> net without asking for permission are far more responsible for their
> actions then we are when we use an image solely for the purpose of getting
> a nice tattoo.
> I simply don't see the harm.

Frankly, I don't either, however I'm certain there have been seemingly
countless papers written on exactly what that harm is.

> Imagine Disney filing law suits for every time Mickey Mouse is used in some
> "illegal manner" ....

Disney, I've heard, is very diligent in bringing lawsuits against any
they feel have done them wrong. DON'T MESS WITH THE MOUSE! ;o)

> Hans

--
Curt