I’m not going to tell you who did these because it’s not important to what the entry is about. I’m sure each of the people is happy with their work, but you have to admit, it’s fairly obvious that one artist was radically more talented than the other one. Or am I crazy and the average person just can’t make that judgment or simply doesn’t care? There are so many good tattoo artists out there these days, that I just don’t understand why most people still get bad tattoos.
Other than that, I just wanted to say that I might have to take a day off or two for coding… I have some changes I need to make to the IAM software (security and growth upgrades — I think you’ll be very happy) and may just not have the time to do both.
BME/News and Modblog highlight only a small fraction of what
The following comments were imported from our old comment system:
Posted on 05-17-2006 01:48:26 by curlyhare1
i dunno, i would hardly call that a BAD tattoo. Its nowhere near as good as the other one, but i have seen MUCH MUCH worse.
Posted on 05-17-2006 01:58:22 by glider
Fine, let’s say it’s mediocre or average… Point is, there are SO MANY great artists out there that are sp easy to find, that it weirds me out that people still get anything but great tattoos.
Posted on 05-17-2006 02:30:44 by jaelbait
one: laziness. two: lack of exposure and/or knowledge of what is available. three: cost not quality. four: some people just have bad taste.
not necessarily in that order.
Posted on 05-17-2006 03:07:31 by Elaine
The one on the right looks half done.
Posted on 05-17-2006 06:45:42 by vellocet
actually, they all seem to cost about the same over here (norway). sucking artist or not. so you better be sharp!
but i find sorrow in my heart that a lot of people is not, exactly sharp… and so it ends.
Posted on 05-17-2006 12:04:27 by mpatshi
maby the client made the design himself and wanted the outcome to be exactly the same…
Posted on 05-17-2006 12:07:22 by don
there are a lot of great artists out there, but at least in my area they all seem to have waiting lists of 2-3+ months. i think impatience, and wanting to get a tattoo *NOW* contributes to a lot of bad tattoos.
then there is the whole ‘no accounting for taste’ thing. i’ve seen terrible tattoos, that the owners are incredibly proud of, and think are beautiful.
Posted on 05-17-2006 13:11:09 by Jets
The person probably drew it himself and wanted it to look that way.
Posted on 05-17-2006 13:47:51 by 11.
which is the good one?
Posted on 05-17-2006 14:05:02 by sigh
i think that post was just mean.
Posted on 05-17-2006 14:11:36 by Me, again
I like the second one a lot better… I dont like the other on at all
Posted on 05-17-2006 14:46:05 by la la land
Ha I’m the opposite. I mean I’d rather see the tattoo in the second location than the first, but I like the first tattoo much better.
Posted on 05-17-2006 15:29:05 by outmywindow
Yeah, I definitaly like the location of the second one better, and I like the way the gecko tail wraps around the nipple, but it is a but sparse, and some of the tribal elements are just squiggly lines.
When I saw the second one on the boards I liked it, but I also didn’t look too closely at it. The more I look at it, the more I see its deficencies. Still, I’ve seen much worse…
Posted on 05-17-2006 16:31:55 by Jets
And I agree with “sigh,” the whole tone of this is just snobby. Especially when you defend posting busty models with belly button rings as though they represent “modded” women. I guess I prefer mediocre tattoos to no tattoos.
Posted on 05-17-2006 16:52:19 by RuinsOfDecay
hey nothing wrong with some busty models with navel rings.. i know i like to look at it..an i could almost bitch and take offense to that since im “busty” and have a “navel ring” but i wont.. everyone has there own opinion on the way things look.. and well thats just Shannons opinion.. anyways you cant really know someones ‘tone’ over the internet.. its just text.. maybe its just how you guys percieved it.. bah hum bug i back Shannon up.. and to all who say they do not like the first tattoos location.. i like it.. guys butts arent pretty.. its nice to mod it up and not make my eyes bleed as much 😉 kidding.
Posted on 05-17-2006 17:04:00 by untrained eye.
I don’t see anything wrong with the second one. It just seems to have a lot less filled in areas, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Posted on 05-17-2006 17:40:23 by oli
I like the rib-piece on the right’s design. I haven’t got my glasses so I can’t tell whether or not it is accurately inked, but I love the gecko.
Which is the more proficient of the two?
Posted on 05-17-2006 17:57:05 by RuinsOfDecay
as far as one looking nicer as a tribal piece id say the first one. i really dont know all that much of tattoos.. but for a tribal i like it a lot more than the other
Posted on 05-17-2006 18:02:41 by Shawn-PPT
They both look good, there’s no reason to say otherwise.
Posted on 05-17-2006 18:20:18 by bluetat
It’s not good to pick @ other peoples tattoos…. I for one love some of my “crap” tattoos.. Who are others to judge?… Longz the person with the tattoo likes it thats all that should matter.
Posted on 05-17-2006 18:21:28 by bluetat (again)
“some” = ALL … haha just not all of my tattoos are erm crap 🙂
Posted on 05-17-2006 18:36:41 by Spilt Milk
One man’s crap is another man’s gold
Posted on 05-17-2006 18:59:54 by Philander
personally I find the biggest mistake is wearing that thong.
As others have said, who am I to judge from a photo. I don’t think it reflects the talent of the artist in either case, they may have reproduced exactly what the customer asked them to.
I prefer both of them to some over glorified japanese back pieces ANY day of the week 😉
Posted on 05-17-2006 19:31:58 by RuinsOfDecay
i for one think the thong is damn sexy! 😉
Posted on 05-17-2006 19:48:45 by Em
I prefer a well researched tattoo over a flashy piece any day and would be curious on what the meanings of these are.
And I agree with what others have said. This post is catty. There’s nothing wrong with the tattoo on the right on a skill level from what can be seen in the photo. And it doesn’t look to even be trying to be ‘authentic’ tribal either so I fail to see why they’re being compared.
Posted on 05-17-2006 19:54:13 by joshua
glider never said there was anything wrong with the tattoo on the right, only that one artist obviously has more talent than one another. do you go out and see how many bad tattoos there are out there? there’s nothing catty about making a simple observation.
Posted on 05-17-2006 22:30:37 by RuinsOfDecay
i think everyone just needs to stop getting there panties in a bunch! now that is catty actions for u
Posted on 05-17-2006 22:34:53 by ces in style- which I would describe as being traditional tribal versus white-man\’s tribal- the second tattoo shows less care and congruity with the spacing and balance between line and solids.’);
Aside from the differences in style- which I would describe as being traditional tribal versus white-man’s tribal- the second tattoo shows less care and congruity with the spacing and balance between line and solids.’);
Posted on comments were those presuming that less modified people aren\’t welcome in the community, which saddens me greatly. The point is to satisfy your own inner vision of yourself, not a checklist of required modifications. I\’d far rather see a lesser number of high-quality modifications than those valued sheerly for quantity. That is exactly the attitude which leads to the massive amounts of shitty tattoo-work floating around.