• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

White Ink Tattoos

Stellify

StarChild
Does any one have one? Or have you seen one? Know somebody that has one?

I've only seen a couple in person, and they looked gorgeous, but I've heard about tattoo parlors refusing to do them (not sure why..), and about problems with yellowing or fading.

I've tried looking up some info on it, but ran into some difficulties getting info that looks legit. :confused: I'm going to a parlor at some point in the next week or two for some piercings, I think, so I can ask the tattoo artists while I'm there, but....I was wondering if anyone here had any helpful advice/news?
It would be much appreciated! :hug:


As a side note:
Anyone have or seen one of those black-light tattoos? I've seen a couple that looked awesome :D
 

Stellify

StarChild
Oohh! I haven't seen either white or blacklight ones.....I wish I could.

Here's a cool black light one that I found :D I'll post a white ink one when I find a good picture.

tattoo005.jpg


Some people also mix regular tats with black light accents:

James_by_Section18.jpg

 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Does any one have one? Or have you seen one? Know somebody that has one?
Brain fart... this didn't pop into my head until after my last post, but a friend of mine has a Siberian tiger tattoo. I think it's got white ink in it (the alternative would be that it uses his natural skin tone, I guess). He's probably had it for close to 10 years now. If you want, I can ask him about how the white in it is doing.
 

Circle_One

Well-Known Member
Just FYI, black light and glow in the dark tattoo ink hasn't been FDA approved yet, as long-term effects are still unknown. Short term though, the inks tend to cause rashes, and they are not reccommended, or done by any reputable artists.

Artist's who'll use white ink are difficult to come by. The reason artist's refuse to use it is because it fades a lot quicker than normal coloring, the ink doesn't cling to the skin as well AND because of the problems with yellowing. All this makes for unhappy customers, no matter how many times you warned them, and parlours can't afford too many unhappy customers, nor can they afford to continue to purchase ink that only has a 20% chance of NOT rejecting. It leads to bad reviews on the part of the parlour, which is bad for business.

I wouldn't reccommend getting a white ink tattoo, unless you're incredibly dark-skinned, don't spend too much time in the sun, and don't mind the potential of it turning yellow.
 

Stellify

StarChild
These look like they're fairly new, so they're still a little raised. All the white ink tats I've seen "pop" more the tanner the person gets.
One girl I knew had some tribal designs on her face in white ink, and I didn't notice them the first few days..But after a couple weeks of being out in the sun all the time it looked like someone had dipped a paintbrush in a glowstick and drawn on her face. It looked awesome.

Oh, and I've seen a couple things about UV ink (black light) not being FDA approved AT ALL? Anyone know if that's true? I think some of the inks contain phosphorous and carcinogens and can cause some rash/irritation/etc. :(

white.jpg


White ink tends to be pretty subtle..But that's one of the reasons it appeals to me...for now, I can't have any "real" tats in obvious places...So if I want something in an area that's not so easily hidden (shoulder, arm, leg, back, etc), white ink or UV ink would be kind of ideal.
 

Circle_One

Well-Known Member
These look like they're fairly new, so they're still a little raised. All the white ink tats I've seen "pop" more the tanner the person gets.
One girl I knew had some tribal designs on her face in white ink, and I didn't notice them the first few days..But after a couple weeks of being out in the sun all the time it looked like someone had dipped a paintbrush in a glowstick and drawn on her face. It looked awesome.

Oh, and I've seen a couple things about UV ink (black light) not being FDA approved AT ALL? Anyone know if that's true? I think some of the inks contain phosphorous and carcinogens and can cause some rash/irritation/etc. :(

white.jpg


White ink tends to be pretty subtle..But that's one of the reasons it appeals to me...for now, I can't have any "real" tats in obvious places...So if I want something in an area that's not so easily hidden (shoulder, arm, leg, back, etc), white ink or UV ink would be kind of ideal.

It's not the newness of them that's raising them. If they were still new enough to be raised, they'd still be red.

The explanation for the raisings is 1) The guy on the right was scarified first and then inked his scarification, 2)the tattoo artist sucked which left the guy with a tattoo for the blind (essentially, when the artist pushes too hard with the needle, which causes the tattoo to pop out of the skin) or 3) it's not actually raised like that, and is just the tattoo itself is shaded in a way so as to make it look like that.
 

Stellify

StarChild
What does it look like under normal light? Nothing?

And I wonder how long those last before they fade.

The UV ones I've seen look like very faint lines on the skin, if anything.

Brain fart... this didn't pop into my head until after my last post, but a friend of mine has a Siberian tiger tattoo. I think it's got white ink in it (the alternative would be that it uses his natural skin tone, I guess). He's probably had it for close to 10 years now. If you want, I can ask him about how the white in it is doing.

I would appreciate that, if it isn't too much trouble :D

Just FYI, black light and glow in the dark tattoo ink hasn't been FDA approved yet, as long-term effects are still unknown. Short term though, the inks tend to cause rashes, and they are not reccommended, or done by any reputable artists.

Artist's who'll use white ink are difficult to come by. The reason artist's refuse to use it is because it fades a lot quicker than normal coloring, the ink doesn't cling to the skin as well AND because of the problems with yellowing. All this makes for unhappy customers, no matter how many times you warned them, and parlours can't afford too many unhappy customers, nor can they afford to continue to purchase ink that only has a 20% chance of NOT rejecting. It leads to bad reviews on the part of the parlour, which is bad for business.

I wouldn't reccommend getting a white ink tattoo, unless you're incredibly dark-skinned, don't spend too much time in the sun, and don't mind the potential of it turning yellow.

Sorry, I was in the middle of posting my previous response and didn't see this until it was too late.

That's very informative though, thank you :D
Yeah..the more I read on UV inks, the less I like what I hear...It seems like it would be much wiser to wait a few years until the FDA can sort through it :sarcastic

White ink only has a 20% chance of not rejecting? Wow, I didn't realize the chances were that bad. I know UV is much more likely to reject than normal inks, but I didn't realize white was as well.
I completely understand artist's issues with doing white inks. I figured that's why they were hard to come by. Plus, unless they're doing it free-hand, they have to wipe off their needles a bunch so that the tracing ink doesn't get mixed in with the white and make the tat grey-ish.
 

Stellify

StarChild
It's not the newness of them that's raising them. If they were still new enough to be raised, they'd still be red.

The explanation for the raisings is 1) The guy on the right was scarified first and then inked his scarification, 2)the tattoo artist sucked which left the guy with a tattoo for the blind (essentially, when the artist pushes too hard with the needle, which causes the tattoo to pop out of the skin) or 3) it's not actually raised like that, and is just the tattoo itself is shaded in a way so as to make it look like that.

Hmm..I don't think I've ever seen anyone get scarification and then ink it. Cool idea though :D
 

Circle_One

Well-Known Member
The UV ones I've seen look like very faint lines on the skin, if anything.



I would appreciate that, if it isn't too much trouble :D



Sorry, I was in the middle of posting my previous response and didn't see this until it was too late.

That's very informative though, thank you :D
Yeah..the more I read on UV inks, the less I like what I hear...It seems like it would be much wiser to wait a few years until the FDA can sort through it :sarcastic

White ink only has a 20% chance of not rejecting? Wow, I didn't realize the chances were that bad. I know UV is much more likely to reject than normal inks, but I didn't realize white was as well.
I completely understand artist's issues with doing white inks. I figured that's why they were hard to come by. Plus, unless they're doing it free-hand, they have to wipe off their needles a bunch so that the tracing ink doesn't get mixed in with the white and make the tat grey-ish.

By white inks rejecting, I didn't mean it the same way UV or glow in the dark inks reject, sorry, I probably should have used a different word.

What I meant was the chance that it wouldn't fade, or wouldn't turn yellow, or wouldn't simply not show up at all, is incredibly, incredibly slim.
 

Stellify

StarChild
By white inks rejecting, I didn't mean it the same way UV or glow in the dark inks reject, sorry, I probably should have used a different word.

What I meant was the chance that it wouldn't fade, or wouldn't turn yellow, or wouldn't simply not show up at all, is incredibly, incredibly slim.

Ah, gotcha. That makes much more sense. :p
 

Circle_One

Well-Known Member
Well, I'm not planning on the process being exactly euphoric :p

Good, the first step is acceptance. ;)

But scarification, even without inking overtop, is absolutely beautiful, IMHO. It's very much an acquired taste. I love it, but my boyfriend (also an avid tattoo junkie like me), hates it. Also, if you plan to get scarified, don't plan on just walking into any old tattoo parlour and getting it done. The majority of tattoo artists don't do it, and it's very difficult to find one that DOES do it and that does it well.
 

Stellify

StarChild
Good, the first step is acceptance. ;)

But scarification, even without inking overtop, is absolutely beautiful, IMHO. It's very much an acquired taste. I love it, but my boyfriend (also an avid tattoo junkie like me), hates it. Also, if you plan to get scarified, don't plan on just walking into any old tattoo parlour and getting it done. The majority of tattoo artists don't do it, and it's very difficult to find one that DOES do it and that does it well.

I think it can be gorgeous, as well. But I don't think it's something I would get done on myself, at least right now :D
I've only ever had seven piercings, and no tats yet. I'm taking my time with it. I'm probably going to get a few more piercings, then a small tattoo, then a larger piece (or two...or three..lol). We'll see :D I want to have enough saved up so that whatever I decide on, I can afford to make sure it gets done really well.
So far the two tat parlors I've found in the Dallas area that have fairly good reviews are Gizmos Tattoo and Ace in the Hole Studios. I still haven't had a chance to go look at their portfolios, though.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
A tattoo artist I know will do white ink, but doesn't like to because it tends to not show up that good.
 

Dezzie

Well-Known Member
White ink tattoos are neat but... they would fade very easily and could be very hard to see in general. You know what tattoos I have always loved though? Red ones... like red tribals... The singer of Incubus gave me that idea because of his arm tattoos. One is black and the other is red.
 
Top