Welcome to Gaia! ::

So it's been talked about for years: UV reactive tattoo ink.




This one on the left is normal light, the one on the right is under black light.


What is everyone's opinion on this stuff? Almost no UV inks are FDA approved for use in the US yet, but if it were, would you get it?

Con's to the argument:
It's said to be invisible, but that's not necessarily true. The skin can scar just from the tattoo machine itself, so you'd still have some kind of basic shape there. It usually looks like very light, pearly scar tissue.

Some people end up being allergic to the ink, would that turn you off from getting a UV tattoo? But some people reaction to normal tattoo ink as well, so it's just a risk we all take, right?

Another con to the UV ink argument is that sometimes, if not taken care of properly, the UV ink can darken and turn into a color like regular tattoo ink, making it not invisible at all. And the glowing effects may wear off as time goes on as well.

Pro's to the argument:
UV reactive ink is good for people who are restricted in their tattoo placement choices, due to profession, religion, etc. It allows the freedom to be tattooed where they choose, and the choice of when and whom to show it off to.

The components in UV ink have been improved upon greatly in the years since its invention, with more success stories than stories of bad reactions, color changes, etc.

So, knowing those basic points, would you consider getting a UV tattoo at this point? Would you wait until it's FDA approved, or is it just too risky for you?

Post, my lovlies, POST!

Same. I always admired scarification but am too much of a p***y to go through it myself. UV tattoos seem to be the next best thing.
I wouldn't do it unless it's FDA approved though and even then I'm still iffy. Just the thought of putting that stuff into my skin just weirds me out a bit.

A couple of my friends have UV tattoos; and they have no scarring whatsoever. But under a blacklight it's amazing looking.

I'd personally get something with actual colour; then add UV ink to it later if I really wanted it to glow but honestly.. unless you are a raver or work in a nightclub how often are you under blacklights.. kinda sounds like a waste to get a whole tattoo in UV only ink if you are only under a blacklight maybe once a year..

I have a tattoo that glows under black light. But it's not invisible. It's a hot pink strawberry. The colour I chose is so bright and vibrant that it glows under black light.

I love it though because I now work at laser quest and spend my days working in black light. So sometimes when the games are running behind and I need to distract the kids I show them my glowing tattoo.

I was at some sketchy tim horton's in vancouver where the bathroom was lit by a blacklight. Useful. rolleyes I wouldn't get a whole tattoo done in UV ink, but I think the uv ink over regular ink would be a cool added effect.

I would have to wait until it's FDA approved; better safe than sorry, as I believe.

What intrigues me about the UV ink, however, is the visibility of it when you actually get the tattoo itself. Would a blacklight have to be on for the tattooist to actually see what they were doing? Even then, if yes is the answer, what about shadows cast by the tattooist's hand, and not to mention the tattoo gun seeing as they're not the smallest of objects?

To me, that's like getting a tattoo in a dark room, with the tattooist relying on any other type of light for vision. At least, this is how my perception of this UV reactive ink is.
I'm not the most knowledgeable on regular tattoos, but I would imagine as with any artist, a partially obscured vision isn't a good thing.

I am nervous about the cons of it but wish to have a glowing tattoo D: That would be soo cool. A glow in the dark triforce on yer hand, how awesome is that?