New tattoo ink means "4ever" needn't be permanent

We're not really sure how that late night of Red Bull-fueled coding wrapped up at a sketchy tattoo parlor, but needless to say we were beyond regretful when we woke up the next morning with "1337" emblazoned in huge black numbers on the back of our neck. Unfortunately for our bad-ass reputation and the integrity of our sensitive neck skin, tattoo removal was and still is an expensive, imperfect procedure; it can take up to 12 painful sessions and $5,000 to get that damn ink out, and even then, there's a possibility of permanent, disfiguring scars. So you can imagine our bitterness delight when we learned of a new type of removable ink from a New York-based company called Freedom-2 that, while it won't do anything to hide our shame, promises to help other remorseful human canvases remove their mistakes with only one simple laser treatment. This revolutionary ink -- only available in black for now -- is encapsulated in microscopic polymethylmethacrylate beads (the same synthetic material used to make surgical glue) that fall apart when exposed to laser energy, after which the body's natural ability to expel foreign particles kicks in and does the rest. Freedom-2's CEO, Martin Schmieg, predicts that his company's ink should only add about $50 to the cost of an average tattoo -- a small price to pay to ensure that you don't have to live with your ex's name on your bicep for the rest of your life. Like we said before, this technology comes just a little too late for our neck, but you better believe that once they begin manufacturing this ink in cyan, we're gonna be first in line to get the ol' Engadget "e" tatted right smack in the middle of our forehead.

[Via Book of Joe]

[blackfeather @ Dec 26th 2006 6:25PM]

So where to I touch to turn her on?... Oh! right there.

[Cardbored @ Dec 26th 2006 6:32PM]

is "needn't" even a word??

[Mike @ Dec 26th 2006 6:34PM]

...yes, it's a contraction for "need not".

How about some pics from the front?

[tim @ Dec 26th 2006 7:14PM]

yes, its a very common contraction of 'need / not,' nice attempt to make the poster look stupid, though...

[wow. @ Dec 27th 2006 11:59AM]

Yes it is. Allow me to use it in a sentence.
"You needn't tell us how stupid you are; your post has already made that statement."

[Revrant2394 @ Dec 29th 2006 7:18AM]

Here here!

[Lizzy @ Dec 26th 2006 6:35PM]

Welcome to the world of contractions. Need + Not = Needn't. The great things one learns in primary school!

[John Doe @ Dec 27th 2006 2:54PM]

And neither one is right or wrong so STFU.

[swansong @ Dec 26th 2006 6:36PM]

For some strange reason I now want to go buy a Mac...

[Aashish Jain @ Dec 26th 2006 7:07PM]

(Drool)... sure, I'll buy the extended warranty...

[LandMineHare @ Dec 26th 2006 7:26PM]

That's a button I'd love to push.

[Phillip Lamb @ Dec 26th 2006 7:29PM]

So, are you gonna overwrite the '1337' with 'pwnd' next time?

[Hel @ Dec 26th 2006 7:55PM]

I think the Idea is cool, but i dont like it to tell you the truth. It takes a way to what a tattoo is. Sure in a way im sure the laser procedure is still expensive, but give it the same amount it will take for all the colors to be available, and the laser treatments will be cheaper, it will make tattoos something you do on a weekend to look cool...

[Michael @ Dec 26th 2006 8:32PM]

And that's a great thing. I would never get a permanent tattoo myself. I think they're trashy looking. But there have been times I've wanted to be trashy. Just not for the rest of my life.

[Russell @ Dec 26th 2006 8:35PM]

I think it's a great idea.

You still have to go get it removed so it's pretty much permanant until you do so / if you do so.

Just having this technology out there means that normal tattoos could be mistaken for removable ones anyways. So why not get the removable one that in 30 years you can remove.

The purists will probably still stay away from it but most people would welcome this and it will lead to more business for tattoo artists etc.

[MrPumpernickel @ Dec 26th 2006 9:24PM]

Oh yay. So with this people have to think even less about getting tattooes or not. People have been starting to consider tattooes (regardless of permanency) as more or less of a rub on, cereal box toy, thing and this is certainly not going to help.

My view, if you're not ready to make the commitment of putting on something permanent you shouldn't do it in the first place. If you do it drunk then you really deserve what you're getting. As well as if you find a tatoo artist who'll tattoo you drunk the artist should have his or her business licence revoked, it's not only stupid but also potentially dangerous from a bleeding point of view (alcohol makes you bleed more and coagulate slower).

[PreGHz @ Dec 27th 2006 12:08AM]

True, but only to a certain extent. A lot of people who get tattooed don't even bleed that much. Most tattoo artists refuse to ink drunks because noone wants to deal with a douchebag for an hour. I know plenty of friends who pick out their tattoo, have the artist prep, and then get shitfaced as soon as possible. As long as you're quiet/polite when you get it, most artists don't care if you're not sober.

But I wouldn't want to do it to some drunk frat boy who wants Power/Idiot (in the requisite Chinese characters, of course) tattooed on their arm.

[Adam Lynch @ Dec 27th 2006 1:23AM]

Amen, brother.

As someone who's had over 60 hours of work done, and spent a lot of time around tattoo artists, you're right on the money in my book.

Depending on the artist, area, design, etc bleeding can be a problem. Reputable artists know that, and should refuse to tattoo those who are inebriated.

Plus, they also know that their work is what's in question... Excessive bleeding makes doing the work harder.

Not to mention the loss in reputation that comes along with the formerly drunk sorority sister who's now unhappy with the Tasmanian Devil she had tattooed on her hip.

[Randy @ Dec 26th 2006 9:40PM]

"you better believe that once they begin manufacturing this ink in cyan, we're gonna be first in line to get the ol' Engadget "e" tatted right smack in the middle of our forehead"

I dare you to do it!!! Only because you said it though.

[Porkchop Flavored Cupcake @ Dec 26th 2006 11:37PM]

Why the fuck are people saying it isn't permanent?
It IS permanent until you get the treatment done to it.
The same way the original ink is permanent until you get treatment done to it.

They're both ink, one's just more advanced so the removal process is easier than the old school method.
Nothing wrong with that.
Seems to me that the only people who are getting all high and mighty with their ill artsy do or die logic are the ones who now wish they'd have waited.

This will quickly become the preferred method, as it ends up becoming the highest in demand.

Lastly, I love this because alt.porn model applicants are going to skyrocket overnight once this stuff hits the shelves.

And tattoo artists who refuse the business that this new product is going to sweep in are silly little fools.
This is a great advancement.

[MrPumpernickel @ Dec 27th 2006 2:10AM]

"This will quickly become the preferred method, as it ends up becoming the highest in demand."

Did you read the linked article? Do you have any connection with the tattoo community?

As it says in the article, tattoo artists are rather fussy with their inks. They use inks that have been tested for quite some time with known side effects (if any). This is a new ink that's still rather untested in the long run. While it is removable it's anyone's guess what kind of reactions the body may have to it a few years down the line. There have been rather violent reactions to new inks in the past, so what's to say people won't have severe allergic reactions to this ink as well?

While I do think that there will be people in the community that will both tattoo with the ink and get tattoed by artists using the ink it won't strike too wide. The demand for it might be big, but that doesn't mean that it'll be in the stockpile of every tattoo artist. For the artists themselves this is also quite an intrusion into their artistic integrity. It's a bit like selling someone a painting that can be magically erased again.

[Nogami @ Dec 27th 2006 12:58AM]

Well, should help reduce the number of old ladies with tramp-stamps :P

N.

[Sara B. @ Dec 27th 2006 6:23AM]

I came to talk about how you're unlikely to find reputable artists using this ink any time soon because it's new and hasn't been tested thoroughly enough, and, along with UV ink, is ultimately an awesome idea that might not pan out in the end; however, MrPumpernickel already did a good job. Anyone involved in the larger bodymod communitiy knows that it's not just what you have done, but also who did it and with what method. Untested ink should make just about anyone nervous.

[Amyloo @ Dec 27th 2006 7:22AM]

Was it your intention by using the photo to cause women readers to believe this blog is not meant for them? It had that effect on me.

[JS Beckerist @ Dec 27th 2006 8:38AM]

a little too late for our neck?

[Dave @ Dec 27th 2006 9:03AM]

So where'd you find the picture of my dream girl?

[Erik @ Dec 27th 2006 10:42AM]

The real benefit of this that all the articles seem to be missing has nothing to do with tattoo removal, and everything to do with cancer. It's been shown pretty conclusively that the non-inert elements of traditional tattoo inks, especially those found in black inks, can contribute greatly to the formation of skin and other cancers as the ink breaks down due to light exposure. The polymer beads surrounding these inks purportedly keep these carcinogenic chemicals from leaking into your skin and your bloodstream. The polymer should also provide additional lightfastness, keeping brightly colored and black tattoos from fading with exposure to sunlight.

That being said, I have two large, black, real ink tattoos and plan on getting more.

[Michael L. @ Dec 27th 2006 11:52AM]

Hahah. Sign me up for that blue e of yours.

[NHAnimator @ Dec 27th 2006 3:09PM]

Why didn't someone tell me about this BEFORE I got that N64 4 EVA tat!

[JN @ Dec 27th 2006 4:59PM]

in response to Amyloo,

do yourself a favor and study "the art of not being offended." would you rather they post a picture of a man w/ a tech tattoo on his arm? i'm 99% sure that no male readers would feel alienated by such a shot. don't mean to jump on you, but it ticks me off that our society is getting increasingly PC, to the point of extreme homogenization.

[Nando @ Dec 27th 2006 5:23PM]

the porpouse of that image was to make all the geeks com into the "read more" link just to see if there was more pics inside.

like me B-)

[PEZ @ Dec 27th 2006 7:50PM]

OR, you can use that extra 50 bucks to by Wrecking Ball PAINLESS tattoo remover liquid.

Works nicely. I am really suprised you didnt even mention it. I think you were just trying to make the article and product of easily remvablt ink, more marketable by mentioning laser treatment as the only viable option for tattoo removal.

Shame!

[Chaddy @ Dec 28th 2006 12:52AM]

I've been wondering about this for years. The old if they can put a man on the moon... Etc. If they come out with colors, and perfect the process. Im in. Then I can loose it later when I want. Perfect.

[BBX @ Dec 28th 2006 9:58AM]

re: Amyloo

This is hardly the sort of thing that could be found offensive by anybody with even a microscopic sense of humor. One could effectively argue that it's actually a fitting image considering the content of the story and the nature of the blog on which it was posted. I think the vast majority of readers, be they male or female, are able to see the harmless fun in the intent. Perhaps you should lighten up a bit...

[kombizz @ Dec 28th 2006 10:59AM]

I think it is a very cool idea.
By the way I don't mind to push that button !!

[notgnirrad @ Jan 3rd 2007 3:45PM]

So, the next big thing in tattoos will be e-ink, reactive to specific electromagnetic impulses. Have a patch implanted via familiar methods then apply the appropriate stimulus.

Your tattoo, responsive to your every whim or mood; get ‘e-nked’.

[Nando @ Sep 8th 2007 6:09PM]

I remember about 10 years ago when i was tattooing in europe and there was a craze over "bio-tattoos", these tattoos that would disappear after 5 years. truth was they never disappeared, in fact the only thing to disappear was the artist, every 3 years. what isn't reqalized by this ink first of all is that all black ink can be removed by laser, no improvement there. not only that, a $50 tattoo can take $1000 to remove by laser, hurts far worse than gettig the tattoo in the first place, and still doesn't fix any scar tissue left there from the initial tattoo and subsequent laser treatment. chances are, anyone willing to get a tattoo they are alreay sure they can remove will never fully understand the process of getting something permanent, therefore never gain the lessons taught by the ancient process.

[dave @ Nov 28th 2007 4:43PM]

as a tattooist and tattoo collector, I think that this ink is a good thing. The reality is that many people get stupid tattoos when they are young, and eventually wind up regretting it. then their choices are removal, living with it, or getting a cover-up, hopefully with something they will like better. for these people, this ink is ideal. most of these people have no concept of what tattoo, in it's historical and shamanic context, is really all about. When you have a tattoo that is done well, and has been carefully chosen to reflect something of yourself that is fundamental, you would be horrified if someone suggested to you that you remove it. it is a totem, a reminder of your ideal self, or a reminder of a time in your life. In conclusion, choose wisely, and you will never need to remove it.

[david @ Apr 2nd 2009 3:23PM]

thats freakin amazing.
you should email me :)

[david @ Apr 2nd 2009 3:24PM]

this is awesome.
you should email me
[e-mail]