It’s a bit hard to see clearly (what with all the huge big stupid logos plastered over the middle of each photo), but I’m thinking that if it’s not a proper tattoo then it’s just painted on with ink. You can see in a few spots where the colour was carried on further than it should have been done, which I don’t think would be quite so likely with one of those sticker-tattoo thingies.
I don’t think this is real. Having worked in a tattoo studio as well as having a few tattoos of my own, I don’t see any bleeding on the tattoo. If this were a just finished piece, there would be small drops of blood in places. There is also the lack of redness previously mentioned. Also, there is no ink on the gloves of the tattooist.
I’m with RainOubliette. I’ve got a couple of tattoos, and I’m just not buying that a fresh one would look that…clean. Mine were always red, and a little bloody and swollen right after. Sort of like a carpet burn so bad that it broke the skin, swelled and then scarred over, at least that’s how I think of it. Pleasant, eh?
This is about as real as those henna “pregnancy tattoos” I saw over on Weird Universe a couple weeks ago. It’s real as in not photoshopped, but not real as in actual tattoo. My tattoo didn’t look that clean even days after getting it done. Also, the copyright watermark obscures important detail in the pictures. Very unprofessional. I agree that it’s important to protect your work, but not at the expense of destroying its value as a photo. Maybe a watermark that didn’t *completely cover* the thing being photographed.
I’m still wondering about the “rare Canadian hairless breed”. I’ve never even heard of one of these things before but then I’m not really a cat person. I suppose they had some connection with Canada in the breeding.
That tattoo does look like it’s a put on peel off type. I can’t see the cat being too happy with the process.