Kiran Patil wrote:
naughty bits

im so glad that term isn't part of my vernacular....

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
Good morning Kiran.  I disagree with each and several of your definitions on the basis that such definitions are irrelevant. 

"Nude" is buck naked.  Everything else is "clothed."

Definitions like yours validate all the knit-picking that will follow.  This should be a nice long thread as each poster will pick apart one of that list, and the process will go on forever.

I sure hope you're proud of yourself...

-D

And that is why it's important to talk to the model/photographer you are going to be working with and make sure you know what they want/are comfortable with before they end up coming back here saying what a flake/perv the other person is.

We'll never all agree on the specifics of each term, but it's only important to agree with the person you're about to shoot with.

David

Wicked Reflections wrote:
And that is why it's important to talk to the model/photographer you are going to be working with and make sure you know what they want/are comfortable with before they end up coming back here saying what a flake/perv the other person is.

We'll never all agree on the specifics of each term, but it's only important to agree with the person you're about to shoot with.

David

Yep.  And that's why I simply prefer that a model have no rules at all and I can shoot whatever I want.  I let the model veto pictures after the shoot rather than restrict the shoot itself. 

Surprisingly, since I've been keeping score there have been only four images vetoed.  Two because the models thought the pix showed "too much," one because she thought it didn't show her at her best (it didn't), and one because the model got picked up by a soap opera and couldn't have nudes around at all.  Actually for that last one I pulled about half a dozen pictures a year after the shoot.

It would be nice to have all models trust me enough to work this way.  They all don't.  Those that don't, I don't photograph.

-Don

D. Brian Nelson wrote:

Yep.  And that's why I simply prefer that a model have no rules at all and I can shoot whatever I want.  I let the model veto pictures after the shoot rather than restrict the shoot itself. 

Surprisingly, since I've been keeping score there have been only four images vetoed.  Two because the models thought the pix showed "too much," one because she thought it didn't show her at her best (it didn't), and one because the model got picked up by a soap opera and couldn't have nudes around at all.  Actually for that last one I pulled about half a dozen pictures a year after the shoot.

It would be nice to have all models trust me enough to work this way.  They all don't.  Those that don't, I don't photograph.

-Don

Don,

I agree with your thoughts on this.

Check ot the CA photographer "Star" on MM. She has a great shot of a guy holding his erection, so it was not banned by MM.

If a model has no limits, except showing pink, she will get a lot more job offers.

Marvin Dockery wrote:
If a model has no limits, except showing pink, she will get a lot more job offers.

Marvin, that's a limit.

-D

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
Good morning Kiran.  I disagree with each and several of your definitions on the basis that such definitions are irrelevant. 

"Nude" is buck naked.  Everything else is "clothed."

Definitions like yours validate all the knit-picking that will follow.  This should be a nice long thread as each poster will pick apart one of that list, and the process will go on forever.

I sure hope you're proud of yourself...

-D

...what he said!

studio36uk wrote:
It's nude or it's not... the rest is just horseshit!

Studio36

But is it implied horseshit or covered horseshit?

Marvin Dockery wrote:
If a model has no limits, except showing pink, she will get a lot more job offers.

Ok, this is starting to sound like the only mod ling out ther is nude or adult.

Most models' ambitions are NOT to be offered that kind of work. And, in a reach for commercial acievments, they honestly should stay away.
The type of model wishing for more work of this type is NOT the same model wishing to be signed to a major agency, or simply to cross-over commercially.

BUT in the context of this issue. The Art.
It is always good to have those definitions. Why? So that you, the photographer, isn't surprised by a model's sudeen unwillingness to do something. With this in place it gives you the fair opportunity to find the uninhibited model you want.
And, you'll find that most models are wiling to give the photographer what he/she wants, just as long everything is clear.

And, for the work to BE the best. It takes a comfortable nodel with the ability to be free. That is why these terms are good.
Otherwise, you, the photographer, will be (mis) construed as shady or decietful. So, I suggest use them to protect your reputation. Andbe sure of getting what you w
nt.


Example.(very rough ex.)
You "Will you do a shot with me? Nudity may be involved."

She "Sure, what type?"

You "It's an artistic approach. We'll just have feel the moment"

She "Okay"

Day of shoot, 30 mins into the shoot.

You "Ok. I  want you to pose like this. And, put your leg/arm like that."

She "OH HELL NO! What is this? I'm not that kinda model. I'leaving"

You (confused) " What just happened? You'd t ink I asked her to masturbate or something...."

End of shoot. Waste of day. Your name spread negaticely to other people she contacts.


Moral of story?
Miscomunication can have negative results that fester beyond that one event.


Express and explain everything. Be clear about the product you w
nt from the model. Gives you the ability to find the right model. Saves alot of headache. For both of you.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Haha - There are a lot of great replies here.

I like Don's because it has the least constraints.  But to me defintions are meaningless (even though I use some of these terms).

Explain to the model what she wants. She will say "yes:" or she will say "no."  Then just do what you told her and I don't see where there will be a problem.

Alan

Exactly Alan.

Then you can better guarantee you'll get what you want.

Don,

That's one of the reasons I insist on a meet - in a public place such as a coffee shop - b4 a shoot so we can get an idea of each other and talk about what I/she has in mind. It's kind a strange - you'd figure that anyone who's seen your work would get a good idea of who you are and what you do but I get tons of requests for TFP's - where the models wants me to shoot her the way *she* wants -and *only* the kind of images she wants - which in effect would be a free portfolio for her..

I'm like you - no trust - no shoot - and that goes espcially for a TFP or test shoot.

Wicked Reflections wrote:

But is it implied horseshit or covered horseshit?

I prefer sheer horseshit... oh wait... that's wrong

Angelus wrote:
You'd think I asked her to masturbate or something...."

Interesting point.  But actually that is a lot of what I'm shooting right now.  Four of the images on my port are exactly that.  If that's the intent, it will never come as a surprise in the middle of a shoot.

And if the model ever feels uncomfortable, we simply stop.  Look at the faces on my port and tell me if any look uncomfortable.

If you go look it's sort of an interesting game to see if you can figure out which are faking it and which are real.

-Don

ChristerArt wrote:
That's one of the reasons I insist on a meet - in a public place such as a coffee shop - b4 a shoot so we can get an idea of each other and talk about what I/she has in mind. It's kind a strange - you'd figure that anyone who's seen your work would get a good idea of who you are and what you do but I get tons of requests for TFP's - where the models wants me to shoot her the way *she* wants -and *only* the kind of images she wants - which in effect would be a free portfolio for her..

I like that too, but usually I'm shooting while on travel and it isn't feasible.  A bunch of emails and phone calls ahead of time help, but there's nothing as good as a face-to-face meeting first.

-D

Angelus wrote:

Ok, this is starting to sound like the only mod ling out ther is nude or adult.

Most models' ambitions are NOT to be offered that kind of work. And, in a reach for commercial acievments, they honestly should stay away.
The type of model wishing for more work of this type is NOT the same model wishing to be signed to a major agency, or simply to cross-over commercially.

BUT in the context of this issue. The Art.
It is always good to have those definitions. Why? So that you, the photographer, isn't surprised by a model's sudeen unwillingness to do something. With this in place it gives you the fair opportunity to find the uninhibited model you want.
And, you'll find that most models are wiling to give the photographer what he/she wants, just as long everything is clear.

And, for the work to BE the best. It takes a comfortable nodel with the ability to be free. That is why these terms are good.
Otherwise, you, the photographer, will be (mis) construed as shady or decietful. So, I suggest use them to protect your reputation. Andbe sure of getting what you w
nt.


Example.(very rough ex.)
You "Will you do a shot with me? Nudity may be involved."

She "Sure, what type?"

You "It's an artistic approach. We'll just have feel the moment"

She "Okay"

Day of shoot, 30 mins into the shoot.

You "Ok. I  want you to pose like this. And, put your leg/arm like that."

She "OH HELL NO! What is this? I'm not that kinda model. I'leaving"

You (confused) " What just happened? You'd t ink I asked her to masturbate or something...."

End of shoot. Waste of day. Your name spread negaticely to other people she contacts.


Moral of story?
Miscomunication can have negative results that fester beyond that one event.


Express and explain everything. Be clear about the product you w
nt from the model. Gives you the ability to find the right model. Saves alot of headache. For both of you.

This is one of the biggest advantages of internet portfolios:  You can see [theoretically] what a models limits are before even contacting them...That way, if you ask them for something and they have issues about it, it's on them.

Champion wrote:
It's interesting that so many seem to see it as one persons view when the truth is that what was stated is legitimate. The same info can be found on various web sites.

If you don't believe that here are two you can take a look at. There are many more with this info but these are the two I can remember right now...

http://www.socalpromodels.com/definitions.shtml
http://www.zerotopia.com/info/models/in … terms.html

Almost, but not quite.  Both the websites you listed have the following for Implied Nudity:

Where implied nudity is required for a shot, you will generally be asked to disrobe fully or partially. While the standard is subjective, a photographer will normally not reveal nipples or genitals in the photographs. In some cases, buttocks will be shown. The essence of implied nudity is that the photograph is suggestive but not revealing.

Where the OP's definition diverges from that, actually I'm pretty certain that there are more differences.  Also, in the past here, there have been several posts which discuss this very topic, and I believe there was no solid conclusion. Just goes to show there are lots of different definitions out there for these things, which can unfortunately result is posts like these.  The only safe bet, is to discuss with the model ahead of time what is to be expected, or give the sitter examples the they can relate to.

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
I like that too, but usually I'm shooting while on travel and it isn't feasible.  A bunch of emails and phone calls ahead of time help, but there's nothing as good as a face-to-face meeting first.

-D

Absolutely a face-to-face meeting is good, but what terminology do you use if something is either nude or it's not?  To put it in a different perspective, do you think there's a definite difference between someone modeling a 3-piece suit and an overcoat and someone modeling a sheer piece of ribbon that covers her nipples and pubic area?  They're both clothed, right?  But a model who is comfortable in one may not be comfortable in the other.

Definitions such as these help to put models and photographers on the same page when it comes to discussing what a shoot will entail.  It may be a semantic matter, but that's how we communicate.  Everyone has limits, and they must be respected.  (And if you don't think everyone has limits, on your next shoot hold up a knife and say, "I'd like to photograph your kidney." )

PlasticPuppet wrote:
Almost, but not quite.  Both the websites you listed have the following for Implied Nudity:

Where implied nudity is required for a shot, you will generally be asked to disrobe fully or partially. While the standard is subjective, a photographer will normally not reveal nipples or genitals in the photographs. In some cases, buttocks will be shown. The essence of implied nudity is that the photograph is suggestive but not revealing.

Where the OP's definition diverges from that, actually I'm pretty certain that there are more differences.  Also, in the past here, there have been several posts which discuss this very topic, and I believe there was no solid conclusion. Just goes to show there are lots of different definitions out there for these things, which can unfortunately result is posts like these.  The only safe bet, is to discuss with the model ahead of time what is to be expected, or give the sitter examples the they can relate to.

LoL, I knew someone would see that one word and grab on to it. The only sense it makes to nit pick about little things like that is for an excuse to get a model to take all her clothes off. The over all point of this thread itself from what I see was to educate models against those who would seek to take advange. If you aren't one who would seek to do that there is little reason to speak against the odds and ends of it. There is nothing outrageous that was said.

Of course there are varying "opinions," that's just a fact of life. When stating that is a key part to an argument or discussion it's pretty much self defeating as if you have no true counter message. Differences of "opinion" are what usually ignite discussions in the first place. The important part is what we can learn from the discussions we get into even if it's not about that exact topic. Many times I've seen people paint a bad picture of themselves simply by what they choose to speak against or for.

The last part of what you said is on point though. It's pretty simple, if it's that important to shoot with a model who's willing to take all her clothes off then state that clearly when discussing the shoot. Those who sneak around to see all the "naughty bits" (I so couldn't help using that LoL) are the ones who cause a problem for those who are direct and honest in what they do.

Brian Diaz wrote:
...what terminology do you use if something is either nude or it's not?  To put it in a different perspective, do you think there's a definite difference between someone modeling a 3-piece suit and an overcoat and someone modeling a sheer piece of ribbon that covers her nipples and pubic area?  They're both clothed, right?  But a model who is comfortable in one may not be comfortable in the other.

Brian, for me it's easy.  I don't do anything but erotic nude photography.  Truth is I do shoot models with some rules, but usually they're at the end of the scale that I'm OK discussing.  I'm not particularly interested in shooting spreads or insertions or anything too explicit.  I've done it and in some cases it works, but mostly too much detail doesn't let the viewer make up her own story, so I avoid them.  The problem could come when I'm pointing the camera in the direction of an anus, even though I know it's not going to be in the picture.  I can't have a model puckering up because of that.  She's gotta either not care, or be very trusting for that photograph to work.  An example is the bottom right one on my port.  That image never was explicit even on the film, but if the model had rules, she might have thought I was sneaking a peek or something silly like that.

If, God forbid, I ever do a shoot that involves clothing again, I suppose I'd specify what the clothing is to the model prior to the shoot, whether hers or a client's.  Like many of the posters, I agree that the absolute best thing to do is have a good understanding up front what the shoot will be, then stick to it.

-Don

Champion wrote:
LoL, I knew someone would see that one word and grab on to it. The only sense it makes to nit pick about little things like that is for an excuse to get a model to take all her clothes off. The over all point of this thread itself from what I see was to educate models against those who would seek to take advange. If you aren't one who would seek to do that there is little reason to speak against the odds and ends of it. There is nothing outrageous that was said.

Of course there are varying "opinions," that's just a fact of life. When stating that is a key part to an argument or discussion it's pretty much self defeating as if you have no true counter message. Differences of "opinion" are what usually ignite discussions in the first place. The important part is what we can learn from the discussions we get into even if it's not about that exact topic. Many times I've seen people paint a bad picture of themselves simply by what they choose to speak against or for.

The last part of what you said is on point though. It's pretty simple, if it's that important to shoot with a model who's willing to take all her clothes off then state that clearly when discussing the shoot. Those who sneak around to see all the "naughty bits" (I so couldn't help using that LoL) are the ones who cause a problem for those who are direct and honest in what they do.

Very much agreed.

Side point [I know this frustrating for photographers, but it's life.]
Just because a model may have nude or implied work on ner profile DOES NOT mean she is into that. This could be  a special project with someone she is very comfortable with and trusts. Doesn't guarantee she'll do that with you. So, online portfolios only open up the mind for assuptions. But, what you SAY has more grounds. Soinstead of assuming a model will be 'down'. Always ask her. Plus the copied and posted disclaimer frothe website only sides with photogs allowing them loop holes to manipulate the models.

This forum wasn't started for the photogs. Yet, you've completely taken it over trying to fight for your opinions instead of allowing models to freely find this info and put it to use.

I hatte to get harsh or charged but...

What most of you guys who go against this OP are being segragest.

You want to broaden everything so you can play the game. Leaving the model uninformed so YOU can have your way wuth her. And, as soon as she says "No" to somethung, you got wind in your jaw. Your ego kicks iand now she's useless and unprofessional.

Truthfully AS A MODEL she is NOT here to do YOUR adult work. Or fullfil softcore fantasies.

So, STOP trying to make every woman into an adult star and ragging her ifvshe isn't.

Just go fund the one who will. It's plenty that will. Nive on.

Amazing..instead of this being an informative forum for models to become aware. It has turned into a bashing ground against logical and legal terms as well as sidings with generalized statements to protect your self-serving point of view.


What about the model?
Does she suposed to just DO whatever a photoapher wants?

Get over yourselves and allow flexibity. You can only do so much T&A work.

There hasn't been one model who's weighed in on this topic, because you guys are all over it.


And, please please please remember...

A MODEL'S FIRST PRIORITY IS HER CAREER (Commercial)

And, the MORE adult/nude work she does the less respected she will gain and less chance she'll have.

So STOP making such a big deal out of it. If that's what you want then go to the adult sites and get those models. I'm sure you'll have less complaints.

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
An example is the bottom right one on my port.  That image never was explicit even on the film, but if the model had rules, she might have thought I was sneaking a peek or something silly like that.

Don, you always find the way to make me check your port over and over again

Mark

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
Brian, for me it's easy.  I don't do anything but erotic nude photography.

Sure, it's easy for you, but what about for those of us who want to photograph models in various states of dress?  Shouldn't there be terms that we can use to communicate clearly our intentions?

Brian Diaz wrote:
Sure, it's easy for you, but what about for those of us who want to photograph models in various states of dress?  Shouldn't there be terms that we can use to communicate clearly our intentions?

OK.  If the terms in the original post work for you, then use them. 

Whatever helps communication is good.  But as I implied way up there, I'm afraid that this kind of levels of nakedness scale is more likely to be misused than to be helpful.  An upfront communication with the model without buzzwords would work as well or better.  In my humble opinion.

-Don

Angelus wrote:

Ok, this is starting to sound like the only mod ling out ther is nude or adult.

Most models' ambitions are NOT to be offered that kind of work. And, in a reach for commercial acievments, they honestly should stay away.
The type of model wishing for more work of this type is NOT the same model wishing to be signed to a major agency, or simply to cross-over commercially.

BUT in the context of this issue. The Art.
It is always good to have those definitions. Why? So that you, the photographer, isn't surprised by a model's sudeen unwillingness to do something. With this in place it gives you the fair opportunity to find the uninhibited model you want.
And, you'll find that most models are wiling to give the photographer what he/she wants, just as long everything is clear.

And, for the work to BE the best. It takes a comfortable nodel with the ability to be free. That is why these terms are good.
Otherwise, you, the photographer, will be (mis) construed as shady or decietful. So, I suggest use them to protect your reputation. Andbe sure of getting what you w
nt.


Example.(very rough ex.)
You "Will you do a shot with me? Nudity may be involved."

She "Sure, what type?"

You "It's an artistic approach. We'll just have feel the moment"

She "Okay"

Day of shoot, 30 mins into the shoot.

You "Ok. I  want you to pose like this. And, put your leg/arm like that."

She "OH HELL NO! What is this? I'm not that kinda model. I'leaving"

You (confused) " What just happened? You'd t ink I asked her to masturbate or something...."

End of shoot. Waste of day. Your name spread negaticely to other people she contacts.


Moral of story?
Miscomunication can have negative results that fester beyond that one event.


Express and explain everything. Be clear about the product you w
nt from the model. Gives you the ability to find the right model. Saves alot of headache. For both of you.

I agree.

Chris Ambler wrote:
I'm sure those definitions and constraints work great for you. There's quite different from my experience, and I suspect that every photographer here will say the same.

You're taking a subjective realm with no codification and attempting to reduce it to authority.

That's either naive or overreachingly-arrogant. I'll let you choose which.

I definitely agree, but the definitions provide a somewhat useful point of reference.  They should make for interesting conversation with models and prospective models.

blacquejack wrote:
...just missed "anticipated nude"

And "imagined nude" where the model is unclothed but in another room.

-D

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
We really need a "rolling eyes" emoticon in these forums...

Brian Diaz wrote:
Everyone has limits, and they must be respected.  (And if you don't think everyone has limits, on your next shoot hold up a knife and say, "I'd like to photograph your kidney." )

OMG, that was hilarious.

Kiran Patil wrote:
naughty bits

Doug Swinskey wrote:
im so glad that term isn't part of my vernacular....

Sometimes those naughty bits gets lost in my toolbox, or misplaced.

Angelus wrote:
Just because a model may have nude or implied work on ner profile DOES NOT mean she is into that. This could be  a special project with someone she is very comfortable with and trusts.

You make a good point, HOWEVER, I have to ask, if you're not soliciting for this type of work why post it in your port in the first place?  Isn't the point of having a portfolio to display what you have done and what you are capable of doing?

If a person isn't comfortable shooting nude et. al. images with just anyone, one should state that explicitely in their discription.  Personally, I think it's extremely obnoxious when I see "I DO NOT do "nude" (or other appropriate variation) pictures at all" and see the opposite all over the person's port.

Angelus wrote:
This forum wasn't started for the photogs.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought these forums were for everyone, with different headings to deliniate the subject matter.  At a glance, it appears most of the photogs who've posted are advocating better communication from all parties as the bottom line, of which I would agree will present the best possible outcome.  Please chill out and not paint everyone with such a broad brush.

Joe K. Perez wrote:

Kiran Patil wrote:
naughty bits

Sometimes those naughty bits gets lost in my toolbox, or misplaced.

Hey, I don't recal Doug saying they weren't in his toolbox, just not his vernacular (my god, that word just sounds pornographic).  8}