Tim Downin wrote:
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.


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.

First off I stated that it is something being annoing to photographers, yet they cannot help it is...."Models who post nude work but say that they don't do it."
And, actually it IS a model's right and choice to post any images she wants. I also state that a model may, in fact, do nude work. But, she might NOT be comfortable with you or anyone other than the photographer she shot the nudes with. And, 'whining' over the type of nudity you want does not help sway her otherwise. Let her be her. She can choose to shoot any project she's offered...or not shoot it. Who are you to judge?
If it frustrates you, move on to the next model.

Second, obviously you can't interpret nor read thoroughly. As you proved from your first and second reverbs to two things in my post.
I am not painting a broad brush and I never generalized. I'm speaking of this specific forum topic. Not the entire forum. And, yes most of the photogs on here agree to better having communication. And, have slightly different takes on it. That's Not The Issue.

But, because of a couple who keep replying and trying to justify non-clarity to advance their own wishes only, this discussiohas be swayed from it's purpose. We're sitting here watching photographers go back and forth about communicating properly and allowing room for loop holes to manipulate models for softcore porn work. This discuss was solely started as a way to have a guideline when photographers request any work associated with nudity.


You reallly need to go back and read my post again instead of s
imming through it and attempting [b]poorly[/b to attack what I say.

I hate it when people don't pay attention to something but feel the need to comment.

This forum discuss was started so MODELS and photographers can have a guideline to agree upon. NOT for panicking photogs to attack and try to discredit.

It's amazing how ALL models and most photographers agree to having more clarity. And, for the one's that disagree to (the one's refuting here) consist solely of photographers. That should be at least a hint.

So after you go back and\read my post Which you probably won't if your prior history serves correctly...
What was your point again?

Thank you.

And, Tim...understand that I'm stating your nor anyone's point wrong. I'm stating that you must READ my post and not make assuptions. It's LONG for a reason. Everything you stated I did was the complete opposite of what I wrote.

And, as having been involved heavily on both sides ofvthe industry. My views are going to be the most unbiazed you'll read.

Tim Downin wrote:

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}

*whispers to Tim*  I don't want Kiran to think we're hijacking the thread.

...but, which word sounds pornographic? Vernacular? *shushed chuckle* It's right up there with Jugular and Centrifugal force. Sounds hekka x-rated!

Chris Ambler wrote:
I'll hit just one - you say that "implied" means that the model is clothed. I shoot implied with the model nude, but covering strategic areas. You couldn't tell from the final image if she's clothed or not, but the chance of getting a shot almost perfect but for a bit of underwear showing are too much - that would ruin a perfectly great shot or, at a minimum, cause unnecessary photoshop work.

If a model doesn't trust me to discard any shots that show too much when we're shooting for implied, she shouldn't work with me at all.

That's one, clear example of where your definitions are quite subjective.

Had you prefaced your post with, "These are my opinions and how I shoot..." I wouldn't have said a word.

First, thanks for giving an example. I appreciate it.

In the past year I've spent a lot of time talking to older models and photographers who shot nudes in the 50's and 60's. It cuold be that my terms are outdated - and that the meanings have changed. Most of them made very distinct Implied Nudes and Covered Nudes. The reason it is called "implied" is because you are wearing clothing, but because you are strategically blocking the clothes - it is implied you are nude. Whereas a Covered Nude means you are fully nude but covering your body parts - which is what I think you have done in the past.

So I guess we have the same definitions - just different words for it? You call it Implied while I call it Covered.

As for not trusting you - I agree. A model shouldn't work with you if he/she doesn't trust you. No model should work with any photographer they have doubts about. Even if they do trust you - I see no reason not to put it in the contract, though. It's like buying a car. The salesperson might be a great guy - but there is always the slim possibility you are getting a lemon. It's nothing personal, just insurance.

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
The category "hardcore" does not apply to my shoots.  Look at the port and tell me if any of it really should be described by "hardcore."

Sorry, I missed this post the first time. Looked at your portfolio. Great work! I have a very slow connection, so I was only able to glance at thumbnails, but I'll take a good look at it later.

I actually did a short film project in college like this. I shot closeups of men's and women's faces as they masturbated and created a collage. I forget what the title was - it was something pretentious. Anyway, I've actually thought about it for years after. Here is what my personal thoughts are on what I and what you are doing. I actually wanted to do this again down the line with still photography. Guess you beat me to it

Someone suggested I preface my statements by saying this is only my opinion. I would imagine that everything that comes from me is my opinion and not the voice of God, but okay...

THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION...

If you're asking a model to masturbate - regardless of whether you are photograping just the expression on her face or the act - it's hardcore. I don't see a way of getting around that. Her hands are manipulating her genitals in order to arouse herself. That DOES NOT negate any artistic intention, though. I think of Hardcore as an objective description of what the model is being asked to do. Not whether it is wrong, right, bad or even pornographic, etc. Of course, maybe I'm a bit too liberal in not ascribing societal views to the word.

In retrospect, I can say that I screwed up shooting my short film. I did misrepresent to the actors what we were doing. Not intentionally. I let the artistic pursuit overide my objectivity. I truly believe I should have respected them enough to call it hardcore. Of course maybe I feel like that because I'll be 30 soon and I'm growing in to an old fuddy duddy

HOWEVER, if you are talking about JUST the results of the photo - I would say, "no" it's not hardcore. Because you aren't explicity showing the act with the intention of arousing the viewer to the point of requiring relief - if you know what I mean. Even in those cases, there is still a lot of art in hardcore - but that's an entirely different discussion. Right now, we're discussing what to call the act of masturbation by a model.

This being said - I don't really see it necessary that you personally tell models they are doing Hardcore style poses. I mean if you ask them to masturbate on camera, I would think it's self evident. Though, I think a model should call it hardcore and put it in the contract. Legally speaking, it falls under the US Code Title 18, Chapter 110, section 2257, subsection h, paragraph 1 and 4 as pornography. Even if you aren't photographing the actual act - the fact that the girls are masturbating while captured is enough. Whether you agree is irrelevant. The U.S. government sees it as such - but unless a district attorney REALLY has it out for you, I doubt that fine distinction will be made. I'm sure almost every judge in this country would see the artistic merit in what you are doing - regardless if they like it.

Kiran

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.

I don't quite understand why so much was in bolding going on here...  but whatever.  

There is alot sense in nitpicking, especially when you start by saying this is the definition of X, and then someone else agrees and they post another definition which doesn't resemble what the first definition is -- well does, but doesn't.  Legal problems can arise because of one single word, I've seen it happen, not in the field of photography but in my main field of web design.    And now, with the definitions above,  we are dealing with photography where the matter of contention could be over a 5.00 g-string....

Anyways, like you said, it is important to discuss these things, but nitpicking is a vital part of the process and therefore it is essential to discuss these things.

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. 

-Don

I have to agree with you my friend! I think its better to let the model "veto" the images after the fact. I just feel that it makes a shoot flow better!

PlasticPuppet wrote:
I don't quite understand why so much was in bolding going on here...  but whatever.

The bolding makes it a quicker read for those with short attention spans. Pointing out the main parts without removing the additions that give clarity. Makes skimming much easier while giving the opportunity to still get the main concepts.

Joe K. Perez wrote:
Sometimes those naughty bits gets lost in my toolbox, or misplaced.

Do you mount the naughty bits on your drill, and does it have a hand tightened chuck? 

( sorry I couldn't resist!)

Paul

theda wrote:
A common set of terms is an essential part of communication. That's what language is all about.  The definitions givewn in this post are pretty standard (at least for the internet) and save some time when trying to establish just what is being sought after in the shoot.

The problem is that the level of persinickiness that this sort of language implies and condones can actually be irritating and counterproductive. That's not to diminish the concerns of a model who might be a bit modest to one degree or another. We are all human beings, we are all on the same side trying to make money/imagery/both together. But defining any work that involves any sort of nudity to the point that we have to break out a 75 page rule book and related rate sheet and so on and so forth is just not a good thing. This is almost "photography by insurance company or trial lawer." Also, the original poster kept referring to these as "industry-standard terms" and never once in the "industry" have I ever heard or used such stuff.

When all is said and done, if you're gonna shoot stuff that's revealing, it's best to book a model that's cool with it. Which is what we all knew anyway, without need for all this.