Forums > Model Colloquy > Is "topless" considered...

Photographer

Womack Photo KCMO

Posts: 2348

Kansas City, Kansas, US

Nude? Is bottomless considered more nude than topless if no pink is showing; just legs and hips. At what point is an obviously totally nude model considered "nude" if NOTHING is showing....when is "implied" not implied anymore?

Feb 23 08 09:46 am Link

Model

Nude Model

Posts: 300

London, England, United Kingdom

Womack Photo wrote:
Nude? Is bottomless considered more nude than topless if no pink is showing; just legs and hips. At what point is an obviously totally nude model considered "nude" if NOTHING is showing....when is "implied" not implied anymore?

Here are what would be my definitions:

Implied topless = boobs out but nipples not on show (covered by hair, pose, handbra etc.)
Topless = boobs out and completely on show
Implied Nude = completely naked but pubic region and nipples not on show
Nude = completely naked, not covering pubic region or nipples but not necessarily open leg
Open leg = showing the pink

A few examples from my portfolio:
Topless: http://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic_ … id=4927556
Implied Nude: http://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic_ … id=5720229 (personally I class bum on show as implied nude)
Nude: http://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic_ … id=5711219

Feb 23 08 09:59 am Link

Feb 23 08 11:09 am Link

Photographer

Digitoxin

Posts: 13362

Houston, Texas, US

Womack Photo wrote:
Nude? Is bottomless considered more nude than topless if no pink is showing; just legs and hips. At what point is an obviously totally nude model considered "nude" if NOTHING is showing....when is "implied" not implied anymore?

I don't mean to be mean but.......

Does it really matter? 

If you need to hire a model for a project tell him/her what state of dress or undress you want for the shoot and see if they are interested.  Simple and easy.

Feb 23 08 11:13 am Link

Photographer

Allure Vision

Posts: 1435

Lansing, Michigan, US

Digitoxin wrote:

I don't mean to be mean but.......

Does it really matter? 

If you need to hire a model for a project tell him/her what state of dress or undress you want for the shoot and see if they are interested.  Simple and easy.

I agree with you. But I also understand the OP's question. You may request topless work and the model shows up thinking implied topless not topless. Then you have issues.

Feb 23 08 11:18 am Link

Photographer

Brooklyn Bridge Images

Posts: 10759

Brooklyn, New York, US

Katie get your
Topless
Implied Nude
Nude
Self over to NYC so I can shoot you doing some crazy dance poses for me
hienvy

Feb 23 08 11:20 am Link

Model

MelissaLynnette LaDiva

Posts: 50816

Leawood, Kansas, US

Womack Photo wrote:
Nude? Is bottomless considered more nude than topless if no pink is showing; just legs and hips. At what point is an obviously totally nude model considered "nude" if NOTHING is showing....when is "implied" not implied anymore?

Implied is not showing "naughty bits".
Topless is taking your top off and showing your nipples.
If a model hears "topless" and thinks "hide nipples" send her home.
This is why I advocate just hiring models who are willing to pose fully nude.
No silly misunderstandings that aggravate people.

Feb 23 08 11:20 am Link

Model

Manda Something

Posts: 3131

Laurel, Mississippi, US

Katie Derry wrote:

Here are what would be my definitions:

Implied topless = boobs out but nipples not on show (covered by hair, pose, handbra etc.)
Topless = boobs out and completely on show
Implied Nude = completely naked but pubic region and nipples not on show
Nude = completely naked, not covering pubic region or nipples but not necessarily open leg
Open leg = showing the pink

A few examples from my portfolio:
Topless: http://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic_ … id=4927556
Implied Nude: http://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic_ … id=5720229 (personally I class bum on show as implied nude)
Nude: http://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic_ … id=5711219

I love the the second picture! I am jealous of your butt

Feb 23 08 11:21 am Link

Photographer

C h a r l e s D

Posts: 9307

Los Angeles, California, US

Topless is considered topless.

Feb 23 08 12:46 pm Link

Model

Dances with Wolves

Posts: 25108

SHAWNEE ON DELAWARE, Pennsylvania, US

I think enough people feel that there is a difference between the two that clarification is important.

I used to write "No nudes" and I would get topless requests, so I modified it to "no nudes or topless, up to full implied only".

Feb 23 08 12:48 pm Link

Photographer

SayCheeZ!

Posts: 18599

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Stina C wrote:
18+
Open Leg   http://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic_ … id=4620547

Someone just got a ton of hits to their MM portfolio page!

Feb 23 08 02:17 pm Link

Photographer

StephenEastwood

Posts: 19583

Great Neck, New York, US

Just a quick question in general,  if a girl has no breasts, I mean flatter than a 12 year old boy, is it still topless in a "bad topless" sort of way or is it like a boy being topless?


Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Feb 23 08 02:46 pm Link

Photographer

StephenEastwood

Posts: 19583

Great Neck, New York, US

Daniela Victoria  wrote:
I think enough people feel that there is a difference between the two that clarification is important.

I used to write "No nudes" and I would get topless requests, so I modified it to "no nudes or topless, up to full implied only".

What about raunchy naked?  I mean nude sounds all art like, so does raunchy nakedness equate and count the same or is that different?  and does it matter if its going to be shot in a Terry Richardson style vs a glamour style?


Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Feb 23 08 02:48 pm Link

Photographer

Robert Randall

Posts: 13842

Chicago, Illinois, US

Womack Photo wrote:
Nude? Is bottomless considered more nude than topless if no pink is showing; just legs and hips. At what point is an obviously totally nude model considered "nude" if NOTHING is showing....when is "implied" not implied anymore?

What if the model is completely nude, but the lens is shoved so far up her hootch that you only see a slightly reddish glow from the flashlight pressed against her belly. Is that considered nude, or just showing pink?

Feb 23 08 02:52 pm Link

Photographer

John Jebbia

Posts: 27853

Phoenix, Arizona, US

Digitoxin wrote:
I don't mean to be mean but.......

Does it really matter? 

If you need to hire a model for a project tell him/her what state of dress or undress you want for the shoot and see if they are interested.  Simple and easy.

Taking this one step further. Just cast everything as a nude job, whether you need nudity or not and then it's never an issue.

Feb 23 08 02:56 pm Link

Photographer

LV Glamour

Posts: 43

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

"Playboy style nude" generally means no spreads and "Erotic nude" means spreads are ok.


StephenEastwood wrote:

What about raunchy naked?  I mean nude sounds all art like, so does raunchy nakedness equate and count the same or is that different?  and does it matter if its going to be shot in a Terry Richardson style vs a glamour style?


Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Feb 23 08 02:57 pm Link

Photographer

Geary Enterprises

Posts: 663

Rochester, New York, US

Just gonna sit back and watch this one with some popcorn, will either be hillarious or a total train wreck.... LOL big_smile

Feb 23 08 02:59 pm Link

Photographer

Geary Enterprises

Posts: 663

Rochester, New York, US

RobertFerrara wrote:
"Playboy style nude" generally means no spreads and "Erotic nude" means spreads are ok.

K can't help myself here, Last I knew Playboy published "Erotic Nudes" including spread shots to be a little more PC "open leg" or "pink shots" Being a bit different from "Adult Nude" such as Hustler and Penthouse style

Me thinks me will need a beer to wash down popcorn

Feb 23 08 03:00 pm Link

Photographer

Jim Ewing

Posts: 4576

Fullerton, California, US

Implied nude means that the viewer can assume the model isn't wearing any clothes under whatever is blocking the ability to see details of the private parts (aside from clothes being an obvious barier).  Shadow can also be used to effectively hide any private parts. 

A butt crack showing is nude, not implied.  However, if you see a full hip and half a cheek strategically peeking through a wrapped sheet, then that is implied.

If you can see your nipple, consider it topless...even through a wet t-shirt if the darkened areolas are obvious.  Hand covering is implied. Any artical of clothing that shows some of the boob but no nipple, like a belt where you can see the under portion of the boob is called FASHION!   wink

Feb 23 08 03:00 pm Link

Model

Art Maat

Posts: 144

New York, New York, US

StephenEastwood wrote:
Just a quick question in general,  if a girl has no breasts, I mean flatter than a 12 year old boy, is it still topless in a "bad topless" sort of way or is it like a boy being topless?


Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Umm, that would be me- I don't think I look too boyish, although someone did call one of my pictures androgenous, lol.

And ALL nudity is "bad" where ya been man...

Feb 23 08 03:01 pm Link

Photographer

Jim Ewing

Posts: 4576

Fullerton, California, US

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:
What if the model is completely nude, but the lens is shoved so far up her hootch that you only see a slightly reddish glow from the flashlight pressed against her belly. Is that considered nude, or just showing pink?

It would be better if you just bought the "Photoshop Guide to Hand-Coloring Your Ultrasounds for Dummies" book.

Feb 23 08 03:01 pm Link

Model

Art Maat

Posts: 144

New York, New York, US

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

What if the model is completely nude, but the lens is shoved so far up her hootch that you only see a slightly reddish glow from the flashlight pressed against her belly. Is that considered nude, or just showing pink?

Whoa

Feb 23 08 03:02 pm Link

Photographer

Jim Ewing

Posts: 4576

Fullerton, California, US

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

What if the model is completely nude, but the lens is shoved so far up her hootch that you only see a slightly reddish glow from the flashlight pressed against her belly. Is that considered nude, or just showing pink?

You know the answer to this...

It depends if the lens is a Nikon or a Canon lens.

Feb 23 08 03:04 pm Link

Photographer

StephenEastwood

Posts: 19583

Great Neck, New York, US

Art Maat wrote:
Umm, that would be me- I don't think I look too boyish, although someone did call one of my pictures androgenous, lol.

And ALL nudity is "bad" where ya been man...

OK, but is it bad? or is it that we feel a level of sympathy for and its bad to look and stare just like its considered bad form to stare at the retarded or handicapped?  wink  And looking at your pictures I have seen a lot, I mean a lot flatter than you.


Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Feb 23 08 03:05 pm Link

Photographer

Kansas Photo

Posts: 122

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

What if the model is completely nude, but the lens is shoved so far up her hootch that you only see a slightly reddish glow from the flashlight pressed against her belly. Is that considered nude, or just showing pink?

It's only considered nude if you can see what she had for dinner yesterday.

Feb 23 08 03:10 pm Link

Photographer

StephenEastwood

Posts: 19583

Great Neck, New York, US

Kansas Photo wrote:
It's only considered nude if you can see what she had for dinner yesterday.

Is'nt that more like the 2 girl 1 cup thing?  Just asking?

Casue that is just really not appealing at all sad

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Feb 23 08 03:13 pm Link

Photographer

Jim Ewing

Posts: 4576

Fullerton, California, US

StephenEastwood wrote:

Is'nt that more like the 2 girl 1 cup thing?  Just asking?

Casue that is just really not appealing at all sad

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

That would be if you EAT what they had for dinner yesturday.

Feb 23 08 03:14 pm Link

Photographer

StephenEastwood

Posts: 19583

Great Neck, New York, US

Jim Ewing wrote:

That would be if you EAT what they had for dinner yesturday.

Ooohhhh!  Thanks smile


Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Feb 23 08 03:19 pm Link

Photographer

Kansas Photo

Posts: 122

StephenEastwood wrote:
Is'nt that more like the 2 girl 1 cup thing?  Just asking?

Casue that is just really not appealing at all sad

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Actually I was refering to what Kevlar vest girl said and thinking before it left the confines of the body. And you are right, it is really not appealing.

Feb 23 08 03:19 pm Link

Photographer

Geary Enterprises

Posts: 663

Rochester, New York, US

Kansas Photo wrote:

Actually I was refering to what Kevlar vest girl said and thinking before it left the confines of the body.

r u trying to be anal or something?

Feb 23 08 03:20 pm Link

Photographer

KRAZE-IMAGES

Posts: 465

Carl Junction, Missouri, US

Digitoxin wrote:

I don't mean to be mean but.......

Does it really matter? 

If you need to hire a model for a project tell him/her what state of dress or undress you want for the shoot and see if they are interested.  Simple and easy.

I kind of agree...there seems to be different views on the semantics depending on the person...I just explain fully when contacting the model on what would be required.

Feb 23 08 03:25 pm Link

Photographer

KnightStorm Productions

Posts: 25

Federal Way, Washington, US

Okay, I'm getting ready to duck and cover here, but I think it matters what nude means in general to models for at least this reason.  I hire models and shoot up to topless, but never, ever full nudity.  I personally consider topless to be topless and nudity to mean no panties either.  But I think a lot of models that don't want to do topless say "no nudity", while others who put no nudity mean "no bottomless" but they would gladly do topless only.

I don't ever want to be one of those guys that writes a "no nudity" model who won't even do topless and bother them with work they don't want, but I also feel I might not be writing to a lot of girls who'd love the job when it is only topless and not full nude.  So I'm missing out on a model and she is missing out on the work. Simply saying "No topless or full nudity" or just "no full nudity" which would indicate topless is probably ok would be so much easier to understand and since I doubt I'm alone in my confusion here, might end up with a lot more models getting a lot more bookings, and not getting so many hits for work they won't do.

Feb 23 08 03:32 pm Link

Photographer

Robert Randall

Posts: 13842

Chicago, Illinois, US

Kansas Photo wrote:

It's only considered nude if you can see what she had for dinner yesterday.

Wrong hole!

Feb 23 08 03:34 pm Link

Photographer

Digitoxin

Posts: 13362

Houston, Texas, US

KnightStorm Productions wrote:
Okay, I'm getting ready to duck and cover here, but I think it matters what nude means in general to models for at least this reason.  I hire models and shoot up to topless, but never, ever full nudity.  I personally consider topless to be topless and nudity to mean no panties either.  But I think a lot of models that don't want to do topless say "no nudity", while others who put no nudity mean "no bottomless" but they would gladly do topless only.

I don't ever want to be one of those guys that writes a "no nudity" model who won't even do topless and bother them with work they don't want, but I also feel I might not be writing to a lot of girls who'd love the job when it is only topless and not full nude.  So I'm missing out on a model and she is missing out on the work. Simply saying "No topless or full nudity" or just "no full nudity" which would indicate topless is probably ok would be so much easier to understand and since I doubt I'm alone in my confusion here, might end up with a lot more models getting a lot more bookings, and not getting so many hits for work they won't do.

Each of us must approach our work as individuals.

But, methinks that you are over-thinking this issue.

Write a clear and concise casting or email when you approach a model for a shoot.

Simple, easy.

Feb 23 08 06:53 pm Link

Model

TxCiara

Posts: 3465

Austin, Texas, US

It depends on the person I guess. Everyone has their own definitions for what is considered nudes and what not.

Feb 23 08 08:22 pm Link

Photographer

OLJ Nudes

Posts: 190

Winnetka, California, US

CiaraK wrote:
It depends on the person I guess. Everyone has their own definitions for what is considered nudes and what not.

So true.
I've booked once model for nude shoot, only to find out that she doesn't take out panties. In her definitions topless was already nude.

Now while booking I explicitly state that nude means no clothes whatsoever.

My new concern that I’ll get model for nude shoot who will refuse to put some lingerie on when I need it tongue

Feb 24 08 01:21 pm Link

Model

Stina C

Posts: 480

Sacramento, California, US

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

What if the model is completely nude, but the lens is shoved so far up her hootch that you only see a slightly reddish glow from the flashlight pressed against her belly. Is that considered nude, or just showing pink?

Isn't an ultrasound an example of child pornography? It is indecent how they always shoot the fetus nude!

Feb 24 08 01:48 pm Link

Photographer

C h a r l e s D

Posts: 9307

Los Angeles, California, US

Jim Ewing wrote:

You know the answer to this...

It depends if the lens is a Nikon or a Canon lens.

He he.

Feb 24 08 01:50 pm Link

Photographer

Tizzy Photography

Posts: 1132

Miami, Florida, US

Topless is also often refereed to as "semi-Nude"
-Tizzy

Feb 24 08 01:53 pm Link

Photographer

UIPHOTOS

Posts: 3591

Dayton, Ohio, US

I had a girl contact me about doing some implied nudes.. we met, talked about when and where we could shoot and then she asked me WHAT she should bring.. Thinking implied, I asked what she meant and she said, "Oh I was thinking some cute lingerie"..

So to HER anything sheer was implied nudity..

So I ALWAYS ask the people that I plan on shooting with how THEY define things.. ALWAYS..

Because there is no one set standard for everyone.. I have friends that dont feel nude unless you can see birth canal..

So with better communication these issues are often avoided, but as with many of these type issues too many assumptions are at play.. Funny that people will want to shoot something that they cant discuss openly.. Go figure..

Feb 24 08 02:03 pm Link