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?
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: https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=4927556
Implied Nude: https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=5720229 (personally I class bum on show as implied nude)
Nude: https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=5711219
Model
Stina C
Posts: 480
Sacramento, California, US
Photographer
Digitoxin
Posts: 13456
Denver, Colorado, 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.
Photographer
Allure Vision
Posts: 1438
Atlanta, Georgia, 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.
Photographer
Brooklyn Bridge Images
Posts: 13200
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 
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.
Photographer
C h a r l e s D
Posts: 9312
Los Angeles, California, US
Topless is considered topless.
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".
Photographer
SayCheeZ!
Posts: 20616
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Photographer
StephenEastwood
Posts: 19585
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
Photographer
StephenEastwood
Posts: 19585
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
Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13890
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?
Photographer
Arizona Shoots
Posts: 28653
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.
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
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 
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
Photographer
Jim Ewing
Posts: 4577
Riverside, 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! 
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...
Photographer
Jim Ewing
Posts: 4577
Riverside, 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.
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
Photographer
Jim Ewing
Posts: 4577
Riverside, 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.
Photographer
StephenEastwood
Posts: 19585
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? And looking at your pictures I have seen a lot, I mean a lot flatter than you.
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com
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.
Photographer
StephenEastwood
Posts: 19585
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 
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com
Photographer
Jim Ewing
Posts: 4577
Riverside, 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
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com That would be if you EAT what they had for dinner yesturday.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13890
Chicago, Illinois, US
Kansas Photo wrote:
It's only considered nude if you can see what she had for dinner yesterday. Wrong hole!
Photographer
Digitoxin
Posts: 13456
Denver, Colorado, 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.
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.
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 Iâll get model for nude shoot who will refuse to put some lingerie on when I need it 
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!
Photographer
C h a r l e s D
Posts: 9312
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.
Photographer
Tizzy Photography
Posts: 1132
Miami, Florida, US
Topless is also often refereed to as "semi-Nude"
-Tizzy
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..
|
