|
Forums >
General Industry >
Nude vs Implied nude, when is the line crossed?
And I don't mean a GWC coercing the model or other rants  I just notice a lot of profiles that claim they don't do nudes according to the profile search option.But I'm always intrigued when I see someone claim they don't shoot nudes but will do implieds, but then they have a photo where they have hair, or even a hand bra, or suspenders, or something just covering their nipples, and it really makes you think. Or better yet, when they claim they don't do nudes (and no disclaimer about how they will do them with select togs who are exceptional and god's gift to the camera), but have actual nudes in their port, topless or full or both. Hiding under a sheet, I can see as being implied. Hiding your nipples with a thin braid of hair, not so much. IMO at least. I'm not wanting to rant, or hear why one model can decide what she wants to do despite what her profile says. That's not what this is about. I just want to hear thought/opinions/discussions on when something becomes actually nude, cause I'm sure everyone defines them slightly differently. Is it literally when certain body parts are fully exposed? Because hair braids don't really imply anything. It's pretty obvious you're topless under them. I'm not looking for what is nude and what isn't. Just, when is the line crossed and not implied anymore. When does implied become nude, and when is nude actually nude nude? Go! Mar 13 11 11:13 am Link If panties and bra come off, by default it will be considered nude, unless such items are being used to cover the goodies then it automatically becomes a nude and it will not be implied anymore. Mar 13 11 11:18 am Link There's just no hard and fast definition. Ten people will tell you ten different things, and argue about it for pages to come in this thread. All that matters is: a) The limits agreed upon by a model and photographer for a particular shoot as to 'what shows' and how much is 'covered.' b) The rules of any particular site, such as Model Mayhem, as to what content is allowed to be displayed in various site areas (portfolio, avatar, forums, etc). Mar 13 11 11:19 am Link It's whatever the model thinks is nude. Mar 13 11 11:20 am Link I wouldn't put too much energy on that. I would focus my attention on finding those who connect to my work and nothing else. Mar 13 11 11:22 am Link I prefer the term "concealed nude", because it's not implied, its nude. Either way, I wouldn't shoot it. Mar 13 11 11:22 am Link The rule of nudes is the same as the Elaine Bennet Christmas card photo Rule on Seinfield, when the nipple shows (also genitals or pubic hair) it is nude. The nipple part only applies to female models. Mar 13 11 11:23 am Link i think models just have different levels of comfort when it comes to nudity. i've seen "implieds" where the backside was anything but implied. i think you just have to sort out with each model where the limits are (and that may vary depending on the photographer). Mar 13 11 11:24 am Link Digiography wrote: What about the classic pose where the male model pulls down down jeans to show pubic hair, but keeps his jeans on? Is that nude? Or implied, come to that? Mar 13 11 11:28 am Link As already reflected, there is definately a fine line between nude and implied. IMHO, bra and/or panties is lingerie not implied nude. Implied nude is just that, you look at the picture and believe the model is naked under whatever cover is hiding their essentials. Like a classic fabric drape or unfastened garment allowing a portion of the otherwise considered indecent parts to be partially visible. Like the sides of the breast or top of the buttocks. For my implied nude shoots, I expect the model to be nude excluding props used to conceal the essentials. If that means I turn my back so they can reposition and recover their critical parts, then so be it. Mar 13 11 11:30 am Link I think that 'Implied nude' is when you THINK the model was nude but she wasn't so areas are covered or vice versa if she did indeed take the shot fully nude but posed in a way that doesn't show her entire breasts and goodies. And nude is just when you see everything, no posing tricks and no hand bra, just bare goodies exposed! lol This is ONE KIND of definition some models use, so others might have a different answer. Mar 13 11 11:32 am Link when you can see her area down "there". Mar 13 11 11:34 am Link Simple really, it doesn't have to be complicated... Nude = Playboy Implied = Maxim If you can see the "naughty bits" (vagina, pubic hair, nipples) then it's nude. If the "naughty bits" are covered or hidden then it's implied. Mar 13 11 11:35 am Link Simple. If there is an "implication" that the model is nude then it is an implied. If the model is nude, but covering herself with her hands, then she is still nude. Mar 13 11 11:36 am Link For me implied nude means that some area isn't visible on the final shoot. So that means that the model could be covered during the shoot or during the postwork was covered or hidden some area. Mar 13 11 11:36 am Link wynnesome wrote: I'm not looking for a definition Mar 13 11 11:36 am Link As for mixed messages who doesn't like a little mystery...... Mar 13 11 11:38 am Link alessandro2009 wrote: What I was getting at though, is sometimes, they're under a sheet, and you think they're nude. But there are tons of photos I've seen, hell even shot myself, where they are stark naked, but it's covered by blurred foliage in the foreground. But you can still tell they're nude, even if you can't see it clearly. That's where the line gets blurred. Mar 13 11 11:38 am Link 976 Photography wrote: Good comparison for Playboy vs Maxim, but if you are getting the Vagina it's either science or porn (since that's the inside, beyond the vulva). Mar 13 11 11:40 am Link . Proper terminology is **not** being used in this thread thus far...! "Implied nude", according to the 100+ year old photography definition, is that the model is fully clothed or fully draped and the image implies nudity -- such as a model lying on their back on a bed and draped with a sheet that conforms to their figure. "Demure nude", according to the 100+ year old photography definition, is that the model is nude but their gender specific anatomy is hidden from camera view by props and/or pose. "Nude" is wherein gender specific anatomy shows in the image and is neither of the above. The lines are very well defined. There is no quibbling or confusion involved. . Mar 13 11 11:41 am Link Silverwing Photography wrote: Ok, well I meant the actual pubic area, since some girls are sans pubic hair. Mar 13 11 11:43 am Link RSM-images wrote: Definitions change, and the words used to define them Mar 13 11 11:46 am Link Thre is no rule and there is no definition. That''s why we have this same discussion over and over. Mar 13 11 11:47 am Link . The proper definitions are as I gave them, above. Ignorance is not a valid reason for redefinition. If others are jumping off a cliff to their death -- are you one to follow them? Just because some posted something onto the nitternet does not mean that such nitwits were correct. . Mar 13 11 11:50 am Link RSM-images wrote: According to the century old definition of the word "gay" it means joyfull, bright, merry and carefree. Mar 13 11 11:56 am Link RSM-images wrote: Who said anything about ignorance? And don't pretend that ideas and opinions don't change. Language drifts, that was what I was getting at. Mar 13 11 11:58 am Link This doesn't seem like rocket science to me yet this comes up repeatedly here. If a model has no clothes on, then she is nude. Implied nude would mean that the model was wearing clothes but the clothes were not visible in the resulting photograph giving the appearance or the implication that she was nude. A perfect example would be a model standing behind a fence and just her head and shoulder are visible. There is a sign on the fence which says "NUDIST CAMP," implying that the model were nude. If the model actually were nude, then the result would be a covered nude. Dave Mar 13 11 11:59 am Link It's a matter of what the model reveals to the camera. In any case, she/he is nude/topless in the photographer's presence. While I have several topless/bottomless examples in my MM portfolio (sorry - I don't know how to post images to a discussion thread), by my definition - one which I believe I picked up in a Peter Gowland book years ago - there's only one photo that is an implied nude. For anyone who cares to take a look at my examples, the difference is obvious and the "implied" image won't need any further explanation. Mar 13 11 11:59 am Link . Mnemosyne Photography wrote: . Mar 13 11 12:00 pm Link Mnemosyne Photography wrote: For me if a model is nude but i don't see certain area became an implied nude. Mnemosyne Photography wrote: When i speak about cover a part i means that should not be visible, while if is transparent became nude. Mar 13 11 12:06 pm Link RSM-images wrote: Sounds like you're speaking from experience? Mar 13 11 12:08 pm Link Like was said, all depends on the model's personal definition. I've seen things where she is nude but you can't see the nipple or crotch area so she calls it implied. I've seen back shots naked from head to toe but again because you don't see pubes or nipples they think it's implied Except in a very few cases where it is well done, implied is just a tease and usually badly done. Or they are just fooling themselves or their boyfriends by saying they don't shoot nudes. Either way, I want no part of it.... kind of shows me how messed up they are in their heads. Either show or show not, but truthful be. Mar 13 11 12:10 pm Link RSM-images wrote: This is not a slam, but ... can you show me thos 100+ year old definitions from a credible resource such as a respected dictionary industry encyclopedia? I have been shooting now, for over 40 years. I have made my entire living as a photogrpaher doing glamour. I have seen this debate rage for years. Mar 13 11 12:12 pm Link You know their are plenty if "definitions" out there to describe what you want to do.. and unfortunately saying "I want to take pictures of you completely naked only I don't want any of your 'naughty bits' seen in any of my photos" is just to long to say for some people.. so they give that phrase a word Implied. is it the TRUE sense of the word? no... Does it get the meaning across of what you want to do? most likely. So, no splitting hairs about it.. if you have a question.. ask the model you are looking at and see what her answer is.. as answers vary greatly. Mar 13 11 12:14 pm Link In my experience it's quite common for models to include 'artistic' nude within their definition of 'implied' nude. So long as the pubic area isn't too showy then anything goes. However there's no such thing as a commonly understood definition of implied nude - you just have to discuss precisely what you need with each and every model to establish the boundaries. Mar 13 11 12:16 pm Link Hmmm, I had hoped more models would jump in and respond. Mar 13 11 12:17 pm Link The way I deal with the issue is to say to a model, in advance, "If anything I ask you to do is uncomfortable, tell me no and we will move on to something else." I do discuss the concept prior to finalizing a booking but want to give them that extra insurance. While shooting I'll tell them how the photograph is framed and what can be seen. I have also written to models after a shoot, if I see something in the film that we did not discuss, so they can tell me yes or no if it is acceptable. I never try to talk a model into something, if she says no to a concept then no it is. Defining these terms unambiguously would be a bit like defining what is art. If a model says she is willing to do implied, and we decide together what that means, then we are good to go. Mar 13 11 12:27 pm Link Simple. If they say one thing and show another, they are lying. Whether or not that matters is left as an exercise for the reader. Mar 13 11 12:27 pm Link Mark Harris Photography wrote: Hey, I'm not accusing you - I don't know you from Adam - but there are plenty of photographers that have ended up being labelled as level pushers relying on that technique. Some models are uncertain, eager to please, concerned that they get paid their fee or just reluctant to say 'no' until it's too late by which time they've gone beyond their comfort zone. They then go home and agonise about what they 'allowed themselves' to do. Some time later another model tells them that the photographer took advantage of them and you end up with a label. Mar 13 11 12:44 pm Link The Beauty Of Light wrote: And how do you do that if the model doesn't say no. Mar 13 11 12:48 pm Link |
