Forums > General Industry > Implied Nudity Definition

Photographer

Nelia

Posts: 2161

San Francisco, California, US

So someone started a thread about Implied Nude Poses:

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa … age=1#last

It appears that there is a wide varition of the definition of "Implied Nude"  I have always used I have always used the definition of "Implied Nude" as knowing that the model is nude but no "private" parts are visible in the image or painting.

What is your definition?

Mar 19 11 12:32 am Link

Photographer

Christopher Carter

Posts: 7777

Indianapolis, Indiana, US

Nelia wrote:
So someone started a thread about Implied Nude Poses:

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa … age=1#last

It appears that there is a wide varition of the definition of "Implied Nude"  I have always used I have always used the definition of "Implied Nude" as knowing that the model is nude but no "private" parts are visible in the image or painting.

What is your definition?

Pretty much what you said.

Mar 19 11 12:35 am Link

Photographer

Wysiwyg Photography

Posts: 6326

Salt Lake City, Utah, US

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, as it's not really implying anything if you can clearly see they aren't wearing any clothes (whether you see 'girly bits' or not)... 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 19 11 12:38 am Link

Photographer

Norman Gould

Posts: 3462

North Bend, Oregon, US

You will get good answers.  I will stay out of except to say that an implied nude shoot, I would likely charge for, because it would be too "Tight for my natural way of shooting.

Mar 19 11 12:43 am Link

Photographer

myfotographer

Posts: 3488

Fresno, California, US

I don't care about definitions. I care about great images and comfortable models.

They only way to ensure a productive to shoot is to make certain that everyone involved knows exactly what the shoot is and requires.

Some think the right answer is to only shoot "implied" with "nude" models. The problem reverts back to the same. What is a "nude"? Direct and candid converstation is the key.

Mar 19 11 12:43 am Link

Photographer

NothingIsRealButTheGirl

Posts: 35726

Los Angeles, California, US

Nelia wrote:
What is your definition?

Same one I gave in the other thread 10 minutes ago.

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa … st15018144

Mar 19 11 12:44 am Link

Photographer

NothingIsRealButTheGirl

Posts: 35726

Los Angeles, California, US

https://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41r2AriqrFL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

In a true implied nude the model could be wearing a bikini and you'd never know it.

Nudity is implied by the setting.

Mar 19 11 12:46 am Link

Photographer

Nelia

Posts: 2161

San Francisco, California, US

Norman Gould wrote:
You will get good answers.  I will stay out of except to say that an implied nude shoot, I would likely charge for, because it would be too "Tight for my natural way of shooting.

Now that is a good answer!  Have you ever thought of becoming a Politician?  smile
I am going to make it up to Oregon to meet you one day!

Mar 19 11 12:46 am Link

Photographer

Vanderplas

Posts: 1427

Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Nelia wrote:
I consider this an Implied Nude shot, but on MM you can not show a Butt?

http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/9198439  18+

And then there is this one:

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/090921/01/4ab73cc469443.jpg

same as in the other thread..this is not "implied"

Mar 19 11 12:50 am Link

Photographer

paul hart

Posts: 115

Murwillumbah, New South Wales, Australia

Nelia wrote:
... a wide vari(a)tion of the definition of "Implied Nude"  (I have always used) I have always used the definition of "Implied Nude" as knowing that the model is nude but no "private" parts are visible in the image or painting.

What is your definition?

My definition involves suspecting that the model is nude, but there could be doubt as she may have pasties on under those arms or that cloth, or even gold paint / leaf.
   Would a model be regarded as nude if she were wearing pasties and a merkin???

The picture is taken from an angle or using props such that the model could be still wearing something from the viewers point, but only the people at the shoot know for sure that the model was actually without clothes or any form of cover.

ie. It suggests or implies that the model is topless or nude, but there could be doubt.
On the other hand with topless and nude there is no doubt as you can see mammary glands or labia.

That infamous "nude" of Miley Cyrus  was implied topless. She could have been wearing a backless halterneck gown such that her long hair hid the straps, making it appear / imply that she was nude hiding under only a sheet.

Naked person is covered in bodypaint. Are they still nude , implied ?? Cause you can see shape of mammaries and also labia.  If it were figure clinging opaque material which again showed cameltoe and erect nipples beneath the material??
Humans are inconsistent!!

Mar 19 11 12:50 am Link

Photographer

Norman Gould

Posts: 3462

North Bend, Oregon, US

"Gadhafi forces attack Libya rebel stronghold of Benghazi"

Well there goes my theory.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/internation … i-1.350153

Mar 19 11 12:55 am Link

Photographer

Nelia

Posts: 2161

San Francisco, California, US

Crystal Perido wrote:

same as in the other thread..this is not "implied"

As I stated in the other thread, that is your opinion and you are entitiled to it!

I believe that a lot of people here at Model Mayhem would disagree with you.  It seems as though a lot of people here use the definition that I do an some use the definiton that you do.

This thread was started to ask people here what their definition of "Implied Nude" was!  It was not started for someone to bring an image from another thread and state "same as in the other thread..this is not "implied"  It you want to state what you believe the definition of "Implied Nude" is then fine!

Mar 19 11 12:57 am Link

Photographer

NothingIsRealButTheGirl

Posts: 35726

Los Angeles, California, US

Nelia wrote:
It seems as though a lot of people here use the definition that I do

I agree with you. A lot of people use the term incorrectly in the way you describe.

Mar 19 11 01:08 am Link

Photographer

NothingIsRealButTheGirl

Posts: 35726

Los Angeles, California, US

Crystal Perido wrote:
..this is not "implied"

true. it is a covered nude, but a definitely nude nude. no implications about it.

Mar 19 11 01:09 am Link

Photographer

Vanderplas

Posts: 1427

Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
true. it is a covered nude, but a definitely nude nude. no implications about it.

covered? you mean the feet?smile



it's a demure nude as opposed to an explicit nude

Mar 19 11 01:14 am Link

Photographer

Nelia

Posts: 2161

San Francisco, California, US

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:

I agree with you. A lot of people use the term incorrectly in the way you describe.

Again, that is your opinion of how toi define the term,  However, you can not say that they use it incorrectly.  You can say they use it incorrectly and you define the term.

Mar 19 11 01:17 am Link

Photographer

Vanderplas

Posts: 1427

Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
In a true implied nude the model could be wearing a bikini and you'd never know it.

Nudity is implied by the setting.

right

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/110303/01/4d6f613998e56_m.jpg

btw she was wearing a bikini underneath in case you wonder

Mar 19 11 01:19 am Link

Photographer

Nelia

Posts: 2161

San Francisco, California, US

paul hart wrote:

My definition involves suspecting that the model is nude, but there could be doubt as she may have pasties on under those arms or that cloth, or even gold paint / leaf.
   Would a model be regarded as nude if she were wearing pasties and a merkin???

The picture is taken from an angle or using props such that the model could be still wearing something from the viewers point, but only the people at the shoot know for sure that the model was actually without clothes or any form of cover.

ie. It suggests or implies that the model is topless or nude, but there could be doubt.
On the other hand with topless and nude there is no doubt as you can see mammary glands or labia.

That infamous "nude" of Miley Cyrus  was implied topless. She could have been wearing a backless halterneck gown such that her long hair hid the straps, making it appear / imply that she was nude hiding under only a sheet.

Naked person is covered in bodypaint. Are they still nude , implied ?? Cause you can see shape of mammaries and also labia.  If it were figure clinging opaque material which again showed cameltoe and erect nipples beneath the material??
Humans are inconsistent!!

+1

Mar 19 11 01:19 am Link

Photographer

Nelia

Posts: 2161

San Francisco, California, US

Crystal Perido wrote:
right

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/110303/01/4d6f613998e56_m.jpg

btw she was wearing a bikini underneath in case you wonder

I would never consider this an Implied Nude as the wrap could easily be clothing whether or not she is wearing anything underneath.  I can not believe that anyone will look at this image and say to themselves "I wonder if she is wearing anything underneath?"  I find this to be a poor example for trying to make your point.

Mar 19 11 01:20 am Link

Photographer

Vanderplas

Posts: 1427

Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Nelia wrote:
I would never consider this an Implied Nude as the wrap could easily be clothing whether or not she is wearing anything underneath.  I can not believe that anyone will look at this image and say to themselves "I wonder if she is wearing anything underneath?"  I find this to be a poor example for trying to make your point.

but that IS exactly the point.......she COULD or COULD NOT which is why it is IMPLIED

and if she's wearing nothing it is a plain vanilla nude - and if it is not artistic and/or tasteful you are a hairsplit a way from soft porn

Mar 19 11 01:29 am Link

Photographer

Nelia

Posts: 2161

San Francisco, California, US

Crystal Perido wrote:

but that IS exactly the point.......she COULD or COULD NOT which is why it is IMPLIED

and if she's wearing nothing it is a plain vanilla nude - and if it is not artistic and/or tasteful you are a hairsplit a way from soft porn

Again you have and are entitled to your opinions which I definitely disagree with  You make some very bold, and I think narrow minded, statemnets and opinions.

"and if she's wearing nothing it is a plain vanilla nude - and if it is not artistic and/or tasteful you are ahairsplit a way from soft porn" I could not disagree with you more!!!  Our differences could be cultural & possibly religous in nature!

Mar 19 11 01:35 am Link

Photographer

Wolfy4u

Posts: 1103

Grand Junction, Colorado, US

The only definition of 'implied nude' that matters is the definition that the person you're communicated has, but generally, it just means that the image shows no clothing or private parts. Whether or not, the model has hidden clothing is of no importance in a photo. Exceptions to this include headshots, portraits (cropped above the bustline) , and closeups that are not related to any private areas.

Years ago, we used to create images of models wearing bikinis where the bikini didn't show in the image. We called those 'implied nudes'. Often this concept was used because we were shooting in public places. the work implied is probably not the best choice at this point, but I suspect that we're stuck with it just as the fact that 'fat chance' and 'slim chance mean the same thing and that you drive in 'parkways' and park in 'driveways'. English is like this.

Mar 19 11 01:36 am Link

Photographer

Nelia

Posts: 2161

San Francisco, California, US

Wolfy4u wrote:
The only definition of 'implied nude' that matters is the definition that the person you're communicated has, but generally, it just means that the image shows no clothing or private parts. Whether or not, the model has hidden clothing is of no importance in a photo. Exceptions to this include headshots, portraits (cropped above the bustline) , and closeups that are not related to any private areas.

+1

Mar 19 11 01:41 am Link

Photographer

NothingIsRealButTheGirl

Posts: 35726

Los Angeles, California, US

Nelia wrote:
Again, that is your opinion of how toi define the term,  However, you can not say that they use it incorrectly.  You can say they use it incorrectly and you define the term.

I will grant you that a mistake has been made so many times that we are becoming forced to recognize it as a new definition, much like the word 'flammable' had to be invented because everyone thought 'inflammable' meant 'fireproof,' and not 'subject to becoming inflamed.'

With regard to 'implied nudes' it is probably fair to say it's been screwed up so many times that there is no turning back anymore.

Mar 19 11 01:43 am Link

Photographer

NothingIsRealButTheGirl

Posts: 35726

Los Angeles, California, US

I think the term comes from a more innocent time when someone in a bikini hiding behind a tree had to worry if she might be assumed to be nude.

Nowadays many fewer models care about being overtly nude on the internet.

Mar 19 11 01:46 am Link

Photographer

Vanderplas

Posts: 1427

Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Wolfy4u wrote:
implied nude ...........generally, it just means that the image shows no clothing

I knew you would like that one

an image that shows no clothing is "generally" a nude smile - please look up the definition in the Oxford Dictionary.

But I agree there are a lot of photographers also on MM that justify taking soft porn pictures by somehow telling a model that they are just "implied nudes"

Mar 19 11 01:49 am Link

Photographer

Nelia

Posts: 2161

San Francisco, California, US

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:

I will grant you that a mistake has been made so many times that we are becoming forced to recognize it as a new definition, much like the word 'flammable' had to be invented because everyone thought 'inflammable' meant 'fireproof,' and not 'subject to becoming inflamed.'

With regard to 'implied nudes' it is probably fair to say it's been screwed up so many times that there is no turning back anymore.

With that said, I would agree with you!

Mar 19 11 01:49 am Link

Photographer

Nelia

Posts: 2161

San Francisco, California, US

Crystal Perido wrote:

I knew you would like that one

an image that shows no clothing is "generally" a nude smile - please look up the definition in the Oxford Dictionary.

But I agree there are a lot of photographers also on MM that justify taking soft porn pictures by somehow telling a model that they are just "implied nudes"

So... obviously you have a definition of "Soft Porn" that you are dying to share with us! This should be good!!!

Mar 19 11 01:51 am Link

Photographer

NothingIsRealButTheGirl

Posts: 35726

Los Angeles, California, US

Nelia wrote:
So... obviously you have a definition of "Soft Porn" that you are dying to share with us! This should be good!!!

I want to know, too

smile

I always justify shooting soft porn by saying, 'hey, you wanna shoot some soft porn?'

big_smile

Mar 19 11 01:51 am Link

Photographer

Nelia

Posts: 2161

San Francisco, California, US

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:

I want to know, too

smile

I always justify shooting soft porn by saying, 'hey, you wanna shoot some soft porn?'

big_smile

+1,000  smile

Mar 19 11 01:55 am Link

Photographer

All Yours Photography

Posts: 2602

Toledo, Ohio, US

Norman Gould wrote:
"Gadhafi forces attack Libya rebel stronghold of Benghazi"

Well there goes my theory.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/internation … i-1.350153

Posted in the wrong thread??

Mar 19 11 01:57 am Link

Photographer

Vanderplas

Posts: 1427

Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Nelia wrote:
So... obviously you have a definition of "Soft Porn" that you are dying to share with us! This should be good!!!

In another thread maybe:)

But let me ask you a question:

If I were to ask you to take of your clothes would you consider yourself nude or "implied" nude?

Mar 19 11 02:03 am Link

Photographer

Nelia

Posts: 2161

San Francisco, California, US

Crystal Perido wrote:
In another thread maybe:)

But let me ask you a question:

If I were to ask you to take of your clothes would you consider yourself nude or "implied" nude?

If you were to ask me to take my clothes off, I would be nude.  However, in the photography world, the definition of "Implied Nude" is pretty prevalent as I described it I think.

The image that you posted is not an Implied Nude image.  The model is wearing a wrap of some sort as clothing.  No one is going to ask whether or not she is nude under it.  It is a very poor and narrow example. 

If I have a model is a long t-shirt with nothing on underneath, is it an Implied Nude?  I think not as she is most definitely wearing some sort of what is considered clothing.  She may not be wearing under clothes and you may have a faint view on her skin underneath, but she is wearing clothes and therefore it is not an Implied Nude.

You have a very narrow definition(s) that you follow which is your privilege & right.  However, and I state this emphatically, I do not agree with your definition(s).

You have made a few statements which really concern me such as:

“and whether a particular nude is an artistic nude depends on the taste and skill of the photographer”  Definitely incorrect!

And

“and if she's wearing nothing it is a plain vanilla nude - and if it is not artistic and/or tasteful you are a hairsplit a way from soft porn.”  Definitely incorrect!

are definitely two statements from you that I definitely take exception to!

Mar 19 11 02:20 am Link

Body Painter

Extreme Body Art

Posts: 4938

South Jordan, Utah, US

Wysiwyg Photography wrote:
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, as it's not really implying anything if you can clearly see they aren't wearing any clothes (whether you see 'girly bits' or not)... 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.

I think this needs to be said again.

Models many times use the word 'implied' to help photographers get an idea of what they are willing to do.

I know if I wanted to shoot a "model completely naked only I don't want anything to show in any of my pictures I plan to take" would get quite long to type every time.
So, we just shorten it with the word 'implied'.

She might be completely naked... she might actually be 'tricking the viewer' to make you THINK she is naked.. (she may or may not be)... either way... it get's the point across...

Long story short, if it was me... Implied nude = nude... only because If I want implied nude shots, I will only be using a NUDE model, I don't need to chance a model going ape shit because a nipple slipped and I didn't catch it on time.

Mar 19 11 02:39 am Link

Photographer

Vanderplas

Posts: 1427

Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Nelia wrote:
You have made a few statements which really concern me such as:

“and whether a particular nude is an artistic nude depends on the taste and skill of the photographer”  Definitely incorrect!

And

“and if she's wearing nothing it is a plain vanilla nude - and if it is not artistic and/or tasteful you are a hairsplit a way from soft porn.”  Definitely incorrect!

are definitely two statements from you that I definitely take exception to!

I have addressed your first concern in the other thread and on the second one i guess you wish to know whether in my opinion the picture above is soft porn

Well if you ask the question like that i will give my opinion but I have promised Kevin not to give unsolicited critiques

Mar 19 11 02:44 am Link

Photographer

B R U N E S C I

Posts: 25319

Bath, England, United Kingdom

My definition: implied nude = a waste of time.

Get a model who is comfortable shooting nudes and then shoot whatever you want without anybody having to worry about definitions.




Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Mar 19 11 02:47 am Link

Photographer

Nelia

Posts: 2161

San Francisco, California, US

Crystal Perido wrote:

I have addressed your first concern in the other thread and on the second one i guess you wish to know whether in my opinion the picture above is soft porn

Well if you ask the question like that i will give my opinion but I have promised Kevin not to give unsolicited critiques

No, I do not care what you think of it.  We obviously see things in completely different ways.  I am no trying to change your opinion of things and you can not change my opinion!  Isn't life beautiful!  smile

Mar 19 11 02:48 am Link

Photographer

Martin Philippo

Posts: 968

Noordwijkerhout, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands

for me: model could be nude on set, she could not be nude, that doesn't matter. What does matter is the fact that the photograph gives the viewer the impression that the model is nude but that you cannot be sure whether she actually was.

Mar 19 11 02:54 am Link

Photographer

Vanderplas

Posts: 1427

Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Nelia wrote:

No, I do not care what you think of it.    Isn't life beautiful!  smile

Sure.....you can even change your mind
 

Nelia wrote:
So... obviously you have a definition of "Soft Porn" that you are dying to share with us! This should be good!!!

Got to go for dinner. Always a pleasure

Mar 19 11 02:54 am Link

Photographer

Jeffrey M Fletcher

Posts: 4735

Asheville, North Carolina, US

Implied nude to me is an image that implies that the model is nude but that because of pose, camera angle, crop, lighting etc., you can't conclusively determine from the photo that the model doesn't have some strips of cloth somewhere.
Implied could include draped or covered if the viewer is led clearly enough to the impression of nudity but I think this is tenuous - after all everyone is always nude under their clothes.

Mar 19 11 05:37 am Link