This thread was locked on 2021-07-23 23:14:59
Forums > General Industry > Implied Nudity Definition

Photographer

Lumigraphics

Posts: 32780

Detroit, Michigan, US

There is no definition, just like the last 300 times this question has been asked. Its one reason that many of us refuse to work with models whose limit is "implied" because it makes no sense. I don't shoot "implied", I shoot specific poses. What shows or doesn’t show is a function of the pose, not the model's limits or some silly definition.

Mar 19 11 05:39 am Link

Photographer

Lumigraphics

Posts: 32780

Detroit, Michigan, 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"

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

Don't feed the troll.

Mar 19 11 05:42 am Link

Photographer

BYS

Posts: 11614

Paris, Île-de-France, France

tits are WMD in some countries , elsewhere they are life and natural
more a border to cross than a line

Mar 19 11 05:43 am Link

Photographer

Jeffrey M Fletcher

Posts: 4861

Asheville, North Carolina, US

Lumigraphics wrote:
There is no definition, just like the last 300 times this question has been asked. Its one reason that many of us refuse to work with models whose limit is "implied" because it makes no sense. I don't shoot "implied", I shoot specific poses. What shows or doesn’t show is a function of the pose, not the model's limits or some silly definition.

Good point - I also only work full nude (and working under implied restrictions is never something I've considered) but nonetheless sometimes I come up with implied images out of the sessions.

Mar 19 11 05:45 am Link

Photographer

Vanderplas

Posts: 1427

Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Lumigraphics wrote:
I don't shoot "implied", I shoot specific poses. What shows or doesn’t show is a function of the pose, not the model's limits or some silly definition.

Everybody is allowed to shoot what he wants but most of what you shoot are explicit nudes and i have never read the 18+ rules on MM but i would assume they cover explicit nudes

Mar 19 11 07:09 am Link

Photographer

Nelia

Posts: 2166

San Francisco, California, US

Martin Philippo wrote:
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.

+1

Mar 19 11 01:10 pm Link

Photographer

New Kidd Imagery

Posts: 1909

South Salt Lake, Utah, US

Lumigraphics wrote:
There is no definition, just like the last 300 times this question has been asked. Its one reason that many of us refuse to work with models whose limit is "implied" because it makes no sense. I don't shoot "implied", I shoot specific poses. What shows or doesn’t show is a function of the pose, not the model's limits or some silly definition.

You are a smart guy.

If you want nude (whether something shows or not)... get a nude model, then you don't have to show EVERY shot to the model "just in case" something showed.


Here is an exception to the rule though... If I have a CLOTHED shoot, not planning to be nude at all, and the model asks If she can get this 'one shot for her portfolio' and it was an 'implied' shot, I would take that shot for her.. as it's just one picture.

but a series of pictures and poses to make sure nothing is showing would be maddening...

General rule of thumb, get a nude model so if anything slips, there would be no problems.

Mar 19 11 01:14 pm Link

Photographer

Wysiwyg Photography

Posts: 6326

Salt Lake City, Utah, US

Crystal Perido wrote:

Everybody is allowed to shoot what he wants but most of what you shoot are explicit nudes and i have never read the 18+ rules on MM but i would assume they cover explicit nudes

Explicit nudes?

by whose definition?

I have read the MM rules, and every shot that I have seen in Lumi's portfolio meet the requirements and standard of the MM rules.

ANYWAY, if you feel a shot is against the rules, feel free to CAM it... if it remains.. it usually means you are just over reacting. (PS.. Open-Legged, is NOT Spread, just so you know)

Mar 19 11 01:18 pm Link

Photographer

Nelia

Posts: 2166

San Francisco, California, US

Crystal Perido wrote:
Everybody is allowed to shoot what he wants but most of what you shoot are explicit nudes and i have never read the 18+ rules on MM but i would assume they cover explicit nudes

Wysiwyg Photography wrote:
Explicit nudes?

by whose definition?

I have read the MM rules, and every shot that I have seen in Lumi's portfolio meet the requirements and standard of the MM rules.

ANYWAY, if you feel a shot is against the rules, feel free to CAM it... if it remains.. it usually means you are just over reacting. (PS.. Open-Legged, is NOT Spread, just so you know)

+1  I get the impression she wants to chancge & or right the rules to suit how wants she wants to view things.  She has some very starnge ideas which I definitely disagree with!

Mar 19 11 01:24 pm Link

Photographer

Lumigraphics

Posts: 32780

Detroit, Michigan, US

Lumigraphics wrote:
I don't shoot "implied", I shoot specific poses. What shows or doesn’t show is a function of the pose, not the model's limits or some silly definition.

Crystal Perido wrote:
Everybody is allowed to shoot what he wants but most of what you shoot are explicit nudes and i have never read the 18+ rules on MM but i would assume they cover explicit nudes

Really now? My A700 has about 60,000 frames through it in less than 3 years...but you know "most" of what I shoot? Really?

Not only that but I don't have to go by MM's rules to define "implied" thanks.

SMDH.

Mar 19 11 05:52 pm Link

Photographer

Freelancer

Posts: 403

Kingwood, West Virginia, US

I have always considered "implied" to mean just that. The model is not nude or partially nude, but the pose, camera angle, etc...implies that the model is. The photo in my portfolio of the girl with the flag is such a photo

Mar 20 11 07:36 am Link

Photographer

BodyartBabes

Posts: 2005

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US

Lumigraphics wrote:
There is no definition, just like the last 300 times this question has been asked. Its one reason that many of us refuse to work with models whose limit is "implied" because it makes no sense. I don't shoot "implied", I shoot specific poses. What shows or doesn’t show is a function of the pose, not the model's limits or some silly definition.

*YES* there *IS* a definition, but here on MM it's ignored.

Look up the word IMPLIED.  Then, look in old photo books to see how that was used in photography.  It was for models who DID NOT GET NUDE to "appear" nude. 

Models who get nude, but cover their nipples, do NUDES -- they *ARE* NUDE!  It's *NOT* IMPLIED.  They just cover up what you want to see.  They are *STILL* NUDES.

I just found a new definition of "implied" nudes.  The model had 9 of 20 photos "nudes" (just covering up her boobs/bits) and one FULL NUDE exposing it all.  So, I guess the "implied" is that she wasn't actually standing naked in front of YOU/Me. 

Mar 20 11 07:42 am Link

Photographer

Vanderplas

Posts: 1427

Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Wysiwyg Photography wrote:
I have read the MM rules, and every shot that I have seen in Lumi's portfolio meet the requirements and standard of the MM rules.

I said the 18+ rules (on displaying them on the forum) which i'm retty sure draw the line between demure and explicit nude

and neither of the above are implied

Mar 20 11 07:55 am Link

Photographer

Jeffrey M Fletcher

Posts: 4861

Asheville, North Carolina, US

BodyartBabes wrote:

*YES* there *IS* a definition, but here on MM it's ignored.

Look up the word IMPLIED.  Then, look in old photo books to see how that was used in photography.  It was for models who DID NOT GET NUDE to "appear" nude. 

Models who get nude, but cover their nipples, do NUDES -- they *ARE* NUDE!  It's *NOT* IMPLIED.  They just cover up what you want to see.  They are *STILL* NUDES.

I just found a new definition of "implied" nudes.  The model had 9 of 20 photos "nudes" (just covering up her boobs/bits) and one FULL NUDE exposing it all.  So, I guess the "implied" is that she wasn't actually standing naked in front of YOU/Me. 

While I would never argue against being aware of history and familiar with past definitions, I don't think this works well as a sole or final way of determining meaning. Language evolves and particularly in regards to cultural regulation and descriptions of customs and categories regarding norms in body exposure or sexual behavior language evolves fairly quickly (in common with slang, for some of the same reasons).
Old photo books (especially those with nude, semi-nude or erotic subjects are something that I'd highly recommend and I'd love to see examples from them but I'd be more inclined to view them historically as part of changing legal, cultural and even linguistic definitions and expressions. I'm aware of some of the older definitions (and would always like to hear more) and while I have to admit that some changes in language I find regrettable, at a certain point they seem to be accepted and it appears to me to be a lost cause.

Mar 20 11 08:26 am Link

Photographer

Jeff Fiore

Posts: 9225

Brooklyn, New York, US

I really don't care what the definition actually is. Whether it's implied, demure or nude I just shoot what I want. But I will never shoot a model in a bikini in such a way so she looks nude, to me, there is just no point in that.

Mar 20 11 09:56 am Link

Photographer

Jeffrey M Fletcher

Posts: 4861

Asheville, North Carolina, US

Jeff Fiore wrote:
I really don't care what the definition actually is. Whether it's implied, demure or nude I just shoot what I want. But I will never shoot a model in a bikini in such a way so she looks nude, to me, there is just no point in that.

Could you ever see a point in shooting a model in a bikini?

Mar 20 11 10:12 am Link

Photographer

Jeff Fiore

Posts: 9225

Brooklyn, New York, US

Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:

Could you ever see a point in shooting a model in a bikini?

Only if I want to shoot swimwear. Like you, I concentrate on nudes. What would your art look like if your models wore bikinis? Just doesn't work smile

Mar 20 11 10:16 am Link

Photographer

Jeff Fiore

Posts: 9225

Brooklyn, New York, US

Lumigraphics wrote:
I don't shoot "implied", I shoot specific poses. What shows or doesn’t show is a function of the pose, not the model's limits or some silly definition.

Crystal Perido wrote:
Everybody is allowed to shoot what he wants but most of what you shoot are explicit nudes and i have never read the 18+ rules on MM but i would assume they cover explicit nudes

*Goes and looks at Lumigrapics' port for those explicit nudes*

DAMN!!! Don't see any explicit nudes!!! smile

Mar 20 11 10:23 am Link

Photographer

Jeffrey M Fletcher

Posts: 4861

Asheville, North Carolina, US

Jeff Fiore wrote:

Only if I want to shoot swimwear. Like you, I concentrate on nudes. What would your art look like if your models wore bikinis? Just doesn't work smile

Right - it plays against the aesthetic that I'm going for to the point that it looks crass or déclassée.

Mar 20 11 11:21 am Link

Photographer

Nelia

Posts: 2166

San Francisco, California, US

Lumigraphics wrote:
I don't shoot "implied", I shoot specific poses. What shows or doesn’t show is a function of the pose, not the model's limits or some silly definition.

Crystal Perido wrote:
Everybody is allowed to shoot what he wants but most of what you shoot are explicit nudes and i have never read the 18+ rules on MM but i would assume they cover explicit nudes

Jeff Fiore wrote:
*Goes and looks at Lumigrapics' port for those explicit nudes*

DAMN!!! Don't see any explicit nudes!!! smile

Now I am really confused by this person.  I also looked at Lumigraphics' port and for the life of me I could not find anything that I or any sane individual could even begin to call or classify as being "Explicit Nudes"  Maybe Crystal could educate the rest of us as to what in Lumigraphics' port is an "Explicit Nude"

Mar 20 11 12:03 pm Link

Photographer

Edward Chen

Posts: 1630

Jakarta, Jakarta, Indonesia

Stefano Brunesci wrote:
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

+20
also, "implied nude" is a definition used by photographers to get a model naked...but not too naked (when clothed shoot was agreed upon).

Mar 20 11 12:13 pm Link

Photographer

Edward Chen

Posts: 1630

Jakarta, Jakarta, Indonesia

P : Do you do nude?

M : No.

P : Why?

M : I am not comfortable.

P: oh cmon, you have good figure. You are beautiful. You have nothing to be ashamed of. And no private parts will be visible. They will be covered. Just like this pose *showing sample of implied nude pose*

M : Wow! that's beautiful. Okay, I guess I can try.

Then she shows up. Feeling awkward. basically ruin the shoot.

Waste of time.

Mar 20 11 12:23 pm Link

Model

RagDollSally

Posts: 431

Santa Barbara, California, US

Edward Chen wrote:
P : Do you do nude?

M : No.

P : Why?

M : I am not comfortable.

P: oh cmon, you have good figure. You are beautiful. You have nothing to be ashamed of. And no private parts will be visible. They will be covered. Just like this pose *showing sample of implied nude pose*

M : Wow! that's beautiful. Okay, I guess I can try.

Then she shows up. Feeling awkward. basically ruin the shoot.

Waste of time.

Implied or not, the comfort of the model is what determines what will be shot and how well it is shot.

Period.

Don't rant about the 'definition', it's people's own take, just like the word "petite", "beautiful", "good", "bad".. etc.

Mar 20 11 12:32 pm Link

Photographer

Raymond Irvine

Posts: 316

Camarillo, California, US

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

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

And then there is this one:

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

Crystal Perido wrote:
same as in the other thread..this is not "implied"

How do you know that this not "implied" by your definition?  She could be wearing pasties and a modesty patch and you would never know.  Since the "bits" are obscured from the camera view, you don't know what else might be there.

The picture is a good example of implied nudity.

Mar 20 11 10:20 pm Link

Model

Ashley En-fu

Posts: 234

Los Angeles, California, US

Many people have their own definitions of this.
But I hold a really strong distinction between a nude photo and an implied photo.

Basically my rule of thumb is: If you HAVE to be naked to complete the shot (regardless of lady bits/nips are showing) it is probably not an implied shot.

In my opinion a true implied shot can be done with some sort of clothing on (whether it be underwear, wraps etc.) and not seen on camera which is the point. an Implied photo leaves the viewer wondering if the model is in fact naked- and yes I consider butt's nudity as well. My current avatar is in fact an implied beauty shot because you cannot tell whether or not I am topless. Many headshots and beauty shots are done like this because some think it lets the eye focus on the makeup/face more.

some examples from the other thread i saw:

This is a true Implied shot. there is no way to tell whether or not this model is wearing any clothing under the bubbles but she appears nude (apparently she is wearing underwear according to teh photographer who posted it)
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/0 … b93743.jpg

This I (and many others) consider a nude photo (whether it be 'demure nude' 'clothed nude' 'conservative nude' or just nude nude is up to the viewer and how they use their terms) You can undoubtably tell that this model is naked. And unless there are some amazing pasties and modesty patch at work there is probably very little chance she is clothed at all. You can see her entire body/form including her buttocks, thighs to her back the only thing is her breasts are covered by her arms and her legs are positioned in such a way that her 'lady bits' are hidden from camera.
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/1 … 87f60c.jpg
A lot of people consider shots like this implied- are they wrong? not entirely... but I still consider it nude ('demure nude' to be exact.)

Like i said if the model has to be naked to complete the vision of the shot, it may very well just be a nude photo to some.

as a model I know that a photographer might think something is implied and I do not, but I think I can say that models just ask that photographers be understanding that some models they'd like to work with have differnet definitions of implied then they do and are willing to talk about it instead of becoming angry and rude about it (it tends to happen a lot here on MM :-/)

Mar 20 11 10:32 pm Link

Photographer

sdthjkyf

Posts: 191

Los Angeles, California, US

I've learned there are 3 different categories for implied nude.
1) Clothed: wearing jeans or skirt and jacket without a blouse and bra.
2) Partial nude: using a prop or clothing to cover lady parts.
3)nude: using arms and legs in various poses to cover lady parts.

Mar 20 11 10:36 pm Link

Photographer

Nelia

Posts: 2166

San Francisco, California, US

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

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

And then there is this one:

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

Crystal Perido wrote:
same as in the other thread..this is not "implied"

Raymond Irvine wrote:
How do you know that this not "implied" by your definition?  She could be wearing pasties and a modesty patch and you would never know.  Since the "bits" are obscured from the camera view, you don't know what else might be there.

The picture is a good example of implied nudity.

Thank you!

Mar 20 11 10:46 pm Link

Photographer

Vanderplas

Posts: 1427

Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Ashley En-fu  wrote:
Many people have their own definitions of this.
But I hold a really strong distinction between a nude photo and an implied photo.

Basically my rule of thumb is: If you HAVE to be naked to complete the shot (regardless of lady bits/nips are showing) it is probably not an implied shot.

In my opinion a true implied shot can be done with some sort of clothing on (whether it be underwear, wraps etc.) and not seen on camera which is the point. an Implied photo leaves the viewer wondering if the model is in fact naked- and yes I consider butt's nudity as well. My current avatar is in fact an implied beauty shot because you cannot tell whether or not I am topless. Many headshots and beauty shots are done like this because some think it lets the eye focus on the makeup/face more.

some examples from the other thread i saw:

This is a true Implied shot. there is no way to tell whether or not this model is wearing any clothing under the bubbles but she appears nude (apparently she is wearing underwear according to teh photographer who posted it)
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/0 … b93743.jpg

This I (and many others) consider a nude photo (whether it be 'demure nude' 'clothed nude' 'conservative nude' or just nude nude is up to the viewer and how they use their terms) You can undoubtably tell that this model is naked. And unless there are some amazing pasties and modesty patch at work there is probably very little chance she is clothed at all. You can see her entire body/form including her buttocks, thighs to her back the only thing is her breasts are covered by her arms and her legs are positioned in such a way that her 'lady bits' are hidden from camera.
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/1 … 87f60c.jpg
A lot of people consider shots like this implied- are they wrong? not entirely... but I still consider it nude ('demure nude' to be exact.)

Like i said if the model has to be naked to complete the vision of the shot, it may very well just be a nude photo to some.

as a model I know that a photographer might think something is implied and I do not, but I think I can say that models just ask that photographers be understanding that some models they'd like to work with have differnet definitions of implied then they do and are willing to talk about it instead of becoming angry and rude about it (it tends to happen a lot here on MM :-/)

and since the purpose of this thread is to improve communication - your profile does it very well -so if you're a model just write something similar



Nudity:
Currently, I am not considering offers to do full nude, topless, or certain implied nude shoots/poses.
I am comfortable with subtle nudity, body painting, lingerie, sleepwear and certain implied/sheer nude shots & poses that have to be discussed between yourself and I before the shoot. Anything else will have to be negotiated solely on a shoot by shoot basis regarding the photographer and the project.
*please note there is a big difference between an Implied Photo and a Demure Nude Photo and I hold to it, I do not shoot Demure Nudes. If you are not sure if what I mean, I'd be happy to explain it to you!

Mar 20 11 10:48 pm Link

Model

Ashley En-fu

Posts: 234

Los Angeles, California, US

Crystal Perido wrote:
and since the purpose of this thread is to improve communication - your profile does it very well -so if you're a model just write something similar



Nudity:
Currently, I am not considering offers to do full nude, topless, or certain implied nude shoots/poses.
I am comfortable with subtle nudity, body painting, lingerie, sleepwear and certain implied/sheer nude shots & poses that have to be discussed between yourself and I before the shoot. Anything else will have to be negotiated solely on a shoot by shoot basis regarding the photographer and the project.
*please note there is a big difference between an Implied Photo and a Demure Nude Photo and I hold to it, I do not shoot Demure Nudes. If you are not sure if what I mean, I'd be happy to explain it to you!

Generally photographers are very responsive to that note i have on my profile and will talk with me and communicate what they want as an implied concept and whether or not I am comfortable with it or whether or not I consider it actually a nude etc. but sometimes you just get the few who like to explode over it and say things like "Obviously you are not a real model. As long as your nipples and gentalia are not showing it is NOT nude" etc. etc. when I just explain that I am not able to pose with my whole nude body in a shot regardless of the lady bits. It tends to be something that some photographers get very rude about.

I'm lucky to have had a lot of photographers listen and be respectful about it and I am willing to make compromises with those who do so- but sometimes it can just get frustrating with some people. Which is the main reason I put that on my profile to try and make it as black & white as possible.

Mar 20 11 10:54 pm Link

Photographer

Vanderplas

Posts: 1427

Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Ashley En-fu  wrote:

Generally photographers are very responsive to that note i have on my profile and will talk with me and communicate what they want as an implied concept and whether or not I am comfortable with it or whether or not I consider it actually a nude etc. but sometimes you just get the few who like to explode over it and say things like "Obviously you are not a real model. As long as your nipples and gentalia are not showing it is NOT nude" etc. etc. when I just explain that I am not able to pose with my whole nude body in a shot regardless of the lady bits. It tends to be something that some photographers get very rude about.

I'm lucky to have had a lot of photographers listen and be respectful about it and I am willing to make compromises with those who do so- but sometimes it can just get frustrating with some people. Which is the main reason I put that on my profile to try and make it as black & white as possible.

fully agree that most photographers are not here to take advantage of opaque definitions

and

these

"Obviously you are not a real model. As long as your nipples and gentalia are not showing it is NOT nude" etc. etc.

not a big loss i would say

Mar 20 11 11:08 pm Link

Photographer

Essential Form

Posts: 2873

Sedalia, Missouri, US

OP, I am so glad you've started this thread!  There may be someone, somewhere out there in need of enlightenment.  Members participating in these threads have great certainty of their absolute mastery of all terms and would not doubt be at great risk of serious depression if not for your gracious invitation allowing them to set us all straight.

The Mayhem thanks you!!!!

Mar 20 11 11:18 pm Link

Photographer

Nelia

Posts: 2166

San Francisco, California, US

Essential Form wrote:
OP, I am so glad you've started this thread!  There may be someone, somewhere out there in need of enlightenment.  Members participating in these threads have great certainty of their absolute mastery of all terms and would not doubt be at great risk of serious depression if not for your gracious invitation allowing them to set us all straight.

The Mayhem thanks you!!!!

You are most welcome!

Mar 20 11 11:26 pm Link

Photographer

Vanderplas

Posts: 1427

Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Nelia wrote:
Now I am really confused by this person.  I also looked at Lumigraphics' port and for the life of me I could not find anything that I or any sane individual could even begin to call or classify as being "Explicit Nudes"  Maybe Crystal could educate the rest of us as to what in Lumigraphics' port is an "Explicit Nude"

try the ones with an M under them smile

but as they say you can take the horse to the nudes but you can't make it see them

Goodnight

Mar 21 11 07:49 am Link

Photographer

Le Beck Photography

Posts: 4114

Los Angeles, California, US

From the OED:
Implied:
"Contained or stated by implication; involved in what is expressed; necessarily intended though not expressed".

Mar 21 11 09:32 am Link

Photographer

Nelia

Posts: 2166

San Francisco, California, US

Crystal Perido wrote:

try the ones with an M under them smile

but as they say you can take the horse to the nudes but you can't make it see them

Goodnight

Nothing in that port is even remotely close to being "explicit".  The M at Model Mayhem does not mean it is "explicit" as those types of images are not allowed.  Luckily for us we have you to be the moral judge for MM on what is "explicit" and to try to redine "Implied Nudes!"  We are luck to have an all knowing and wise peson such as your self here to keep us on the straight and narrow!  Goodbye, good luck and may you likfe be filled with new minds to conquer.  I am done with you!

Mar 21 11 12:56 pm Link

Photographer

Lynn_D

Posts: 42

Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
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.

+1

My husband does implied nudes often and his models are always dressed. To me, a model without clothes is nude & the classification of that nude would depend on how she/he is photographed.

Mar 21 11 01:07 pm Link

Photographer

Merlinpix

Posts: 7118

Farmingdale, New York, US

Implied nudity = Something I don't pay to shoot.

Mar 22 11 03:40 am Link

Model

musebox

Posts: 7

Atherton, California, US

The term 'implied nudity' is a recent outgrowth of sites such as this, and has no concise meaning.  You will never see the term used, by way of example, in a book on art history.

As evidenced by this string of responses, the term is confusing and, therefore, not useful.

To put it simply, there is no such thing as 'implied nudity'.  One is either naked,  or not.

Mar 22 11 04:04 am Link

Photographer

Yopera

Posts: 12

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

It is so subjective that I decided to have a more mathematical approach with 2 simple rules:
1. The nudity level is assigned per final image, not a photo-shoot.
2. Implied nudity is when skin is shown, but you don't allow any kind of genitalia,  female nipples and/or more than one quarter of the Intergluteal cleft to be displayed.

Mar 04 13 01:55 pm Link

Photographer

American Glamour

Posts: 38813

Detroit, Michigan, US

Andres Vargas wrote:
It is so subjective that I decided to have a more mathematical approach with 2 simple rules:
1. The nudity level is assigned per final image, not a photo-shoot.
2. Implied nudity is when skin is shown, but you don't allow any kind of genitalia,  female nipples and/or more than one quarter of the Intergluteal cleft to be displayed.

With all due respect, this is a two year old thread that died long ago.  If you would like to talk about the definition of implied nudity (and there are already several threads on the subject going right now), why don't you reply to one of the current threads or start a new one of your own?

Mar 04 13 02:01 pm Link