STUDIO K wrote: IMPLIED NUDE...WHAT IS IT EXACTLY?
A lot of models will have nude shots in there portfolio but then say they wont do nude or implied nude..but does EVERYONE ACTAULLY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE? And if you dont like getting asked to do either, then why do you have it in your portfolio. From what I thought, your TEAR SHEET or portfolio is usually usd as a guid to what the model is strongest at and also shows comfort in the type of work you will do. I.E If a model wont do lingere, why is it in your book or portfolio? What if a Client is looking for models to shoot that or underwear and sees your portfolio, then you say you wont shoot that? DOES IT EVEN MAKE SENSE?
I DON'T SHOOT FRONTAL NUDE EVER!!!! But this is just a general QUESTION that might clear some things up and help you.
An implied nude is when the model is nude, but the privates are covered... upper and lower regions for a female, lower for a male.
Implied topless is having the bottom region completely clothed (or not in the shot), and the upper half is covered.
How much is covered is based on the comfort-level of the model. Some models will shoot with just their nipples covered, I will not... it's all about preference and comfort.
Also, I do have a few implied topless shots in my portfolio, however, I won't shoot them with just anyone. All of my implieds have been shot with people I know or have worked with more than once and am very comfortable with.
KierraC wrote: So..I read this forum but still had this question.
Here it goes: Four of my past photo shoots I had pictures where I was wearing a tube top but it looked like I was naked because it was a close head shot. So, I say I do implied nudes. But...now I am wondering if maybe I should not say I do implied nudes if they are just facial photos with bare shoulders.
I am confused.
Like posted earlier.
99% of the photographers here think "implied" means "I get go see you naked but don't worry.. nothing will be shown on film"
Whether true or not is not of any concern...
Personally, If you are not willing to get naked for a photographer, I would not say "implied" at all in your profile.
If a photographer contacts you with a concept that says "I need you to wear this tube top and it might make you look nude, but you won't really be nude" then feel free to accept that offer.. but most of messages you will get if you say "I do implied" will be mostly from GWCs that just want to see you naked and willing to compromise by not showing your "bits" on film.
As a model you will have to deal with nudity in some way. That way might be that you will not do anything with any degree of nudity under any circumstances, that you will work with some degree of nudity sometimes with certain people depending on the project and/or use, or even that "it ain't nobody's business but my own" and do what you want, when you want, with whom you want, for your own reasons. (FWIW my feeling is that this is the best approach in almost every case.)
The main thing is to always remember that it 's your face, it's your body, so it's your decision. And that applies to everything you do as a model. Some of those decisions will increase your opportunities and some will decrease them. "
I sometimes wonder whether a model who says "I dont do nudes or implied" but then has nudes on her port, is really expecting that a photographer tries to convince her to do them.
Art of the nude wrote: So, if the image "implies" that model is nude / topless, and the viewer can't tell, is it NOT "implied" if she really was?
One of these models is really topless, the other isn't. You tell me . . .
-Snip-
Art of the nude wrote: One more, for those who speak in absolutes. No tricks here, she has a scarf on top and nothing else. Does that make it implied, not implied . . . .
-Snip-
If I were guessing I would say the top picture is 'topless'.
as for your second quote.. I don't see how nudity is being implied there... that is almost like wearing a bra and since she would be 'nude' without it we call it "implied"? I do not think so.
I don't know why this is such a heated subject and debated... there is a clear definition given by Webster himself on what "imply" means.
It seems we have the MM version of what implied means and the English dictionary version of what implied means...
The second definition is correct. Some of the MM cronies will argue, because they like to make up their own definitions to serve their needs, but implied means just what it means, implied. An implied nude shot implies the model is nude but she isn't.
Well at least one person out of 600,000 members understands the definition of implied.
Sitting butt naked, is sitting butt naked... what your hands may or may not be covering doesn't take away from the fact that you're naked or "nude"... it seems that this reality is very hard to grasp by many.
I think the term "implied nudity" (along with "RE-touching" something that you're editing for the first time) is also silly. Either you shoot nude or you don't. It really is that simple.
Darren Brade
Posts: 1,697
London, England, United Kingdom
MelissaLynnette LaDiva wrote: Implied nude is most commonly known on Model Mayhem as an image or pose that involves hiding the nipples and the general pubic region.
Sometimes the model is actually nude in the studio and uses something to cover her "naughty bits" and sometimes the model is wearing like nipple shields or something that you can't see.
OMG! So all those guys showing their nipples are naked? ! ! !
(sorry, couldn't resist that one)
Other than the gender specifics, this is the definition people most understand on MM be it correct or not.
Darren Brade
Posts: 1,697
London, England, United Kingdom
STUDIO K wrote: From what I thought, your TEAR SHEET or portfolio is usually usd as a guid to what the model is strongest at and also shows comfort in the type of work you will do. I.E If a model wont do lingere, why is it in your book or portfolio? What if a Client is looking for models to shoot that or underwear and sees your portfolio, then you say you wont shoot that? DOES IT EVEN MAKE SENSE?
I think people should look at a portfolio as someone HISTORY record rather than a will/will not list.
Models may not do nudes but they may have an exception with certain people. There's more to photography than just picture taking. Someones 's personality or relationship with the model may have a direct influence on what they are willing to do.
I shoot urban landscapes too, they're not on my profile, therefore they do not exist?
Rudi Brooker
Posts: 364
Manchester, England, United Kingdom
Art of the nude wrote: So, if the image "implies" that model is nude / topless, and the viewer can't tell, is it NOT "implied" if she really was?
That is correct. Implied requires three things to be true:
1. The model was not actually nude.
2. The viewer is led to believe she was nude.
3. The model consents to the viewer believing she was nude.
Unless these 3 points are true, it isn't implied.
Implied is NOT about what is or isn't on show. For example, if the model was shot with clothes, and then photoshopped afterwards to show explicit detail (with her consent), that would be implied.
Rudi Brooker
Posts: 364
Manchester, England, United Kingdom
Art of the nude wrote: One more, for those who speak in absolutes. No tricks here, she has a scarf on top and nothing else. Does that make it implied, not implied . . . .
Assuming the scarf was opaque, then it depends on whether the scarf was intended to be a piece of clothing, or a piece of material to hide her nudity. If the former, then not implied (if she is wearing clothes, then it can't be nude, implied or otherwise). If the latter, and assuming she wasn't wearing anything underneath, and assuming you wanted the viewer to think she was nude underneath, then implied.
Rudi Brooker wrote: That is correct. Implied requires three things to be true:
1. The model was not actually nude.
2. The viewer is led to believe she was nude.
3. The model consents to the viewer believing she was nude.
Unless these 3 points are true, it isn't implied.
Implied is NOT about what is or isn't on show. For example, if the model was shot with clothes, and then photoshopped afterwards to show explicit detail (with her consent), that would be implied.
Sorry, but that's just silly.
I can see arguing that a shot where the model is **obviously*** nude, but certain things aren't showing, but if an image is classified based on facts that no one who wasn't in the room knows, the classification is completely useless.
If you don't accept this (kinda 18+)
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4141/4766 … dfaa_o.jpg as "implied" I can understand, and sympathize. But the two I posted together above earlier both fit any reasonable definition.
Rudi Brooker
Posts: 364
Manchester, England, United Kingdom
Art of the nude wrote: Sorry, but that's just silly.
Once a photo is published, classifying photos as Implied Nude or not is as nonsensical as classifying photos according to the version of Photoshop used to retouch them. Such classification is only relevant to someone studying photographic technique and method.
If a model says "I'll shoot implied nude", the strict interpretation is "I don't mind if people think I'm nude, but I'm not going to actually get nude".
If a photographer says "I'll shoot implied nude", the strict interpretation is "I'm going to make you look nude, but you don't actually need to get nude".
It is all to do with how the photo is created, nothing to do with the end result.
It would be really easy to photoshop out a bikini. I've done it myself in this photo. Or maybe she is wearing something that is hidden, it isn't possible to tell. If you told me it was implied, I would accept it.
But, if she actually was nude, I can't see why the photo would be called an implied nude instead of just a straightforward nude. After all, she is nude, so there is nothing implied about it.
Rudi Brooker wrote: Once a photo is published, classifying photos as Implied Nude or not is as nonsensical as classifying photos according to the version of Photoshop used to retouch them. Such classification is only relevant to someone studying photographic technique and method.
If a model says "I'll shoot implied nude", the strict interpretation is "I don't mind if people think I'm nude, but I'm not going to actually get nude".
If a photographer says "I'll shoot implied nude", the strict interpretation is "I'm going to make you look nude, but you don't actually need to get nude".
It is all to do with how the photo is created, nothing to do with the end result.
I hope you put that in your profile, and make reference to it when the topic comes up, since your definition is pretty much unique to you.
Rudi Brooker
Posts: 364
Manchester, England, United Kingdom
Rudi Brooker wrote: If a photographer says "I'll shoot implied nude", the strict interpretation is "I'm going to make you look nude, but you don't actually need to get nude".
That should generally read "I'm going to make it look like you are nude" rather than "make you look nude". The subtleties of the English language.
Art of the nude wrote: I hope you put that in your profile, and make reference to it when the topic comes up, since your definition is pretty much unique to you.
It isn't "my" definition of implied, it is the definition stated in English dictionaries.
But yes, I agree it is necessary to clarify when discussing such a topic, because many people on MM use your interpretation of implied.
Rudi Brooker wrote: If a model says "I'll shoot implied nude", the strict interpretation is "I don't mind if people think I'm nude, but I'm not going to actually get nude".
If a photographer says "I'll shoot implied nude", the strict interpretation is "I'm going to make you look nude, but you don't actually need to get nude".
Wrong and wrong again.
This may be the case for a few models you've worked with, but I can assure you that for the majority of models and photographers there is NO implicit understanding that the model will NOT be nude during the process of creating an implied image.
An implied image is one that implies the model is nude by hiding her "bits" in the final photo. She may be nude, or she may not be - the fact that we can't see her "bits" means that as a casual viewer we should never know. If an implied image is done well then only the model and the photographer will actually know whether she was fully nude in the studio or not.
However, in most cases (all except one for me) the model is simply nude in the studio and the pictures are posed/shot/selected so that no "bits" are showing in the final images.
Personally, I will no longer agree to shoot "implied only" with any model as the resulting images tend to lack the flow and spontaneity that you get from a model who doesn't care whether her "bits" are showing or not. It's much better, easier, more relaxed, more natural, to shoot a nude model and have her pose freely, then use a few images that happen to be "implied" for Facebook etc. and the others elsewhere. Models who are worried about their "bits" showing tend to be rigid and inflexible in their posing and if you're really unlucky they look scared witless too!
I guess you could say this is an "implied" image - but the reality was that 90% of the shots in this set were either topless or fully nude, and the fact that you can't see any "bits" in this and the other 10% was purely accidental.
I would agree with this, if you are prepared to shoot implied nude, you should realize that people may see you from other angles during the shoot and what it really means is shooting nude, but hiding "bits" for publication.
I don't know about other people, but I've never ever had this conversation with an agency, it's either "nude" or they are wearing at least knickers and perhaps flashing nipple through sheer or whacky clothing, there's no in between when it comes to down below.
I have been going through this thread and I think some language issues might have influence.
A few weeks ago I intended to do a shoot with a model. She said, that she won't be doing any implied nudes, but she was fine in putting a chili and/or banana between her legs to cover some details.
I wonder if she misunderstood implied nudes. Anyway, I did it and she was nude at the end, completely, with a pearl collar was covering some sensitive part.
"Implied" (from the dictionary): Strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated)
Therefore it stands to reason that an implied nude image would be an image that strongly suggests the person is nude, or not wearing any clothing.
If you can see the entire person, including their 18+ bits, then there is no suggestion or implication. It's clear they are in fact nude. The suggestion comes from the fact, they appear to be entirely unclothed, but because their naughty bits don't actually show, its not clear that they must necessarily be nude. It's possible the model could be wearing pasties, etc.
If in doubt what someone else may mean by "implied nude", simply ask what exactly it is they require or offer when they say that.
Rudi Brooker
Posts: 364
Manchester, England, United Kingdom
B R U N E S C I wrote: I guess you could say this is an "implied" image
I think the debate is whether such an image you refer to should really be called an implied nude at all, or something else (e.g. demure, as someone else posted above).
The fact that you say "I guess" rather than "this is" reinforces this.
I acknowledge you (and Art of the nude) have a lot of experience.
It is my common sense understanding that models will classify a booking as implied nude or nude depending on what clothes they have to take off on set. It has nothing to do with the end result, which is discussed separately. For example, a lot of models would be really happy to have a photo like the example you posted, but lack the experience or desire to get nude on set to achieve the photo. So if I showed them your picture and said "let's create this, but you don't need to take your underwear off and I can photoshop it out afterwards", they would be happy to do so and they would class the shoot as an implied nude shoot (for billing purposes, moral purposes, whatever). I'm pretty certain a model that actually gets fully nude to shoot the above photo wouldn't class it as an implied nude photo, because she got fully nude.
Or, to put it another way, if I booked a model for an implied nude shoot, but then added "Yes, I know it is an implied nude shoot, but you'll need to get fully nude so I can get the shot", I don't think that would be understood or expected.
Rudi Brooker wrote: It is my common sense understanding that models will classify a booking as implied nude or nude depending on what clothes they have to take off on set.
Sounds like you're working with the wrong models!
Models who try to preserve their modesty on set, either for 'moral' or fiscal reasons are a pain in the ass to work with, and that's why I won't work with a model who says she will work to implied only. Get a nude model and be done with it!
It really doesn't matter what the definition of implied nude is or what photographers think it should be, almost all models (female) who say they'll only do implied nudes mean that they won't show their pubic area or their nipples in any photos.
Photography is about the image. What a model wears or doesn't wear in the studio means nothing. I've shot with many models who preferred to not show all their parts in the photos who changed right on the set. I've also shot with models who would model nude who only were nude when a nude photo was created and were covered all other times.
Rudi Brooker
Posts: 364
Manchester, England, United Kingdom
B R U N E S C I wrote: Models who try to preserve their modesty on set, either for 'moral' or fiscal reasons are a pain in the ass to work with, and that's why I won't work with a model who says she will work to implied only. Get a nude model and be done with it!
I agree. So, I book a nude model, she is nude on set, the photos are awesome, the viewer can clearly see she is nude (although no 18+ bits are showing).
My understanding is this is NOT an implied nude booking and NOT an implied nude image! Or am I missing something? The question was what implied nude is, not what it isn't.
Rudi Brooker wrote: My understanding is this is NOT an implied nude booking and NOT an implied nude image! Or am I missing something? The question was what implied nude is, not what it isn't.
Having never paid a model for an 'implied only' booking I can't answer the first part except to say that I'm sure there are models (and maybe even agencies) out there who would agree with you.
However, all the models I've worked with have understood 'implied nude' to mean nude on set but with no "bits" showing in the photos.
As for the second part - an implied nude image is any image where it looks like the model is nude but you can't actually tell if she was or wasn't because her "bits" are obscured by lighting, pose or props. So yes, you could do an implied image with a model wearing pasties and a c-string, but in most cases the model will be nude in the studio even though her "bits" won't be visible in the final image.
B R U N E S C I wrote: As for the second part - an implied nude image is any image where it looks like the model is nude but you can't actually tell if she was or wasn't because her "bits" are obscured by lighting, pose or props. So yes, you could do an implied image with a model wearing pasties and a c-string, but in most cases the model will be nude in the studio even though her "bits" won't be visible in the final image.
Stefano, I have the very highest respect for your work and your opinion..but I'd say she's nude. Nothing implied about it
To me, implied nude, is: the model may or may not be nude in actuality. But to the viewer she could be. It's something that is left to the discretion of the viewer.
Wasn't it Raquel Welch that cut an outfit up that, when she posed, was hidden from the camera. But it covered her when she stood. I think the pose was cross legged and sitting on the floor, so you didn't see anything really but her legs, hips and shoulders. The viewers imagination filled in the rest.
So to the OP... I doubt you'll get a definitive answer here.
You're left to decide this for yourself..
.
| 
| 
| edu