nude if you are nude. nothing is implied. if you are covering parts - it is partial nudes such as topless - not full nude. covered nude is still nude - so I'd say it's partial nude. why worry about a definition?
In modeling, as in any other area of human endeavor, certain terms become accepted in the industry as jargon. Their meaning cannot be derived from the literal meaning of the words that make them up, but rather from how they are customarily used in the industry. An example would be "test shoot", which in practice doesn't normally mean testing anything. Industry professionals understand what it really means.
"Implied nude" is another such term, which has broad use in the industry, and which has meaning which exceeds the literal definition of its component parts. Although there is some variation in usage (just as there is with "test shoot"), generally "implied nude" is taken to include those cases where a model is, in fact, nude, but certain body parts do not show in the image. It would be very misleading to suggest that a model should understand the term differently.
The interested reader is invited to peruse the following links, each of which defines the term in its own way. In all cases, the notion that "implied nude" does not involve nudity is rejected.
You're topless aren't you? Just cause you're back is facing us doesn't mean you're not topless.
Implied the nudity is not real it's implied. Think beauty shot with a halter top, or positioning legs so that you can't see the swimsuit bottoms.
It's like "begging the question". People use that to mean "it makes me wonder" or "now you have to ask...." but that's not even close to its proper meaning. It's a term in logic describing a particular form of circular reasoning.
Now as far as it's actual use around here, if someone asks you to shoot "implied nudes" you should expect to be nude during the shoot, but no R rated body parts will be visible in the photo. It's more like an non-exposed nude.
In the UK most models seem to accept the term "implied" as meaning it will look like they are nude (or topless) in the photo but that no nipples or private parts will be visible in the final picture.
Whether they are actually nude in the studio or not, or whether they wear pasties or a flesh coloured g-string should be irrelevant unless the 'photographer' is actually more interested in seeing naked flesh than making a picture that looks as if the model is naked. Clearly, if the model wishes to wear a g-string or something that might require retouching then this should be discussed in advance, but doing so or not doesn't alter the meaning of the term "implied" in the context of model photography.
Personally, when shooting "implied" I prefer to work with models who are also comfortable shooting nude (or topless) and comfortable with the pictures being used like that, as there is less for them (and me) to worry about and the pictures generally turn out more relaxed and natural looking whether the the final result happens to be "implied" or not. However, that's not always the case, so at the end of the day it's up to the model how she wishes to play it, and as long as any concerns, limits or reservations are discussed in advance all is good.
FEMME Naturelle wrote: nude if you are nude. nothing is implied. if you are covering parts - it is partial nudes such as topless - not full nude. covered nude is still nude - so I'd say it's partial nude. why worry about a definition?
Agreed....I HATE the term 'implied' nude.If you have no clothes on then your naked...covered or not!
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
TXPhotog wrote: Bullshit.
Didn't you ever wonder why porn actresses seem to always have their spiky high heals on... even in bed?
I am minded to recall a Canadian case that kind of relates to this. Some guy was in the Toronto TNT [gay pride} parade. He was arrested for being nude in public, and indeed he almost was, but he had something on his feet - shoes or flip-flops. In court he argued that he wasn't factually nude as charged, and the court agreed with him. Case dismissed. LOL