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.
If you are in a shot on a bed with sheets covering your sex organs or breast, but you can't really see if they are in underwear or shorts, ect. It would be implied.
If you are posed where you can see they are nude, but they are not showing the sex organs or breast. It's a partial nude.
If you are posed standing against a wall angled so the sex organs or breast are not showed, but nothing is covering the body. It's a non frontal nude.
If you are posed showing the sex organs or breast, no clothes. It's a Full frontal nude.
You're topless aren't you? Just cause you're back is facing us doesn't mean you're not topless.
Exactly.
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.
Shiggily Weebonk McGee wrote: if you see no naughty bits. but they are nude. then it is implied
That statement is absolutely *incorrect*.
The proper and historic definition of the photography term "implied nude/topless" is that the model was clothed but it appeared (implied) that the model was topless/nude.
The term for which the OP is seeking is "*demure* topless/nude".
Grime and Glamour
Posts: 1,406
Newcastle upon Tyne, England, United Kingdom
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!
:-)
Flick
Posts: 1,568
London, England, United Kingdom
Personally, I think the word 'implied' was brought into this industry by models who didn't want to have their bits on show, but wanted to earn more than a lingerie model.
RSM-images wrote: That statement is absolutely *incorrect*.
The proper and historic definition of the photography term "implied nude/topless" is that the model was clothed but it appeared (implied) that the model was topless/nude.
The term for which the OP is seeking is "*demure* topless/nude".
The "nitternet" gets a lot of things wrong....
.
Bullshit.
Who is it that defines this "proper and historic definition" you speak of? Could you please point us to an authoritative source?
What? You don't have one? You just made that up?
Above I have posted many links to a wide variety of sources for the "proper" definition of the term, and it is not at all what you and so many others claim.
studio36uk
Posts: 20,209
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?
LOL
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
Leslee Lane wrote: If the model is nude but their hands and legs are positioned to where you don't see any naughty parts?
I'm assuming implied? I just want to be sure....
Models that have naughty parts shouldn't be modeling, GOD didn't start you out with naughty parts, you have to wait till you're older to be given them by people/society around you.
But yes, you're assuming right, it's implied if you don't show the OMG parts.........................
| 
| 
| edu