|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Imply nude... What exactly is this?
Feb 13 08 10:42 pm Link StephenEastwood wrote: Some one find a Moderator.... Feb 13 08 10:43 pm Link regardless of the state of undress for the model, the final picture is one showing, or "implying" that she was nude. she can have pasties, a half bra, thong...etc... Feb 13 08 10:45 pm Link StephenEastwood wrote: gets credit card ready Feb 13 08 10:49 pm Link StephenEastwood wrote: OMG you make me laugh! Feb 13 08 10:51 pm Link Realistically, the term is used to indicate what's visible in the photos. What the phrase actually means is that there's no actually nudity, but the photo makes it appear (implies) that the model is nude. Feb 13 08 10:52 pm Link WHO THE HELL CARES! photographs can pigeonhole models and lose them credibility in the sector they wishe to pursue. it doesn't matter whether nipple and bush are visible, only the context and quality in which the shot is made. if a shot looks like the kind of work that the model wants to produce then it will contribute to their portfolio, regardless of how much clothing they're wearing. models should constantly seek to push their boundaries and step outside their comfort zones, but should always be mindful of the value of their image and their end goals. they should create a solid character and stick to their guns. many celebrities have suffered for the embarrassing work they did early in their careers. Feb 13 08 10:56 pm Link rkwphoto wrote: I do, that's why I asked the question. Feb 14 08 07:43 am Link As mentioned, I always thought that the difference between a tasteful nude, and an implied was (to use an example that I had): The model had a sheet draped around her and was pretty much exposed and LOOKED nude, but in reality, she had on one of those stretchy things that goes under her armpits and over her breasts on, as well as some pretty slim panties. Result: I got the shot I wanted, and she got to look naked, without sacrificing her dignity. Boy, I wish I could shoot with her again. Was shy, but really posed with fluid motion. All I had to do was compose the frame, and she moved and posed on her own... Talented, even if she didn't know it. Feb 14 08 09:15 am Link StephenEastwood wrote: I'd be down, but I'm on the West Coast... Feb 14 08 09:23 am Link Webster (local home town boy who did that really big book): Main Entry: imâ¢ply Inflected Form(s): imâ¢plied; imâ¢plyâ¢ing To involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement. synonyms: see SUGGEST What's the matter with that? It means that the model can be either clothed or nude as long as the shot "suggests" she is nude rather than to show that explicitly. Actually, I know that we use the term also to refer to a nude where the various "bits" don't show. Feb 14 08 09:34 am Link El Pollo Photography wrote: Best thing I believe is to get people to change their terminology. Feb 14 08 10:19 am Link There is a simple way to test the definition of implied nudity. Invite one model who doesn't shoot nude to come do implied with you. Start with her fully dressed and then begin to shoot shots that make her appear nude. With each set remove more clothing but continue to cover the naughty bits. When the non-nude model slaps you, you will know you have gone from implied nudity to actual nudity. Next time, stop before you get hit. Feb 14 08 10:50 am Link I am curious why do I have over 13 messages asking about this when there is a forum post that they all read in which they do not ask the question? Not that I mind but I feel like its better to have the questions asked and answered in the forum so that many can read and benefit from it.  Stephen Eastwood http://www.StephenEastwood.com Feb 15 08 01:31 am Link |
