Fifi wrote:
Don't.


Shoot models who will already do it.

+1

Pick models who are comfortable being nude, even if they don't want "naughty bits" to show in the photos. If they aren't comfortable, it will show in the results.

Fifi wrote:
Don't.

Shoot models who will already do it. Why would you want to shoot someone who doesn't want to shoot nudes and would be uncomfortable? It will show in the images.

+1

Marty St James wrote:
A discussion thread for the models.

I delight in implied Nude images as I like the suggestion of nudity as opposed to all the private bits out on display (In my own images at least).

To achieve believable Implied shots, the model is generally topless/naked and needs to be comfortable that way. Most of the models that I have shot Implied with are generally nude models, with 1-2 exceptions.

I am a gentleman, so I generally endeavour to avert my eyes if I think I will get a flash of flesh when the model is less than comfortable in their own skin (i.e. nude), but as most of the models I have shot Implied with are generally comfortable nude, I spend more time getting them to cover up with a hand/hair/arm than the other way around.


I would like to work with more models on Implied shots, so what could  I do from an approach/marketing perspective to encourage more non-nude models to shoot Implied with me?

Let them come to you. If they like your work, they will seek you out when they are ready. Not to sound mysterious, but the models need to feel comfortable before they are ready

Kymberly Jane wrote:
i Love tavia.. and Marty's avitar..

I love working with Tavia.
(Have for about 5 years)

Fifi wrote:
Don't.

Shoot models who will already do it. Why would you want to shoot someone who doesn't want to shoot nudes and would be uncomfortable? It will show in the images.

BINGO!!!!!

Nude models are comfortable posing nude. Someone who is uncomfortable is NOT going to be able to focus on posing, emoting, etc. A model's level of comfort shines through in images and is very hard to disguise.

Marty St James wrote:
I am a gentleman, so I generally endeavour to avert my eyes if I think I will get a flash of flesh when the model is less than comfortable in their own skin (i.e. nude),

Please don't make assumptions that models who don't shoot nudes are uncomfortable in their own skin.  Most models who don't shoot nudes or implied have other reasons than not being comfortable in their own skin, because honestly we would not be modeling if we were not comfortable with ourselves.

That being said please don't try to convince models who have made the decision not to shoot implied to shoot implied. It really makes me mad when I am contacted by someone who wont respect that decision I made. Please stick to the girls who do shoot implied, it will save you and the model a lot of time.

Kymberly Jane wrote:
i Love tavia.. and Marty's avitar..

Me too.    I have no idea who tavis is.

Marty St James wrote:
I would like to work with more models on Implied shots, so what could  I do from an approach/marketing perspective to encourage more non-nude models to shoot Implied with me?

One direct thought......$$$.

Another direct thought....you would be stupid to waste your time with this endeavor. Are you trying to get notches on your pistol like old west gunman??

Work with models who are already established nudes. To do otherwise will usually be a futile waste of time and effort.

Chels Robinson wrote:
Please don't make assumptions that models who don't shoot nudes are uncomfortable in their own skin.  Most models who don't shoot nudes or implied have other reasons than not being comfortable in their own skin, because honestly we would not be modeling if we were not comfortable with ourselves.

It's a term of reference I've heard used to describe "people" who are very comfortable nude. I've done several fashion shoots with models who are unabashed (Maybe that's a better term?) and will get changed/nude in front of MUA's, stylists and photographers with no concern for their own nudity.
Was not meaning to say that fashion models are not comfortable in their own skin,perhaps not just as much?

Chels Robinson wrote:
That being said please don't try to convince models who have made the decision not to shoot implied to shoot implied. It really makes me mad when I am contacted by someone who wont respect that decision I made. Please stick to the girls who do shoot implied, it will save you and the model a lot of time.

No one is trying to convince models to do anything they don't want to do.
I've shot "Implied" with non-nude models and the results were good, but to feed on a point from another reply, nude models will achieve more natural and believable "Implied".

Cherrystone wrote:
Another direct thought....you would be stupid to waste your time with this endeavor. Are you trying to get notches on your pistol like old west gunman??

Or like a dirty old man?

I like implied nude.
The local market of nude models I would like to work with (And vice versa?) is limited, so much so that I usually work with out of state models when they visit.

I have non-nude models that want to shoot implied with me, so that is also a double edged sword. Your take is that I should not waste my time shooting implied with fashion models (That want to shoot implied)?

RSM-images wrote:
The correct term you should be using is "demure topless/nude", which is also a 100+ y/o photography/modeling term meaning that the subject is nude but that certain body parts are hidden from camera view.

I like it (New to me), but I'm thinking that if I put that in a casting call I'll still need to qualify the meaning (As Implied?) for most of the models I'd be marketing to.

AmberElle wrote:
I agree! As a model, I think shooting nudes is the only way to get comfortable with being nude. It gives you a totally different level of confidence.
So just get great nude models to shoot your implied work. Presto! =o]

I'm tending to agree with this view.
Thank you for your balanced response.

Mizz Amanda Marie wrote:
I've been wondering this for a LONG time.
Why would a photographer try to get a model who does not shoot nudes or implied to shoot them when she's not comfortable?

No pressure from me.

Mizz Amanda Marie wrote:
I could only see them needing to do this if there was a shortage of models who are more than willing to do nudes or implied... but there is no such shortage. There are plenty of nude models out there.

Limited market here in Sydney.
Most accomplished nude models are too pricey for a 2 hour portfolio shoot.

Mizz Amanda Marie wrote:
Are we not good enough for you(us as in nude models)?
Or, do you really just need the accomplishment of getting a girl naked who isn't comfortable doing that?

I much prefer shooting with nude models for any shoot (Nude, Implied, lingerie, bikini, fully clothed from neck to toe) as their unabashedness (New term from me..) shows int he final images.
Again - limited market for what is affordable.

Mizz Amanda Marie wrote:
This is a touchy one for me... I just can't think of any other reason to pressure girl into getting naked than being a GWC.
yeah.
don't do it.

No pressure from me.
Hmmmm. I am a guy, I have a camera, oh dear....

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
I'm gonna tell you mother on you . . . .

Join the queue...

Marty St James wrote:
what could  I do from an approach/marketing perspective to encourage more non-nude models to shoot Implied with me?

Please. Don't. For your sake and theirs.

There are plenty of models who don't have hang-ups about modeling nude / implied. Shoot those models, and leave the newbies' boobies alone.

If and when they decide to give implied a shot, I'm sure there will be a truckload of MM photographers waiting in line.

Marty St James wrote:
A discussion thread for the models.

I delight in implied Nude images as I like the suggestion of nudity as opposed to all the private bits out on display (In my own images at least).

To achieve believable Implied shots, the model is generally topless/naked and needs to be comfortable that way. Most of the models that I have shot Implied with are generally nude models, with 1-2 exceptions.

I am a gentleman, so I generally endeavour to avert my eyes if I think I will get a flash of flesh when the model is less than comfortable in their own skin (i.e. nude), but as most of the models I have shot Implied with are generally comfortable nude, I spend more time getting them to cover up with a hand/hair/arm than the other way around.


I would like to work with more models on Implied shots, so what could  I do from an approach/marketing perspective to encourage more non-nude models to shoot Implied with me?

"I'm a gentlman ... how can I talk more girls into going beyond their comfort zone?"

I shoot almost exclusively nude work.  I have no problem finding models to work with without talking unwilling girls out of their clothes.  I don't believe there's any reason you would need to, unless it's for the thrill.  Are you the gentleman that gentleman's clubs are named after?

RSM-images wrote:
Don't be a "nitternet nitwit" use the proper terminology...

With all due respect, you should look up the word "implied" in the dictionary before calling someone else a nitwit.

"To imply" does not connotate deception, only purposeful appearance. Whether a model is actually nude or not on set doesn't make a photograph "implied." What makes it "implied" is the presence of apparent, but not explicit nudity.

Richard Tallent wrote:

Please. Don't. For your sake and theirs.

There are plenty of models who don't have hang-ups about modeling nude / implied. Shoot those models, and leave the newbies' boobies alone.

If and when they decide to give implied a shot, I'm sure there will be a truckload of MM photographers waiting in line.

Seems to be the general view.
In my most recent casting call, I state:
Model must be comfortable up to "implied" nude.

Should I reject the models who apply that don't do nude or have nude images in their ports? (There are a few)

Richard Tallent wrote:

With all due respect, you should look up the word "implied" in the dictionary before calling someone else a nitwit.

"To imply" does not connotate deception, only purposeful appearance. Whether a model is actually nude or not on set doesn't make a photograph "implied." What makes it "implied" is the presence of apparent, but not explicit nudity.

So was the poster stating that I am a nitwit, or just implying it?

Marty St James wrote:

Seems to be the general view.
In my most recent casting call, I state:
Model must be comfortable up to "implied" nude.

Should I reject the models who apply that don't do nude or have nude images in their ports? (There are a few)

Yes. You already have this one answered. Looking for those that might when there are enough that will only causes you frustration that you don't need. You seem to be pursuing all of the angles here in the thread. The first response was "Don't"... follow that advice.

Marty St James wrote:
Should I reject the models who apply that don't do nude or have nude images in their ports? (There are a few)

Don't reject.

Some models think "implied nude" means posing in bra and panties. Others think it means topless (i.e., with visible nipples).

More than likely, the models responding simply didn't read the casting call. It happens. But there's a possibility they either are completely comfortable with implied but don't have any posted for some reason, or they are looking to branch out a bit.

Just explain what you are looking for wardrobe-wise. Clarify, in grown-up terms (not oft-misunderstood Internet glammer lingo), that you are looking for a model who is comfortable being topless on set, but with nipples covered in the photos. Show an example. If it's also fine for them to use pasties or some sort of concealed bikini top, etc. to be more covered on set, make that clear as well.

Also, you may want to say "implied topless" rather than just "implied nude." The latter suggests bottomless implied nude as well, so if that isn't a shoot requirement, there's no sense filtering out models who would assume that.

Tim Hammond wrote:
"I'm a gentlman ... how can I talk more girls into going beyond their comfort zone?"

Dude!
Those are your words - not mine!
Not even close to what the topic is about.

Tim Hammond wrote:
I shoot almost exclusively nude work.  I have no problem finding models to work with without talking unwilling girls out of their clothes.  I don't believe there's any reason you would need to, unless it's for the thrill.  Are you the gentleman that gentleman's clubs are named after?

At no time did I imply to talk unwilling girls out of their clothes.
Your comments are misleading and appear to be trying to incite a heated response.
Please desist.

Richard Tallent wrote:

Don't reject.

Some models think "implied nude" means posing in bra and panties. Others think it means topless (i.e., with visible nipples).

Just explain what you are looking for wardrobe-wise. Clarify, in grown-up terms (not oft-misunderstood Internet glammer lingo), that you are looking for a model who is comfortable being topless on set, but with nipples covered in the photos. Show an example. If it's also fine for them to use pasties or some sort of concealed bikini top, etc. to be more covered on set, make that clear as well.

Also, you may want to say "implied topless" rather than just "implied nude." The latter suggests bottomless implied nude as well, so if that isn't a shoot requirement, there's no sense filtering out models who would assume that.

Cheers!
I have a List which I included in the casting call and ask interested models to PM me with a link to the images they would like to recreate.
No confusion there I should think.

Thanks for the balanced response.
It seems that some here are more interested in feeding off subsequent posts and airing their views of GWC's and the like rather than reading the original post.

JSVPhotography wrote:

Yes. You already have this one answered. Looking for those that might when there are enough that will only causes you frustration that you don't need. You seem to be pursuing all of the angles here in the thread. The first response was "Don't"... follow that advice.

Thanks for the feedback.
Will keep my models separated by their field of expertise.

Horses for courses as they say!

Chuckarelei wrote:
Me too.    I have no idea who tavis is.

Tavia does travel to the US each year and is worth looking up if she will be in an area near you. She usually attends one or two of the Arizona "Shoot Outs"

https://www.modelmayhem.com/3668

Marty St James wrote:
I have non-nude models that want to shoot implied with me, so that is also a double edged sword. Your take is that I should not waste my time shooting implied with fashion models (That want to shoot implied)?

I think you should. If non-nude models want to shoot implied but no one will do that with them then how are they expected to actually get comfortable enough to perhaps one day shoot nude?

Marty St James wrote:
At no time did I imply to talk unwilling girls out of their clothes.
Your comments are misleading and appear to be trying to incite a heated response.
Please desist.

Marty St James wrote:
...
To achieve believable Implied shots, the model is generally topless/naked and needs to be comfortable that way.
...
so what could  I do from an approach/marketing perspective to encourage more non-nude models to shoot Implied with me?

If you didn't mean what you said, maybe you should have said what you meant.  I'm not looking for a heated response, just saying that what you said sounds a little odd to me.  You can get pissed, you can clarify, or you can ignore it.  Doesn't matter to me.

K E S L E R wrote:
Its really easy.  Show them photo concepts of what you have in mind.  They will either give you a yes or no based on your work.

So pretty much what I am doing then.


https://www.modelmayhem.com/casting.php?ccid=686684

Tim Hammond wrote:
If you didn't mean what you said, maybe you should have said what you meant.  I'm not looking for a heated response, just saying that what you said sounds a little odd to me.  You can get pissed, you can clarify, or you can ignore it.  Doesn't matter to me.

ignore it....

Cheers