Photographer
Martin St James
Posts: 565
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Siân Bennett wrote:
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? Aha, a differing view.
You seem alone (So far)
Model
Chels Robinson
Posts: 86
Saint Louis, Missouri, US
Marty St James wrote:
Aha, a differing view.
You seem alone (So far)
I don't think anyone is saying do not shoot implied with non nude models. If a non nude model contacts you and wants to shoot implied then go ahead and shoot. But don't seek out models who are not interested in shooting implied or nude.
Your original post made it sound like you wanted to try and convince models who were uninterested in shooting implied to shoot it.
To sum up: If they contact you, shoot with them. If they don't contact you, leave them alone.
Photographer
BTHPhoto
Posts: 6985
Fairbanks, Alaska, US
Chels Robinson wrote:
Your original post made it sound like you wanted to try and convince models who were uninterested in shooting implied to shoot it. That's what I said, but it hurt his feelings so he said it was off topic and scolded me.
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25319
Bath, England, United Kingdom
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. +1000
It's rarely worth the effort trying to shoot implied with non-nude models and I would certainly never choose to do so.
Just my $0.02
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com
Model
Mizz Amanda Marie
Posts: 1579
Valparaiso, Indiana, US
So... you're telling me all the nude models in your area are too expensive for you? So, you think you should get women who are not yet comfortable shooting nudes to do it so that you won't have to pay them what you would have to pay a seasoned nude model?
I still find this insulting.
If I was said model, I would feel cheated. You ought to get what you pay for, sir.
This is just what I gathered from your reply.
I see nothing wrong with a model experimenting with implied shots if she is comfortable, but I do not think it is your job to push her into that. I think if a model has no shots of that nature in her portfolio, and has expressed that she is not shooting that at this time, you ought to leave it be.
With that said... why don't you crack open your wallet and pay a nude model to give you the results you want?
Photographer
Martin St James
Posts: 565
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Tim Hammond wrote:
That's what I said, but it hurt his feelings so he said it was off topic and scolded me.
Funny how when we write we don't always see how others will interpret.
My bad.
Photographer
Martin St James
Posts: 565
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Mizz Amanda Marie wrote:
So... you're telling me all the nude models in your area are too expensive for you? So, you think you should get women who are not yet comfortable shooting nudes to do it so that you won't have to pay them what you would have to pay a seasoned nude model?
I still find this insulting.
If I was said model, I would feel cheated. You ought to get what you pay for, sir.
This is just what I gathered from your reply.
I see nothing wrong with a model experimenting with implied shots if she is comfortable, but I do not think it is your job to push her into that. I think if a model has no shots of that nature in her portfolio, and has expressed that she is not shooting that at this time, you ought to leave it be.
With that said... why don't you crack open your wallet and pay a nude model to give you the results you want? To clarify.
There seems to be a shortage of affordable nude models (That I would consider working with) willing to shoot with me (Read in to that whatever you will).
BUT, the reason for this there are interstate nude models who are more than happy to shoot with me (when they are in town) at what I consider a reasonable rate, and what are considered as reasonable for a portfolio shoot. If I was shooting commercial then of course I would expect to pay more.
Most nude models that "I would consider" locally are usually too booked up with work, or essentially as far as I am concerned have priced themselves out of my price range.
i.e. I am willing to pay models for image for my portfolio.
I do not have the budget to pay nude "commercial" rates.
Photographer
Martin St James
Posts: 565
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Chels Robinson wrote:
I don't think anyone is saying do not shoot implied with non nude models. If a non nude model contacts you and wants to shoot implied then go ahead and shoot. But don't seek out models who are not interested in shooting implied or nude.
Your original post made it sound like you wanted to try and convince models who were uninterested in shooting implied to shoot it.
To sum up: If they contact you, shoot with them. If they don't contact you, leave them alone. Agreed.
Here's a recent casting call of mine in full to clarify that this is what I do practice:
I'm looking for talented models to help me add to my portfolio using samples from my "Shots I want in my portfolio" list as inspiration.
https://www.modelmayhem.com/list/245308
Looking to do a series of location shoots followed by studio shoot/s with the selected model/s.
Model must be comfortable up to "implied" nude.
If you are interested, drop me a PM with a link to the image/s in my list that you would like to do, and any questions.
MSJ
Leave
Photographer
Martin St James
Posts: 565
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Marty St James wrote:
Model must be comfortable up to "implied" nude.
If you are interested, drop me a PM with a link to the image/s in my list that you would like to do, and any questions.
Leave Now, this is not me trying to talk womens clothes off, of force women to do poses or styles they do not want to do.
Are we clear?
Photographer
Julian W I L D E
Posts: 1831
Portland, Oregon, US
Do a great job of shooting them that way.
;-) -JULIAN
Photographer
sospix
Posts: 23790
Orlando, Florida, US
Sometimes beauty shoots just morph into implied shoots . . . ![https://modelmayhm-5.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/090401/09/49d3919c6ba96.jpg]() SOS
Model
MissSybarite
Posts: 11863
Los Angeles, California, US
Siân Bennett wrote:
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? Not all models ever want to shoot nude, this shouldn't be too hard to understand.
Not all models need to ever shoot nude, this shouldn't be too hard to understand.
Marty St James wrote:
Aha, a differing view.
... Well you know what they say about differing views, someone will have one...
FYI, some models that don't do even implied nudes, don't because they don't even want photographers to see them nude. That's just how some are.
Photographer
Han Koehle
Posts: 4100
Saint Louis, Missouri, US
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. Never talk someone out of their clothes. It'll ruin your reputation when they tell people how uncomfortable you made them.
Photographer
Martin St James
Posts: 565
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
BlackArts - Jenna Black wrote:
+1. Never talk someone out of their clothes. It'll ruin your reputation when they tell people how uncomfortable you made them. +100
I'm with you all on this
Makeup Artist
erinlouise
Posts: 31
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Is there really a shortage of nude models in Sydney? Hmm seems so unlikely
Model
MissSybarite
Posts: 11863
Los Angeles, California, US
BlackArts - Jenna Black wrote:
+1. Never talk someone out of their clothes. It'll ruin your reputation when they tell people how uncomfortable you made them. This is the BIG reason not too. 'Cause in reality not everyone is going to just
be able to say no and move on, and true or not, there will be at least one model who will say that you were a creeper photographer who just wanted to get her naked.
Which is why this is the correct way to go...
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.
Photographer
Nic
Posts: 627
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
Light Color and Shape wrote:
I shot one nude model who was clearly uncomfortable during the entire thing, it was her first nude shoot. I never got enough rapport going to figure out how it was for her, but it was torture for me and showed in all the shots. I felt like a dirty old man the entire time. Don't try to convince non-nude models to shoot nude... let somebody else get them over the hump. In my limited experience, the first time ISN'T the best. She probably felt like you were too if you did. I shoot a lot of Models and a lot of new Models to help them get started. It is all about them being comfortable. A lot of the Models I shoot that say "I DO NOT SHOOT NUDES SO DON"T ASK!" end up getting naked and shooting nudes for a private DVD they keep for when they are ready to bust out the nudes. It's because they are comfortable with me because I could care less if they are naked or not. Most Models walk around my place place naked or sit here naked all the time they are here unless putting on wardrobe to shoot in. I keep eye contact not drool over their naked bodies. I see 5-10 naked Models a week on a busy week and have for years. It's no big deal to me so it projects as no big deal to them.
It's all about comfort levels.
Photographer
Nic
Posts: 627
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
I wish I could post all the incredibly beautiful nude images I have shot with Models that "DO NOT SHOOT NUDES SO DON"T ASK" (lol)
They have so opened up to the camera when they know no one is going to see them but them and who they decide to show them to. More so than most nude Models I have worked with. It's the little deviousness in their smile I guess that comes thru once they get comfortable. The are probably ex Catholic School Girls! (lol)
Photographer
JohnStJohn Photography
Posts: 466
Lake Oswego, Oregon, US
I don't marry 1st cousins and I don't shoot implied: some images just end up being sexually suggestive, with a lack of nudity... but the model is definitely nude (or on her way to nude... ; ). Having some model worried about whether her top is down too far, worried about what's peaking out and from where during the shoot is not implied, it's explicitly a waste of everybody's time. I'd rather shoot a model clothed and focussed, rather than screw around with "implied"...
Photographer
MLRPhoto
Posts: 5766
Olivet, Michigan, US
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)?
Siân Bennett wrote:
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? I shoot "implied" on occasion and "nude" a bit more often with "non nude" models. If they decide they're ready, and are comfortable with the photographer's style and references, it becomes a possibility. If the comfort continues in person, it works. To the best of my knowledge, this young lady had never done a shoot that showed lingerie, and she was great to work with.
![https://farm5.static.flickr.com/4040/4372521041_3c7851c713.jpg]()
I don't do "pressure." I have told models that nudity would be a necessary part of us doing a shoot, if I thought their look wouldn't benefit me otherwise, but that's early in the conversations.
Normally, I just contact a model, as if she's interested in a shoot, and if so, tell her to take a look at my work and let me know what she is, and isn't comfortable with. And we go from there.
Photographer
MLRPhoto
Posts: 5766
Olivet, Michigan, US
Mizz Amanda Marie wrote:
So... you're telling me all the nude models in your area are too expensive for you? So, you think you should get women who are not yet comfortable shooting nudes to do it so that you won't have to pay them what you would have to pay a seasoned nude model?
I still find this insulting.
If I was said model, I would feel cheated. You ought to get what you pay for, sir.
This is just what I gathered from your reply.
I see nothing wrong with a model experimenting with implied shots if she is comfortable, but I do not think it is your job to push her into that. I think if a model has no shots of that nature in her portfolio, and has expressed that she is not shooting that at this time, you ought to leave it be.
With that said... why don't you crack open your wallet and pay a nude model to give you the results you want? Fly Amanda to you. She's willing to do implied. And she's great.
Photographer
MLRPhoto
Posts: 5766
Olivet, Michigan, US
BlackArts - Jenna Black wrote:
+1. Never talk someone out of their clothes. It'll ruin your reputation when they tell people how uncomfortable you made them. "Talking someone out of her clothes" = bad.
"Standing back while she takes them all off" = not so bad.
Photographer
steve simmons
Posts: 418
Saint Anthony, Idaho, US
Perhaps it becomes a game to be the first to shoot them 'implied' and perhaps get a peek
just wondering
Model
Mizz Amanda Marie
Posts: 1579
Valparaiso, Indiana, US
steve simmons wrote:
Perhaps it becomes a game to be the first to shoot them 'implied' and perhaps get a peek
just wondering This is my guess.
I still don't believe in this shortage of affordable nude models in Sydney thing.
Modeling doesn't work in this progressive way that you seem to think it does- where sooner or later everyone takes their clothes off, it's just a matter of when that person is ready. NO. It does NOT work that way. Some people will NEVER shoot nudes or implied with anyone, and it's screwed up to try to get them to if they haven't expressed interest in it beforehand. As I said before, if you ask once and get a "no", do not ever suggest it again. It just shows a lack of respect for someone's personal boundaries.
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12117
Tampa, Florida, US
I didn't take it from the op that he was trying to "convince" or "coerce" non-nude models into doing something they're not comfortable with for any reason (i.e. notches in the belt to say he shot a non-nude model implied).
I took it that the pool of nude models well is getting low and he's trying to expand his model base.
Some food for thought (or a snack). Would a different feel be projected between a professional nude model and another glamour model with perhaps a bit less confidence? That apprehension/coyness (maybe not the best word) could be the exact look the photographer is going for, as opposed to the confidence of a model who is so accustomed to nude images.
Of course, if it's a professional nude model she's also an actress and should be able to project any feel to the image so...
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12117
Tampa, Florida, US
steve simmons wrote:
Perhaps it becomes a game to be the first to shoot them 'implied' and perhaps get a peek
just wondering Is that really the impression you got from the op? I see nothing that would even remotely lead one to believe that's his agenda. It seemed like a very professional and honest post.
Or are we projecting?
Photographer
wynnesome
Posts: 5453
Long Beach, California, US
Implied nude.
You can't tell if the model is nude, but lack of apparent clothing implies that none is present.
Usually accomplished by fabric, props, body position, or shadows covering nipples, buttocks, and/or pubic region in the final image.
Photographer
HOTTIE SHOTS
Posts: 6018
Memphis, Tennessee, US
Very few of the models I shoot implied are nude models. It is very easy to get them to pose that way, you send a message and tell them "I want to shoot you implied." If they say no, then shut up and contact another model. I put in writing that they will be completely nude on set and that the release does not allow me to use shots that show nips/lips. They want to be comfortable that you will not get images that show too much and put them on the web.
Make everything clear up front. Don't get a model in and try to talk her out of her clothes. If you want to do implied nudes then she should know when she gets there that is what she is going to be shooting.
As for averting your eyes and stuff, come on.... they are naked and you get them to pose the way you want and take the pictures. If you make a huge deal out of them being nude by trying hard not to see their nudity, that is the start of being creepy. It is not a big deal unless you make it a big deal. As long as you don't talk to thier breasts or crotch they usually don't have a problem being naked around you.
Photographer
steve simmons
Posts: 418
Saint Anthony, Idaho, US
"...so what could I do from an approach/marketing perspective to encourage more non-nude models to shoot Implied with me?"
This is what made me think he was trying to get a model to do something she does not want to do.
I know a terrific model here in NM who does not want to do nude. I do not ask her to. We have worked together several times and get along very well. I respect her limits. I do not try and convince her otherwise.
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
Had a model here today doing her first ever shoot, she hired me to get her port started. Wanted to do sexy implied photos but not actually showing her full breasts or nipples. No problem, she was comfortable being topless on set, we did a look with a fabric wrap and another with panties and her long hair covering her boobs.
Normally I don't care to shoot implied nudes with a non-nude model. We (a female photographer partnered with me on this session) told the model beforehand that she'd be topless on set and that yes we would see her half nude, but that the photos would be covered. She understood, had a great time, and the shoot turned out nicely.
As long as you agree to limits and stick to them, things should be fine. We gave the client exactly what she wanted and I'm betting that she'll be back for another shoot in the future.
Photographer
Martin St James
Posts: 565
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
steve simmons wrote:
"...so what could I do from an approach/marketing perspective to encourage more non-nude models to shoot Implied with me?"
This is what made me think he was trying to get a model to do something she does not want to do. My bad.
Perhaps should read:
Is there anything I could improve int he way I compose my casting calls that would encourage a wider base of models to shoot Implied?
This was the "marketing perspective" that I alluded to.
Four of my port images (Including my AVI) make it pretty clear that I shoot implied, and the rest of my images infer that the style I shoot is "Sexy".
Photographer
A-M-P
Posts: 18465
Orlando, Florida, US
If the models are nude on set they are not implied shots. They are just covered/demure nudes.
Implied means they are not nude on set they just appear to look nude in a image.
Photographer
Martin St James
Posts: 565
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Mizz Amanda Marie wrote:
This is my guess.
I still don't believe in this shortage of affordable nude models in Sydney thing.
Modeling doesn't work in this progressive way that you seem to think it does- where sooner or later everyone takes their clothes off, it's just a matter of when that person is ready. NO. It does NOT work that way. Some people will NEVER shoot nudes or implied with anyone, and it's screwed up to try to get them to if they haven't expressed interest in it beforehand. As I said before, if you ask once and get a "no", do not ever suggest it again. It just shows a lack of respect for someone's personal boundaries. Your guess in this case would be off the mark.
Just because there are a pool of a certain type of model (i.e. Short, tall, athletic, curvy, trim, topless, nude etc) there is still a process of elimination, both from the photographer and the model as to who wants to work with who/m.
Yes, there are a pool of models in Sydney that would do nude. Some that may want to work with me may not fit my criteria. With some that I would like to work with, I may not fit their criteria.
- Hence the pool diminishes.
I agree that not everyone wants to pose nude and I fully respect that.
My post was meant to be focussed on asking what I can do from a marketing perspective (i.e. Casting calls) to find more models that are "comfortable" doing implied, as I am not aiming to shoot full nude.
I recall three recent shoots where non-nude models wanted to do some implied shots (Their suggestion - not mine!). I was discreet and looked away while they prepared themselves and got some lovely shots that were extremely tasteful.
- Hence my desire to work with more non-nude models on implied shots.
Nobody is trying to coerce or convince anyone to do anything they do not already feel "comfortable" with.
Perhaps you are misinterpreting my intention and simply projecting your own view of photographers that you have worked with?
Photographer
Martin St James
Posts: 565
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Angela Michelle Perez wrote:
If the models are nude on set they are not implied shots. They are just covered nudes.
Implied means they are not nude on set they just appear to look nude in a image. I humbly beg to differ on opinion.
I believe that what is "on set" and what is shot for final images are two different things.
If a fashion model turns her back to you and drops her togs so you don't get a full frontal view (Happens all the time) this does not make her a nude model. Nor does the fact that you can see her naked back and buttocks while not seeing her "more private parts" make her a "Demure/Naked"/Implied" model.
Many photographers I know who do shoot "Implied" with non-nude models (That want to do this) may ask the model to walk around naked/topless for a few minutes before the shoot (Camera off and on the floor) so that neither the model nor the photographer get hung up if the model accidentally "flashes".
It is considered etiquette to allow the model in these situations to view the image son back of camera, and request deletion of any "flashes" if the photographer has not already done so.
Photographer
Martin St James
Posts: 565
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Michael Pandolfo wrote:
I didn't take it from the op that he was trying to "convince" or "coerce" non-nude models into doing something they're not comfortable with for any reason (i.e. notches in the belt to say he shot a non-nude model implied).
I took it that the pool of nude models well is getting low and he's trying to expand his model base. This!
Photographer
Martin St James
Posts: 565
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
steve simmons wrote:
Perhaps it becomes a game to be the first to shoot them 'implied' and perhaps get a peek
just wondering Nope.
That would make me the "gentleman" that frequents "gentlemens clubs".
or GWC.....
When shooting with nude models I spend most of my time getting them to cover up so that we are shooting "Implied".
Photographer
Martin St James
Posts: 565
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
MikeRobisonPhotos wrote:
Fly Amanda to you. She's willing to do implied. And she's great. Hmmmmm.
Ohio-Sydney return + accommodation and expenses........
Tempting, but for that cost I would simply fly myself to Vegas for a week an be done with it...
Hey Amanda. Meet me in Vegas?
I promise not to talk you out of your clothes.
Photographer
Martin St James
Posts: 565
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
MikeRobisonPhotos wrote:
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 shoot "implied" on occasion and "nude" a bit more often with "non nude" models. If they decide they're ready, and are comfortable with the photographer's style and references, it becomes a possibility. If the comfort continues in person, it works. To the best of my knowledge, this young lady had never done a shoot that showed lingerie, and she was great to work with.
![https://farm5.static.flickr.com/4040/4372521041_3c7851c713.jpg]()
I don't do "pressure." I have told models that nudity would be a necessary part of us doing a shoot, if I thought their look wouldn't benefit me otherwise, but that's early in the conversations.
Normally, I just contact a model, as if she's interested in a shoot, and if so, tell her to take a look at my work and let me know what she is, and isn't comfortable with. And we go from there. My view of implied is a little different in that I am trying to be a little bit artistic (Or was that autistic?).
This view of implied to me is more reminiscent of "stripping"
Photographer
A-M-P
Posts: 18465
Orlando, Florida, US
Marty St James wrote:
I humbly beg to differ on opinion.
I believe that what is "on set" and what is shot for final images are two different things.
If a fashion model turns her back to you and drops her togs so you don't get a full frontal view (Happens all the time) this does not make her a nude model. Nor does the fact that you can see her naked back and buttocks while not seeing her "more private parts" make her a "Demure/Naked"/Implied" model.
Many photographers I know who do shoot "Implied" with non-nude models (That want to do this) may ask the model to walk around naked/topless for a few minutes before the shoot (Camera off and on the floor) so that neither the model nor the photographer get hung up if the model accidentally "flashes".
It is considered etiquette to allow the model in these situations to view the image son back of camera, and request deletion of any "flashes" if the photographer has not already done so. I'm just giving you the definiton of what Imply really means if you want to change the meaning then go ahead. But listen to the word imply you are implying that she's nude but in reality she's really not. If the model is nude on set and bits are not showing it's just a covered nude or demure nude but it's still a nude shoot.
You are changing the meaning of something that was define a long time ago maybe you should get your terminoligy straight before you try to convince someone to do imply.
Example this is a nude shot
![https://modelmayhm-5.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/090124/19/497bdf2731cf6_m.jpg]()
Her bits are covered but you can clearly see she's nude therefore it's a demure/covered nude not imply.
Photographer
Michael DBA Expressions
Posts: 3731
Lynchburg, Virginia, US
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. Fifi is soooo right. "Implied" so very often is used by the squeemish to weasel into/out of takin' off clothes. There are some legitimate uses for such images, but please hire a model comfortable with and willing to be completely naked. If either of you has to play coy about it, you do a huge disservice to both the model and any/all future photographers of that model.
There are plenty of models who ARE very comfortable being naked. There is no earthly reason to inflict the ordeal on anyone who is not.
|
