Angela Michelle Perez wrote:
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


Her bits are covered but you can clearly see she's nude therefore it's a demure/covered nude not imply.

Thanks for the clear clarification Angela.
That does tie in with the OP title and helps me with my thinking on implied vs. nude and how to market myself better in my casting calls.
I'll stick with nude models for the demure/covered nude shots.

To further clarify:
Implied = A model should be clothed or partially covered by clothing?

From my List:Shots I want in my portfolio

Would this beautiful shot of Leanne be implied?
https://www.modelmayhem.com/727876




Would this stunning shot of Devon be demure/topless?
https://www.modelmayhem.com/185034

Marty St James wrote:

Thanks for the clear clarification Angela.
That does tie in with the OP title and helps me with my thinking on implied vs. nude and how to market myself better in my casting calls.
I'll stick with nude models for the demure/covered nude shots.

To further clarify:
Implied = A model should be clothed or partially covered by clothing?

From my List:Shots I want in my portfolio

Would this beautiful shot of Leanne be implied?




Would this stunning shot of Devon be demure/topless?

correct

Lumigraphics wrote:
No.

Implied AS IT IS USED ON MM means one thing and one thing only- what the viewer sees in the final photo. What happens on set is totally, utterly irrelevant. And "implied nude" image FOR THE PURPOSES OF MM means that the models "bits" (female nipples and areola, genitalia, and often buttcrack) are covered or otherwise not visible. The model may or may not be nude on set- this is IRRELEVANT to the definition.

Please don't come in and muddy up the waters by using a non-standard definition.

A female model could be topless, or wearing pasties, or a small bikini- if her arms are obscuring her breasts and the viewer cannot tell whether her breasts are bare, that's an implied nude. The image IMPLIES that the model is (topless) nude.

That was what I did originally think it meant.

Goes back to drawing board...


Have re-amended my casting call as follows:
Model must be comfortable up to demure topless (i.e. covered).


Phew!

Stephen Markman wrote:
I was under the impression that the OP (essentially) says: "How do I convince models who have not done nudes or implieds to do them with me?"

Read the original post and my subsequent comments.
Your impression is incorrect.

Marty St James wrote:

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?

I'm not projecting. Screw you.
I'm a nude model; I have no problem getting naked for the camera, and I'm entirely comfortable doing just that.

I'm only getting the same impression from your OP that everyone else is getting.
Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean you should try a "I know you are but what am I?!" approach.
childish.

Marty St James wrote:

Read the original post and my subsequent comments.
Your impression is incorrect.

Hmmmm, don't know where I could have gotten that "incorrect" impression that you were trying to figure out the best way to convince non-nude models to do nudes or implieds.

Hmmmmmm . . . .where on earth could I have gotten that impression???

Wait - I know:

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?

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.

I think a lot of models post "no nude or implied" in their portfolio just to keep the creepo GWC's at bay. I've had good luck just sending them a good description of the concept and/or a photo of something close to the concept, sort of like what stylists do with a hair book.

I've had plenty of the "no nudes" models do nude shots for my boudoir book just because they liked the concept; professionalism and attention to detail go a long way in getting a model "at ease" with your work.

Mizz Amanda Marie wrote:
I'm not projecting. Screw you.
I'm a nude model; I have no problem getting naked for the camera, and I'm entirely comfortable doing just that.

I'm only getting the same impression from your OP that everyone else is getting.
Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean you should try a "I know you are but what am I?!" approach.
childish.

Nice!
Good to see well balanced considered responses.

Ancestral Indulgence wrote:
One way I describe nudity to models is that there WILL be "incidental nudity" during an implied/demure shoot. Meaning the photographer may see the model naked while setting up the shot, but the finished image will be implied or demure.

Just another method of putting them at ease so that the shot goes well for you.

I like your wording.

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?

My bad again.
My intended emphasis was asking what I could do in my marketing approach...........
....meaning, how best to word my casting call?

Yes, I could have worded the original post better, but I did try to correct the perception through my responses.

For the record: The OP has no intention of misguiding, misleading or misdirecting models in to a state of undress contrary to the models original desired objective for the photo shoot, and does not solicit models to shoot in styles other than what they openly declare as their preference.

Miss_May_ wrote:
give them money.

Always!

Stephen Markman wrote:
Why are we still discussing this, three pages later?

Coz for some people it is fun , and for others it is emotional

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?

No. Once a model is naked, it is no longer implied nudity, it is nudity. If you have a model in a bathing suit, getting out of a shower holding a towel infront of her it is implied that she is naked behind the towel. That is implied nudity. The model being naked and covering up their naughty bits is not implied. That is flat out nudity.

Marty St James wrote:

My bad again.
My intended emphasis was asking what I could do in my marketing approach...........
....meaning, how best to word my casting call?

Yes, I could have worded the original post better, but I did try to correct the perception through my responses.

For the record: The OP has no intention of misguiding, misleading or misdirecting models in to a state of undress contrary to the models original desired objective for the photo shoot, and does not solicit models to shoot in styles other than what they openly declare as their preference.

Yes, that is why the word implied is used to much here. Photographers are trying to coax girls into getting naked without calling it getting naked.

Marty St James wrote:

My bad again.
My intended emphasis was asking what I could do in my marketing approach...........
....meaning, how best to word my casting call?

Yes, I could have worded the original post better, but I did try to correct the perception through my responses.

For the record: The OP has no intention of misguiding, misleading or misdirecting models in to a state of undress contrary to the models original desired objective for the photo shoot, and does not solicit models to shoot in styles other than what they openly declare as their preference.

The whole problem came when you started talking about non-nude models shooting nude or implied.

Your question, as I now understand it (or as it has now been re-invented) is: how do you get models for implied shoots.

Answer: post castings, browse models in your area and send the ones you like PMs, read castings/travel notices, post availability notices, randomly contact every model in this thread and ask them to come get naked, post on Craig's List, spend lots of money. . . .etc.

shawnmakesfoto wrote:
No. Once a model is naked, it is no longer implied nudity, it is nudity. If you have a model in a bathing suit, getting out of a shower holding a towel infront of her it is implied that she is naked behind the towel. That is implied nudity. The model being naked and covering up their naughty bits is not implied. That is flat out nudity.

So if said model:
- is naked behind the towel, is it still implied?
- wears a thong on and has taped nipples behind the towel , is it still implied? -YES, I guess.

Seems to me that there are many differing views.

Stephen Markman wrote:
The whole problem came when you started talking about non-nude models shooting nude or implied.

Your question, as I now understand it (or as it has now been re-invented) is: how do you get models for implied shoots.

Agreed.
Not so sure on the recommendation though, but thanks.

shawnmakesfoto wrote:
Yes, that is why the word implied is used to much here. Photographers are trying to coax girls into getting naked without calling it getting naked.

Yeah

That's why so many of us generally don't shoot "implied nudes" with non-nude models, right?

Marty St James wrote:
Would this beautiful shot of Leanne be implied?
https://www.modelmayhem.com/727876

Personally, I would call that "clothed."  Which doesn't mean any clothed model would do the shot; just as not every nude model does every nude shot, for a variety of reasons.

Michael_S_Photography wrote:
Your question is fair, not deserving the standard MM abuse, aint it great?

The over simplified, yet completely accurate, answer is; treat them the way you want to be treated.  So ask yourself what would need to be in place in order for you to be photographed nude.  It's a relationship of trust, which means abandoning the arrogance that is so prevalent in our industry.

Thanks Michael, you are too kind sir.

Excuse the little smile on my face as I read your advice
So ask yourself what would need to be in place in order for you to be photographed nude.
Me - A month or two of working out in the gym every day for 2-4 hours, large amounts of alcohol...

Not sure that I can ask that of my models...


Seriously though, you are on the money.
Cheers!

Marty St James wrote:

Thanks Michael, you are too kind sir.

Excuse the little smile on my face as I read your advice
So ask yourself what would need to be in place in order for you to be photographed nude.
Me - A month or two of working out in the gym every day for 2-4 hours, large amounts of alcohol...

Not sure that I can ask that of my models...


Seriously though, you are on the money.
Cheers!

The joke was not wasted, but you bring up a good point, and I would contend that there is an angle, a crop, lighting, etc. that would make a worthy capture of you.  So, put another way, you have areas of your body that are better than others.  To capitalize on your strengths you may need to expose your weaknesses in the process.

ALL people have some level of confidence contrasted against insecurity.  We work with people all along that spectrum.  The carefree nude model, requires little security, but the demographic that you want to reach currently residing somewhere more reserved, can be reached by extending the same tact, and sensitivity that you would require for your self.  Ultimately, all you can do is open the door, it's up to the model to walk through it, or close it.