The Beauty Of Light wrote:

Hey, I'm not accusing you - I don't know you from Adam - but there are plenty of photographers that have ended up being labelled as level pushers using that technique. Some models are uncertain, eager to please, concerned that they get paid their fee or just reluctant to say 'no' until it's too late by which time they've gone beyond their comfort zone. They then go home and agonise about what they 'allowed themselves' to do. Some time later another model tells them that the photographer took advantage of them and you end up with a label.

Best course of action is for the photographer to accept responsibility himself and make sure the shoot stays well within the model's known comfort zone.

As I said - not accusing you at all, just pointing out what could happen.

I'm not a mind reader- I have no idea what any model's "comfort zone" is. I expect a model to be a responsible adult and tell me clearly.

If a model went to the club and got talked into going home with some guy she just met and then agonized over it the next day, we'd all tell her to be an adult and accept responsibility for her actions. If she made an impulse purchase of an expensive pair of shoes that she really couldn't afford so her rent was late- her fault. If she stepped outside to smoke a doobie and got arrested- oops, should have known better. But if she takes off more clothing than she originally intended to, now it’s the photographer's fault? Riiiight.

wynnesome wrote:
There's just no hard and fast definition.  Ten people will tell you ten different things, and argue about it for pages to come in this thread.

All that matters is:
a) The limits agreed upon by a model and photographer for a particular shoot as to 'what shows' and how much is 'covered.'
b) The rules of any particular site, such as Model Mayhem, as to what content is allowed to be displayed in various site areas (portfolio, avatar, forums, etc).

This covers it (no pun intended). 

Shooting "Implied nude", or indeed shooting "nude" means what the photographer and model agree it does.  Posting on a given site means following that site's rules.

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:

And how do you do that if the model doesn't say no.

Well you could take the easy way out, like many photographers do, and not shoot any nudity of any kind with models that specify 'implied' only.

Or you could establish what a model's true comfort zone is prior to a shoot. Bear in mind that sometimes a model will say she'll do a certain thing but you can tell she's not really comfortable with it.

Lumigraphics wrote:
I'm not a mind reader- I have no idea what any model's "comfort zone" is. I expect a model to be a responsible adult and tell me clearly.

If a model went to the club and got talked into going home with some guy she just met and then agonized over it the next day, we'd all tell her to be an adult and accept responsibility for her actions. If she made an impulse purchase of an expensive pair of shoes that she really couldn't afford so her rent was late- her fault. If she stepped outside to smoke a doobie and got arrested- oops, should have known better. But if she takes off more clothing than she originally intended to, now it’s the photographer's fault? Riiiight.

Nor do you care to know by the sound of it. Each to their own I guess.

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:
Hmmm, I had hoped more models would jump in and respond.

I don't really care which way or the other...
I just make art and let others fight about the classification and nomenclature.

Lumigraphics wrote:
I'm not a mind reader- I have no idea what any model's "comfort zone" is. I expect a model to be a responsible adult and tell me clearly.

If a model went to the club and got talked into going home with some guy she just met and then agonized over it the next day, we'd all tell her to be an adult and accept responsibility for her actions. If she made an impulse purchase of an expensive pair of shoes that she really couldn't afford so her rent was late- her fault. If she stepped outside to smoke a doobie and got arrested- oops, should have known better. But if she takes off more clothing than she originally intended to, now it’s the photographer's fault? Riiiight.

The Beauty Of Light wrote:
Nor do you care to know by the sound of it. Each to their own I guess.

Sounding pretty white knight-ish there, and ignoring my statement in bold.

Lumigraphics wrote:

Lumigraphics wrote:
I'm not a mind reader- I have no idea what any model's "comfort zone" is. I expect a model to be a responsible adult and tell me clearly.

If a model went to the club and got talked into going home with some guy she just met and then agonized over it the next day, we'd all tell her to be an adult and accept responsibility for her actions. If she made an impulse purchase of an expensive pair of shoes that she really couldn't afford so her rent was late- her fault. If she stepped outside to smoke a doobie and got arrested- oops, should have known better. But if she takes off more clothing than she originally intended to, now it’s the photographer's fault? Riiiight.

Sounding pretty white knight-ish there, and ignoring my statement in bold.

You're so predictable, made me smile. ;P

Silverwing Photography wrote:
Good comparison for Playboy vs Maxim, but if you are getting the Vagina it's either science or porn (since that's the inside, beyond the vulva).

Ypu just now someone is going to see this then message a model with, "I have this science project I need help with..."


I have always been of the opinion, and most of the models I've worked wiht feel the same, is that even if the model is nude in the studio, if the finished photo doesn't actually show the girly parts (or 'my stuff' as one model called it) than it's implied. If it shows up in the finished phot, its nude.

But as someone else suggested, ten people, ten different answers

Four-Eleven Productions wrote:
I prefer to share with the model, in advance of the shoot, several actual examples of images representing the types of shots I have in mind for our session. It's easier (and more honest, too) for her to decide her comfort level based on actual photographs rather than on informal nomenclature with no objective definition.

best method IMHO in order to avoid the 'word game'. I have been asked to do a photoshoot with a lady who wants some 'sensual' images for her spouse. We will talk and we will look in inspirational files I keep [12,000+ images in 20+ designated albums] and get an exact clarification and some ideas to work from. Everyone should be happy with the results? I doubt it. Its human nature!

DG at studio47 wrote:
To make an image of someone where they are 'covered' but 'could' be nude under a sheet or behind a barrier would be an 'implied nude'. A nude where there is no possibility of an article of clothing underneath the object [s] over the body is not implied. They HAVE to be be nude. In that situation you are not implying anything--they ARE nude. they are wearing no clothing and it is evident.

This is why I chuckle when I read all of thes definitions.  People try to apply dictionary definitions which have absolutely nothing to do with why the phrase was coined.  The meaning of the term has morphed many times, but the dictionary has nothing to do with it.

In the 60's, the use of the term "implied nude" became popular in the waining days of the Hayes Commission.  For those of you too young to remember it, for a period, we had censors that reviewed things for the purpose of protecting children.  Actual nudity was an extreme rarity, until the Supreme Court decision which gave rise to the system of film ratings (then which were G, PG, R and X).

The media made a big deal of the term "implied nudity" for the sex symbols of the day.  They tried to outdo each other with the more and more scantilly clad shots and those which were actually nude, but in some way covered.  Implied nude actually mean nude, but the implication was that you were seeing more than you actually were.  "Implied Nude" was all about the "scandal factor."  In films, the actors were just about always, actually nude, so that there could be something made of it in the tabloids.  The naughty bits were always covered.

The term skewed for television since the actors, in many cases, had something on under the sheets.  With few exceptsion though, in the theaters, they did not.

We can play with these words all we want.  People can claim that they know the meaning, but nobody here is going to convince me that they have the "correct definition."  It is a phrase whose meaning has evolved with time.

It is meaningless.  All that matters is what you and the model agree to.  It doesn't matter what you call it.

DG at studio47 wrote:
Someone said," I'm not sure what I like, but I know it when I see it"--or something like that. That is the bottom line. communication can sometimes clarify definitions, but an image is worth a thousand threads-LOL

Which, in the end, I agree.  Just work it out with the model and don't sweat the definitions.

The Beauty Of Light wrote:
Best course of action is for the photographer to accept responsibility himself and make sure the shoot stays well within the model's known comfort zone.

I agree that the best bet is to discuss everything in advance. Sometimes an idea will come up during a session that has not been covered. I have found that making sure a model knows at the beginning of a shoot that I won't be offended if she says no to a concept, helps her do just that.

Someone else suggested sending examples of ideas. That is something else I regularly do.

The Beauty Of Light wrote:

Well you could take the easy way out, like many photographers do, and not shoot any nudity of any kind with models that specify 'implied' only.

Or you could establish what a model's true comfort zone is prior to a shoot. Bear in mind that sometimes a model will say she'll do a certain thing but you can tell she's not really comfortable with it.

I discuss all shoots and ideas before hand. Clearly. I also let models know that it is their call as to whether we do certain ideas during the shoot or not, as comfortability dictates. I also use photos to represent ideas, because I've found that having a photos of an idea is much better than just describing it, because people tend to overimagine everything they're told, but a picture is what it is, and is much clearer.

The Beauty Of Light wrote:
Nor do you care to know by the sound of it. Each to their own I guess.

But he has a point. I'm too busy doing photos to hold someone's hand, read their reactions and play escort AND photographer. If I'm expected to be adult enough to not harass, coerce, persuade, violate, molest, or otherwise discomfort a model, then asking someone to be adult enough to stand up for themselves and know their limits and be clear about them before AND DURING a shoot isn't out of the question.

Sometimes the light hits the model in such a way that all the sudden you blurt out an idea. And I have been on a few shoots where it was made VERY clear what the model would, wouldn't and/or wanted to do, and yet during the actual shoot they make no indication that they aren't in the mood anymore, and then just get mad that you kept trying to "push" them, even though they had agreed to it before. And this includes a model who in fact does nude.

I can't be expected to know when a model has changed her mind, if they don't explain that they have in fact changed their mind.

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:
But he has a point.

If he or other photographers get labelled as level pushers, due to the circumstances I described, and are happy to convince themselves that it's all the model's fault because she failed to say 'no' then fine. Trouble is - whilst they might be able to justify it to themselves, in their own minds, it ain't going to change that label. I understand that some photographers won't be bothered by it, but like I said - each to their own.

You gotta bear in mind that 'implied nude' isn't a well defined term amongst models [or photographers]. In my view any photographer that works with 'implied' models should take extra care for their own protection. A photographer that intimates that he has no interest in knowing what an 'implied' model's comfort zone is, nor taking care to operate within it, must be pretty stupid no matter how busy or pre-occupied he is.

Matt D H wrote:
If panties and bra come off, by default it will be considered nude, unless such items are being used to cover the goodies then it automatically becomes a nude and it will not be implied anymore.

funny line................

so is this implied or not?

Crystal Perido wrote:

funny line................

so is this implied or not?

That is a classic implied nude shot.

Jeff Goodwin wrote:
I just try to make sure the model and I share an understanding. I explained to one new model that the fine line was that in an implied shot, there might be nothing covered, but there was also nothing that showed. She replied saying that sounded like nude but for a technicality. I agreed that she understood the concept perfectly.

Unless I want to work with a particular model badly, it's completely waste of time (to explain).

Edward Chen wrote:
Hire models who are comfortably being nude in the process of taking photos. You control the outcome whether you want it full nude or implied. The freedom is yours.

No that is cheating on the model

as you said 2 totally different concepts

RayH Photography wrote:
That is a classic implied nude shot.

Matt D H wrote:
If panties and bra come off, by default it will be considered nude, unless such items are being used to cover the goodies then it automatically becomes a nude and it will not be implied anymore.

doesn't work really right?

Crystal Perido wrote:

No that is cheating on the model

as you said 2 totally different concepts

Revise my statement:

Hire nude models who are comfortably being nude in the process of taking photos. You control the outcome whether you want it full nude or implied. The freedom is yours.

wynnesome wrote:
There's just no hard and fast definition.  Ten people will tell you ten different things, and argue about it for pages to come in this thread.

All that matters is:
a) The limits agreed upon by a model and photographer for a particular shoot as to 'what shows' and how much is 'covered.'
b) The rules of any particular site, such as Model Mayhem, as to what content is allowed to be displayed in various site areas (portfolio, avatar, forums, etc).

This sums it up, quite beautifly!  Communication between model and photographer is critical!

RayH Photography wrote:
"Implied Nude" is where the model doesn't want to show parts of the body and is therefore always worried that something might show and is never relaxed.

"Nude" is where the model doesn't care what shows, and is perfectly relaxed.

Don't use a model who will only do implied nude.

I've done "implied nude" with models who do are fine with nudes, at my request.  I've also done "implied nude" with models who aren't fine with nudes in the final image.  In general, I won't do implied nude with models who aren't comfortable with "nude on set."  There have been creative exceptions. 

Crystal Perido wrote:
No that is cheating on the model

as you said 2 totally different concepts

Edward Chen wrote:
Revise my statement:

Hire nude models who are comfortably being nude in the process of taking photos. You control the outcome whether you want it full nude or implied. The freedom is yours.

I believe you mean "freedom is yours." in that you have already communicated to the model what you want.  What is posted in the models or photographer's portfolio is another matter (subject) entirely.

If that means I turn my back so they can reposition and recover their critical parts, then so be it.

Ugh.  No.  Never.  A million times never.  If a model is not comfortable enough with me and her own body for me to accidentally see a nipple or some labia, and is spending her whole time concerned about whether or not anything is showing, the shots are going to reflect that (unless she is a SUPER pro, but if she is, I can't imagine her being that concerned about me seeing her naughty bits).

As far as the "line"?  I make it quite clear in my early conversations with any model what I expect from an "implied" shoot.  Because I know that everybody has different definitions in their heads, assuming that you're on the same wavelength without actually, you know, discussing details of the shoot is a BAD idea.  There are plenty of models I've met on this site who list nude as a style that they'll shoot, but what they *really* mean is implied or covered nude.  That could lead to some serious awkwardness during the shoot.

The Beauty Of Light wrote:

If he or other photographers get labelled as level pushers, due to the circumstances I described, and are happy to convince themselves that it's all the model's fault because she failed to say 'no' then fine. Trouble is - whilst they might be able to justify it to themselves, in their own minds, it ain't going to change that label. I understand that some photographers won't be bothered by it, but like I said - each to their own.

You gotta bear in mind that 'implied nude' isn't a well defined term amongst models [or photographers]. In my view any photographer that works with 'implied' models should take extra care for their own protection. A photographer that intimates that he has no interest in knowing what an 'implied' model's comfort zone is, nor taking care to operate within it, must be pretty stupid no matter how busy or pre-occupied he is.

I'm not interested in being a white knight but you obviously are. You trumpet your "care" for models while treating them like stupid little bunnies who can’t make adult decisions. I find that amazingly disrespectful. I work with intelligent adult models who don't need me to think and speak for them.

Lumigraphics wrote:
I'm not interested in being a white knight but you obviously are. You trumpet your "care" for models while treating them like stupid little bunnies who can’t make adult decisions. I find that amazingly disrespectful. I work with intelligent adult models who don't need me to think and speak for them.

There's really no point you keep harping on about white knighting - it just makes you look more of a fool and desperate for any old cause to fight. Funnily enough you remind me of all those poorly done clichés that people churn out simply because they don't have enough imagination to come up with something insightful and interesting.

The Beauty Of Light wrote:

There's really no point you keep harping on about white knighting - it just makes you look more of a fool and desperate for any old cause to fight. Funnily enough you remind me of all those poorly done clichés that people churn out simply because they don't have enough imagination to come up with something insightful and interesting.

I'm not sure what YOUR point is. You seem to think that models need to be protected and can't think for themselves. That's not a cliché, that's a crock of shit.