dcphotos wrote:
I guess this would be considered demure then?

finally somebody who understood it

Taylor Rae wrote:
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/1 … 2eef29.jpg

not cheesy, using the roundness of my legs to cover my torso/chest. And totally forgetting that I was nude, I think those are *KEY* to implied, no?

no that is demure nude too

Aesthete Studios wrote:



--Thomas
AESTHETE STUDIOS photography
Aesthete Studios photography
Aesthete Studios Wedding photography
Like AESTHETE STUDIOS on Facebook!

and that is a demure topless

BEHOLDER ArtPhotography wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am curious to see some interesting ideas/poses that represent Implied nudity WITHOUT the cliche' handbras or long hair. (and leave out the caution tape too.... LOL) Be it the angle or a prop as cover, let's see what you got.

thanks.

Without trying to take this into a "definition" discussion,...I view "implied" as meaning...you can't see any clothing but you can't tell if the model is nude...she could be wearing a bikini or bra and panties--but you can't tell.   So there are lots of examples...
---model playing under sheets (where you see her head, shoulders, some cleavage, arms and legs sticking out the other end).
--model seated on the floor, legs up and folded in front of her, arms around legs.
--model on her stomach on the floor, photographer shooting floor level, model's arms perpendicular to her body so we only see cleavage.
--same pose shot from the rear with model looking over her shoulder to the camera.
--model peering from behind a door so we see a leg, hip, arm, shoulder and face.  Don't want to use a door?  Then try a book case, a lamp and end table, peering around a bed, clothes in a closet, from the back seat of a car, trees and plants in the woods.
--selective use of shadow so we see face, chest, legs, stomach but no breasts or pubic area and the shadow is dark enough that she could be clothed or not.
Again, I would argue that a true "implied" nude is one where the model could be nude or maybe not--we don't really know.

And then there are a gazillion poses where the model is obviously nude but nothing is showing.  I'm not going to mention mud or body paint.
--either a prop is used (towel, sheet, food, large feather, hat, removed clothes, fruit, vase, palm frond, scarf, rifle, wine bottles, magazine or newspaper, rope, suspenders, men's clothing or even just a tie placed strategically) to cover up "bits" so the model is obviously nude but we see nothing that would move it past an "R".
--or the model poses so she's nude but nothing shows (side profile shot with arms obscuring her breasts, hand-bra, model seated with back to camera looking over her shoulder, model kneeling and facing forward with hands on thighs so they also cover her breasts).  In other words, she's not using any props, she's obviously nude but we see nothing simply b/c of the pose.

--Ed

BP Glamour wrote:
Here's a couple!  There are a few more in my port!



And



And

I would say the first and last are examples of implied, we really don't know if the model was nude but the shot still comes across as intended.

Kevin Connery wrote:
Here with boots and gloves, here here, here, or here with a motorcycle helmet and boots.

"Modesty" is not provided by any of those items in any of those shots.  It is a byproduct of the posing.

Nelia wrote:
Weewee I might admit to, but in my 57 years I have never ever heard the term Hoohoo before.  Hooters yes... Hoohoos no!  Heard dong and poonany a lot and thankfully not much anymore.  Maybe it is where and how I was raised! 

What about hoo ha?

And I was raised by parents who grew up on farms and were college educated, raised by by people who were salt of the earth hard working Southern Indiana people. In fact, my grandma beat me senseless because she was SO concerned with appearances, that she made sure I had manners and spoke properly.

But I went to school like anyone else. And not everyone I went to school with was raised properly

Taylor Rae wrote:
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/1 … 2eef29.jpg

not cheesy, using the roundness of my legs to cover my torso/chest. And totally forgetting that I was nude, I think those are *KEY* to implied, no?

Definitely Implied Nude!  Great job by the way!

Robert Lynch wrote:

Kevin Connery wrote:
Here with boots and gloves, here here, here, or here with a motorcycle helmet and boots.

"Modesty" is not provided by any of those items in any of those shots.  It is a byproduct of the posing.

True. Which is what the OP asked for. The gloves, boots, and other things were merely 'other things'; the coverage--modest or not--was entirely due to the posing.

BEHOLDER ArtPhotography wrote:
I am curious to see some interesting ideas/poses that represent Implied nudity WITHOUT the cliche' handbras or long hair. (and leave out the caution tape too.... LOL) Be it the angle or a prop as cover, let's see what you got.

Nelia wrote:
So now I am really confused, and Artistic Nude has to do with the "skill of the photographer?"  So an "unskilled photographer" is not capable of creating an "Artistic Nude?"  What skill level does the photographer need to be able to create an "Artistic Nude" in your opinion?

Crystal Perido wrote:
It does require a high skill level to produce artistic nude - mostly B/W and lighting expertise, posing, anatomy..........

without the required skills your artistic nude is just most people's  soft porn even if you post it in B/W

Obviously I have to once again disagree with you.  You keep making statements as if they are fact for everyone.  "without the required skills your artistic nude is just most people's  soft porn even if you post it in B/W."  While you make not like it and it does not fit what you would call Artistic Nude does not mean it wil be considered soft porn by most people!

Further, I have seen "Artistic Nude" created by what you call a "unskilled photographer".  It may have been a mistake judging from the quality of the rest of the their work but an Artist Nude just the same!  You comment implys that it is not possible for what you consider an  "unskilled photographer" to create an "Artistic Nude" and therefore it becomes "soft porn" in your opinion?

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:
Artistic nude means it's not about the nudity.

On the face of it that sounds like a comment from someone that's in denial about what the subject of their photography really is. Of course it's about the nudity!

'Implied Nude' WGAS - a model is either naked or clothed. Simples .

As for weewee and choochoo - weewee  is child speak for taking a pee, as in 'I need a weewee'. Choochoo is child speak for a train - here's the proof:

choochoo

How you guys turn choochoo into meaning something else is beyond me.

Nelia wrote:
Further, I have seen "Artistic Nude" created by what you call a "unskilled photographer".  It may have been a mistake judging from the quality of the rest of the their work but an Artist Nude just the same! 
[/b]

The exception or as you call it "the mistake" does not proof the rule Nelia

Crystal Perido wrote:

The exception or as you call it "the mistake" does not proof the rule Nelia

Lady you have some very strange opinions!  But that is okay as you are entitled to them!

Blaine Dixon wrote:

I think your pic needs to be linked - just a little too much showing.

Ashley En-fu  wrote:
Thank you, thank you, thank you to all those who are explaining the term demure and bringing it to this thread.
I get countless offers from photographers who want to shoot implieds but hwne i get examples of what they want to shoot- it's all demure nudes (hudding legs to chest, the whole form and silhouette exposed. Demure Nudes) no implieds.
At this time in my life (because of my job) i simply cannot shoot Demure Nudes and explain that they are not in fact Implied shots. To which all the photographers always reply "there's no difference! implied is implied, as long as your bits aren't showing it's implied!" *facepalm* heck, even my avatar is technically implied since my shoulders are completely bare and allude to possible toplessness. but yet it is not considered as such because it's not a hand-bra or my knees covering my boobs.
I just hope that some photographers will stumble upon this thread and re-educate themselves about the topic!

I've never heard the term "demure nudes" before, but I guess there's always room for one more term.  I don't even use the term "implied" in the real world, I just, you know, describe the shoot.

Richard Dubois wrote:
I think your pic needs to be linked - just a little too much showing.

All the rest show about as much...unless you are an op I will leave it up to to the referees

Blaine Dixon wrote:

All the rest show about as much...unless you are an op I will leave it up to to the referees

It's the pubes that are the problem, and it's not the OP who will make the call, but the mods.  They might lock and hide the thread.

Richard Dubois wrote:
I think your pic needs to be linked - just a little too much showing.


I've never heard the term "demure nudes" before, but I guess there's always room for one more term.  I don't even use the term "implied" in the real world, I just, you know, describe the shoot.

I know not a lot of people use implied in the 'real-world' but here on MM there's all these crazy terms and ideas. I'm all for someone just describing the shoot- but when people just don't realize there's a big difference between different types of "clothed nude" or "demure" style shots it can be problematic.
personally I do not shoot anything where the whole frame/body is exposed with just the body covering itself because myself and many others considerthis nude- but if there is a sheet, crop of the photo, etc it is a different story.
Basically the way I explain it is "if the model *has* to be fully nude for the shot, it probably isn't really an Implied shoot."

Photos that have been posted in this thread have mostly been Demure Nudes or "Clothed Nudes"
like this
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/1 … f60c_m.jpg
the model is nude, and unless the photographer used an amazingly invisible modesty patch and possibly pasties there is little to no doubt that she is nude. you can see her entire form exposed, her buttocks, her back etc. just her legs are covering her lady parts and her arms positioned over her breasts.

An implied shot should leave the viewer not sure *at all* if the model is nude. Many headshots are done like this where the shoulders are bare- you are unsure if the model us topless or possible wearing a tubetop or wrap (like my current avatar)