Ashley En-fu  wrote:
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."

I think we're basically on the same page.  Whether covered or not, I consider nudes to be just plain old nudes. 

Blaine Dixon wrote:
Question of  terminology, ops,  mods, no pubes showing.... I do happen to have a dislike for members acting as wannabe vigilantes though

And you might want to familiarize yourself with the site rules.  The OP might be pissed if you get his thread locked and hidden.

If you think my post is somehow "vigilante," you clearly have not spent much time in the MM forums.

Blaine Dixon wrote:
I  would remove the image and post  before I link it since all the rest  are not linked

Suite yourself.  And to answer your post before you changed it, no I didn't start this thread, but that doesn't matter.  I'm simply giving you a head's up, since you're new to the forums.

Richard Dubois wrote:

I think we're basically on the same page.  Whether covered or not, I consider nudes to be just plain old nudes. 

more photographers need to think like you :-p

I have no issues with nude or demure nudes, and if i was able to I'd be taking them like crazy! but unfortunately I can't and just get very frustrated when photographers claim that a photo isn't nude just as long as I have my nipple covered -sigh-

Richard Dubois wrote:

Suite yourself.  And to answer your post before you changed it, no I didn't start this thread, but that doesn't matter.  I'm simply giving you a head's up, since you're new to the forums.

''

Not new  just never  ran into you  before

Blaine Dixon wrote:
''

Not new  just never  ran into you  before

I stand corrected, I thought I saw you had 43 posts, not 437.

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.

My portfolio is loaded with implieds and not a single handbra in the bunch.

Richard Dubois wrote:

I stand corrected, I thought I saw you had 43 posts, not 437.

We need to grow up in this country and not be so afraid of the human body

Blaine Dixon wrote:

We need to grow up in this country and not be so afraid of the human body

I couldn't agree more.

Blaine Dixon wrote:

We need to grow up in this country and not be so afraid of the human body

I agree! it's just too bad that society has put so many limits on it and makes it hard for people to do just that. It's sad that because I work for a major family ent. company (A big Mouse is my boss...take a guess :-p) if things even close to nudity surface I am up for termination immediately regardless of how beautiful or tasetful the photos are.

it's ridiculous that people are so afraid and pass judgement on the viewing of the same body that they have under their own clothes as well.

but i digress.. :-p

Ashley En-fu  wrote:

I agree! it's just too bad that society has put so many limits on it and makes it hard for people to do just that. It's sad that because I work for a major family ent. company (A big Mouse is my boss...take a guess :-p) if things even close to nudity surface I am up for termination immediately regardless of how beautiful or tasetful the photos are.

it's ridiculous that people are so afraid and pass judgement on the viewing of the same body that they have under their own clothes as well.

but i digress.. :-p

Hope my new avatar does not get the thread locked.

Blaine Dixon wrote:

Hope my new avatar does not get the thread locked.

i think you should be fine- since the girls are technically 'covered' :-p

Richard Dubois wrote:

gorgeous image! The fishtail braids are a great accessory to the look and feel.

RocKitt  wrote:

gorgeous image! The fishtail braids are a great accessory to the look and feel.

Thanks.  The OP said no hair, but hair is a great way to hide things:

Richard Dubois wrote:

Thanks.  The OP said no hair, but hair is a great way to hide things:

that's a beautiful photo! the hair is fantastic!

Richard Dubois wrote:

Thanks.  The OP said no hair, but hair is a great way to hide things:

The first one reminds me of Lady Godiva... in a very good way.

Richard Dubois wrote:

Absolutely Spectacular Implied Nude!

Ashley En-fu  wrote:

i think you should be fine- since the girls are technically 'covered' :-p

not if you use a micrcoscope and peek through the threads!

Nelia wrote:

Absolutely Spectacular Implied Nude!

It wouldnt pass the MM test as she is  not wearing dental floss

MJDigitalArt wrote:


Semantics aside.. Implied Nude is pretty self descriptive... it means to Imply Nudity.. so anything that involves wrapping the body in anything.. is not Implied Nude.. Making the argument of being nude under the wrap is ludicrous.. after all.. aren't we all nude under our clothing? IMHO if you are shooting Implied Nude you are either nude (but covering the bits with pose or light as shown above) or you may be clothed, but are implying nudity (because you just can't really tell sometimes can you?)

Is my model in the above photo nude? It's the mystery that makes Implied Nude so darned interesting. We want to know.. but can't really tell.. a good photographer gives us just enough information to "think" she's nude.. but doesn't really give us anything to know for sure.

+1,000  Exactly!

Blaine Dixon wrote:

It wouldnt pass the MM test as she is  not wearing dental floss

RocKitt  wrote:
this one gives it away, but it's half and half, I think..

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/22063181

so now we have "half implied nudes"?

Kat Schrull wrote:

Demure topless

https://modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/2 … %5B/url%5D
Implied

I think i got it

Brava! :-)

MJDigitalArt wrote:


Semantics aside.. Implied Nude is pretty self descriptive... it means to Imply Nudity.. so anything that involves wrapping the body in anything.. is not Implied Nude.. Making the argument of being nude under the wrap is ludicrous.. after all.. aren't we all nude under our clothing? IMHO if you are shooting Implied Nude you are either nude (but covering the bits with pose or light as shown above) or you may be clothed, but are implying nudity (because you just can't really tell sometimes can you?)

Is my model in the above photo nude? It's the mystery that makes Implied Nude so darned interesting. We want to know.. but can't really tell.. a good photographer gives us just enough information to "think" she's nude.. but doesn't really give us anything to know for sure.

+1

There is light in a room of darkness.  But we must never forget that, with general acceptance, definations change through time.