Model
Alabaster Crowley
Posts: 8283
Tucson, Arizona, US
fluffycakes wrote:
Oh fuck. Someone bury this thread before my boyfriend/ex/best friend/whatever sees it. If I don't have MM on my side I've lost that battle.
You're just trying to rub it in now huh? wtf is this post
Photographer
ChadAlan
Posts: 4254
Los Angeles, California, US
NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
In an implied nude the nudity is implied.
If I know for sure the model is nude then it is a nude, regardless of whether I can see nipples or not. fluffycakes wrote:
Oh fuck. Someone bury this thread before my boyfriend/ex/best friend/whatever sees it. If I don't have MM on my side I've lost that battle.
You're just trying to rub it in now huh? Alabaster Crowley wrote:
wtf is this post I think fluffycakes is jokingly worried about the definition NIRBTG gave about implied nudity. She doesn't want her bf/ex, etc. to say "see, she's shooting nudes", when to her it was implied 
Or something like that...idk
Model
fluffycakes
Posts: 446
Chicago, Illinois, US
CHAD ALAN wrote:
NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
In an implied nude the nudity is implied.
If I know for sure the model is nude then it is a nude, regardless of whether I can see nipples or not. fluffycakes wrote:
Oh fuck. Someone bury this thread before my boyfriend/ex/best friend/whatever sees it. If I don't have MM on my side I've lost that battle.
You're just trying to rub it in now huh? I think fluffycakes is jokingly worried about the definition NIRBTG gave about implied nudity. She doesn't want her bf/ex, etc. to say "see, she's shooting nudes", when to her it was implied
Or something like that...idk Yup. We literally just broke up because I "shot nude"
Which I fully believe I did not.
Photographer
ChadAlan
Posts: 4254
Los Angeles, California, US
fluffycakes wrote:
Yup. We literally just broke up because I "shot nude"
Which I fully believe I did not. Oh man, that sucks, sorry.
Model
fluffycakes
Posts: 446
Chicago, Illinois, US
CHAD ALAN wrote:
Oh man, that sucks, sorry. Yeah so if I'm making crazy posts or babbling (sorry A) please excuse me, a few that I talk to here know what's going on with me, and I'm not really all here atm.
Photographer
GNapp Studios
Posts: 6223
Somerville, New Jersey, US
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Nelia wrote:
I have always used the definition of "Implied Nude" as knowing that the model is nude but no "private" parts are visible.
Maybe the question should start as to what one considers "Implied Nude." In the truest since there probably is no such thing as "Implied Nude." You are either nude or you are not nude.
While your image is nice, it definitely does not imply any kind of nudity. It is a model in a wrap or outfit whatever you would want to call it, but, in my opinion, it most definitely is not an "Implied Nude." For me, i call implied nudes those photos where you have no idea...they could be...but they might not be. When it's a hand bra or a even a pasty...I call those COVERED Nudes. They are clearly naked, but you still don't get to see the goods.
eta:and I'm responding to a 3 year old post...
Photographer
Kenzphotos 2
Posts: 183
Anaheim, California, US
Implied nudes are for sissies.
Photographer
DwLPhoto
Posts: 808
Palo Alto, California, US
99% of these seem to fall under what the local meetup.com photoshoots list as "covered nude"
Photographer
DwLPhoto
Posts: 808
Palo Alto, California, US
wearing bra and shorts ![https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5132/5545458954_2016c3d0aa.jpg]()
Photographer
TDSImages
Posts: 1032
Salt Lake City, Utah, US
How's this for implied? The model is nude, however, she is wearing bodypaint...  ![https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/110407/08/4d9dda44e4ef0.jpg]()
Photographer
Jorge Kreimer
Posts: 3716
San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 39248
Portland, Oregon, US
NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
In an implied nude the nudity is implied.
If I know for sure the model is nude then it is a nude, regardless of whether I can see nipples or not. fluffycakes wrote:
Oh fuck. Someone bury this thread before my boyfriend/ex/best friend/whatever sees it. If I don't have MM on my side I've lost that battle.
You're just trying to rub it in now huh? I would not worry about it. Rarely does this place agree on anything, and people are wrong on the Internet all the time.
You have one camp of people who will think it is about what is/was the mode's state of dress when the photo was taken, and another camp that will think it is about what is shown or not shown in the final image.
Perhaps some photographers and models are preoccupied with what someone was or was not wearing when the photo was taken, but for me, it is what is shown or not shown in the final image that is where the term has relevance.
Back to the original post, if considering poses, that seems to suggest that it is the pose that is important, not the actual state of dress or undress.
However, like many (most) things here, you may not ever find a consensus, and even if a majority of people have a given opinion, that is no guarantee that opinion is even correct. 
Photographer
imcFOTO
Posts: 581
Bothell, Washington, US
Model
IDiivil
Posts: 4615
Los Angeles, California, US
Model
Blaire_
Posts: 343
Portland, Oregon, US
My implieds! ![https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/140214/21/52fefe0db9c5e_m.jpg]() ![https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/131210/14/52a792f0f3a6a_m.jpg]()
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
In an implied nude the nudity is implied.
If I know for sure the model is nude then it is a nude, regardless of whether I can see nipples or not. /thread
|
