Patrick Walberg wrote:

This is only a question that came up in conversation between two photographers looking at models profiles on this website.  If only it were that crystal clear as "Yes" or "No" but it is not.  There are models on here who will do "selective" amounts of nudity ... for example those who do topless.  There are some models who will do nudity for money, but not TFP.  Those are just two examples of why it is a gray area.  Then there are those who have in the past, but changed their mind. 

For me personally, I do look for models who will shoot nude if that is what my intentions are for a photo shoot.  I am not into doing nudes TFP however.  I have been paid to shoot boudoir images that includes nudity and then I have paid models to pose nude too.  I don't like shooting nudes TFP just because my feeling is that money and contracts help reduce the gray area.   

I'm not a photographer that tries to get models to go beyond their boundaries.  I wondered how clear cut models who say "No nudes" really are.  So I started this to cause discussion.  It worked!

Didn't necessarily say you were.

I just don't see the point in wasting time negotiating shooting nudes with someone who is obviously reluctant to do so, when there are tons of models who are perfectly willing to pose nude without having to go to all of that time and trouble.

In my humble opinion, if they post no, they mean no.  If that should change, switching the notation to yes on either side is quite simple.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

RKD Photographic wrote:
I hear this all the time and yet still fail to understand why shooting (good-quality & tasteful) nudes could in any way be considered as being detrimental to a person's career regardless of what her future plans might be...
If it's brought up you say "I used to be a model"...

If it really is a barrier, I think it says more about the hypocrisy of the people you work with than anything else...

The former First Lady of France was a former nude model - didn't do her any harm at all...

First off you are talking about France. Lol. The president had an affair with this woman and then married her and still stayed president of France. Geeeezzz Bill Clinton got a blow job and all hell broke loose lol.

Another point is that she was a working well known model that made a name for herself before she met him. Not some interwebs model that no one knew.

Totally different to compare her.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Thanks Jennifer for your input. 

You Are Welcome 

Nico Simon Princely wrote:
It amazes me the ignorance some people have of the the psychology behind what drives people and the inability to read the entire sentence I wrote.

What part of "(and other women)" did you miss regarding lesbians.

Yes part of self-esteem for most people, male and female is feeling sexually desirable to the opposite sex or the sex you are attracted to. If doubt this you're clueless. This is why sex is used in advertising and has been proven to sell products.

"Oh if I buy that's I'll be more attractive."
"If I wear that women will want me"
"My ass looks better in those heels"
"That car is a pussy magnet"

C'mon does any one think women wear heels that hurt like hell because they fell good and just  to walk around the house in, hell no they wear them because it make their ass look better and the looks sexy on their feet. And I know tons of men that got tattoos because "Girl like guys with tats"
" and not to be more attractive.

And once again I'm not judging the actions only pointing out the obvious motivation behind it and the link to Self-Esteem pleaure of seeing oneself look good.

I'm no exception. I love when I look good in a picture. I don't workout like I do and take care of myself because I don't care how I look.

You can philosophize and logic all you want. I will grant it could play a small role in the huge picture.....but preponderance of, if not all self-esteem comes from within. Period.

RKD Photographic wrote:

I hear this all the time and yet still fail to understand why shooting (good-quality & tasteful) nudes could in any way be considered as being detrimental to a person's career regardless of what her future plans might be...
If it's brought up you say "I used to be a model"...

If it really is a barrier, I think it says more about the hypocrisy of the people you work with than anything else...

The former First Lady of France was a former nude model - didn't do her any harm at all...

Your right, it shouldn't be but frankly it is. It's not just the people one works with, it's the hypocrisy that permeates society over all.

DUDE....you used Carla Bruni as an example? Her main line of work for decades has been bedding very wealthy men, married or not. I don't think her "employers" will mind.

RKD Photographic wrote:
I hear this all the time and yet still fail to understand why shooting (good-quality & tasteful) nudes could in any way be considered as being detrimental to a person's career regardless of what her future plans might be...
If it's brought up you say "I used to be a model"...

If it really is a barrier, I think it says more about the hypocrisy of the people you work with than anything else...

The former First Lady of France was a former nude model - didn't do her any harm at all...

Overall, I believe nudity is considered much more taboo in the US rather than Europe.  In Europe I might be just fine, but since it is often viewed with so much negativity in the US, it really can hinder future opportunities and be potential for a massive scandal if the photos were released.  Most companies just do not want to be associated in any way with something could make their company look bad to their target audience.  Employees represent the company, so if an employee does something to reflect poorly on the company, he will either not be hired in the first place or be asked to leave.  Unfortunately, posing for nude photos, no matter how tastefully done, is viewed negatively by enough Americans that many corporations simply won't risk the association.  Even contestants on American Idol and national beauty pageants have been disqualified when nude photos surfaced.  The same TV network that airs American Idol also airs shows with famous actresses who have posed nude, so you're right; there are definitely hypocrisy and double standards involved, but they are realities we have to face.
In general, it's more likely to hurt than help many career paths, particularly in certain countries.  There are always exceptions to the rules, so we'll always have cases to point out that break the mold.  By and large, posing nude does present a risk for my career, and it's not one I'm willing to take.

RenatoJr - RJ wrote:

I have always wondered that too, even more when they put on their profile that they will NOT do nudes, and their portfolio has nudes in it.

Maybe they stopped doing nudes. Maybe they're very selective of who they shoot nudes with.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Hi Jen, and thanks for replying.  Like many models who "may" shoot nudes, you are selective, and not necessarily swayed by money.  A reason that I do prefer that money be exchanged one way or the other is to more clearly clarify ownership and user rights.

That makes sense. I would like to rephrase and add to the "money not required...but accepted." It would also depend on the release too as I've seen some very loose releases and also some highly restrictive ones too.

Jen

MartaBrixton wrote:
... I used to know a guy, he was my regular customer.

... he was an interesting person but very lonely and had some issues. So once he said- you don't have to work anymore. I'll be paying all your bills, I'll be giving you more money that you earn now and I'll pay for your Uni, I'll be takin you for holidays, shopping etc. You can live your life and do what you want, just please come to see me few evenings every week.


I said NO! And he was actually handsome and I did like him but because he offered me that Ive never spoken to him again because Im not a hoe. ...

Oh my goodness, this is so sad. All he was looking for was a friend and instead of being one and telling him that he doesn't need to "buy" your friendhsip you totally shut him out completely. Oh dread.

I don't think he thought you were a ho but, that he had some major inappropriate boundaries in wanting to provide and give you anything you needed. That is a bit pathological and well, now tragically sad because you cut him off because of it.

Yikes, what a sad situation for that man. Hopefully he will find a true friend.
Jen

Designit - Edward Olson wrote:
Hasn't this dead horse been beaten before, multiple times?

What good is it for a model to admit in this thread that even though she states NO NUDES that it is open to negotiation? That would just lead to them receiving new offers, all starting with "So, I hear you really will do nudes. How much to get you nekkid?"

Is that what you think this is?

I sure didn't.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
If you are a model who doesn't do nudes, is this non negotiable or ... do you have a price?   The details of this question would be if a photographer of the quality that you admire were to offer you any amount of money (within reason), is there a dollar amount that would get you to change your mind? 

The reason for this question is that another photographer and I were discussing if models were absolutely "non-negotiable" on nudity or if there are some that could be persuaded with the right amount of money?

Some say "Will go nude ONLY for Playboy" for example.  If you are absolutely "non-negotiable" could you please elaborate on why?  I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, I'm curious to learn more about just how negotiable some models are. Discuss!

Models have the right to choose whether they want to do nudes and photogs should respect their decision.  Sometimes it's not about money, it's about friends, family, social consequences, and later career aspirations (I would love to see Sarah Palin naked though, LOL).  But, what is non-negotiable now could become negotiable later, depends on the models' circumstances.  I don't try to persuade, convince, or negotiate with models to pose nude.  If they pose nude, it's completely out of their own will.  Sometimes quite frankly, I don't want to see certain models naked.  It would spoil my appetite.

By the way, I absolutely abhor models who state "will only shoot nude for Playboy" in their profile.  Models, don't say this on your profile.  This statement is a conceited expression of superiority, immature, total statement of contradiction for someone who doesn't shoot nude.  I will skip such profile immediately.  Somehow that my work is inferior, somehow appearing nude in Playboy is ok, but posing nude for a regular nude photog is not ok.  This is the wrong thinking.  Won't get you far in society.  Don't do that.

James Sioux wrote:
By the way, I absolutely abhor models who state "will only shoot nude for Playboy" in their profile.  Models, don't say this on your profile.  This statement is a conceited expression of superiority, immature, total statement of contradiction for someone who doesn't shoot nude.  I will skip such profile immediately.  Somehow that my work is inferior, somehow appearing nude in Playboy is ok, but posing nude for a regular nude photog is not ok.  This is the wrong thinking.  Won't get you far in society.  Don't do that.

Please don't tell models what they're supposed to do. Instead of creating drama, just move on to the next model. This was quite condescending and we don't need that, thank you very much.

And in the end, if that's what said model wants, then be it. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Do I bitch and moan about what 'offends' me on a photographer's profile? No. I just decide to avoid them.

P I X I E wrote:
Please don't tell models what they're supposed to do. Instead of creating drama, just move on to the next model. This was quite condescending and we don't need that, thank you very much.

And in the end, if that's what said model wants, then be it. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Do I bitch and moan about what 'offends' me on a photographer's profile? No. I just decide to avoid them.

P I X I E wrote:
Please don't tell models what they're supposed to do. Instead of creating drama, just move on to the next model. This was quite condescending and we don't need that, thank you very much.

And in the end, if that's what said model wants, then be it. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Do I bitch and moan about what 'offends' me on a photographer's profile? No. I just decide to avoid them.

You should bitch and moan what offends you.  I'm not afraid to tell it like it is.  Once you start condoning certain behavior, it would only get worse.  For example, if a photog flakes on you and causes you to lose time and money, you should tell them off, then move on.

New Kidd Imagery wrote:



I think that's great that you don't want to pose nude, but I think it's pretty funny that models think that because they aren't naked that people aren't jacking off to their pictures.

Many nude models don't advertise themselves to be the object of masturbation either...

If you were a careful reader, you would have noticed that I said I 'didn't want to ADVERTISE myself as an object to whack off to', such as the models in playboy. I'm fully aware that the right man will whack off to a bird shit that resembles the shape of a boob.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

I understand and appreciate your reply.  However I get the feeling that you are lumping nudity into one category, and that is not fair.  My younger brother and my niece (even when she was 17 year old) have both posed for art nudes.  Nudity does not always mean "shot by GWC's" nor is it necessarily useful as material to "whack off to" for men or women. 

Some of our greatest art work from as far back as 2000 years ago are nudes.  The Us Mint has produced a quarter that had a bare breast, and a $5 bill that had a nude mother on it.  Of course the "moral police" had an up roar about that and pressured the US Mint to remove such art work from our money.  I collect money and art work, and can tell you that some of the most beautiful coins I've seen have come from France, Mexico and other countries that are not so hung up on nudity meaning "sex" all the time.

Men and women who pose nude are not "objects!"   So I think that indirectly, your comment could be taken as a jab at those men and women who do pose nude.  I shoot far more clothed models than I do nude.  I can assure you that a picture does not have to be of nudity to be obscene.  Also I've heard that "pervs" can "whack off" to just about anything.  It's more about what is in their mind.

Again, you didn't read my post carefully. I said that I didn't want to ADVERTISE myself as an object to whack off too, example: Playboy. I explained why I didn't want to do any nude, art nude included, then I mentioned that I didn't want to do something like playboy since the sole purpose of those magazines is masturbation (and light reading). I understand there are several different types of nude modeling, nude art, ect ect. I understand that not all nude work is for masturbation, and I understand that some men will whack it to absolutely anything whether the image was created for masturbation or not. Read more critical, and don't put words into people's mouths please.

Images by MR wrote:
I don't understand the need to try and persuaded a model who doesn't wish to shoot nudes to shoot nudes.  I mean aren't their enough models on MM willing to do nudes either for tf or paid ?/

Just my thoughts ~ MR

Seriously... you said this? Let me just say,... Art is art. And there is never enough art. Nude Art has been around since artists could paint. I think you could have better asked the question why ask? In my 20 some years shooting professionally, its always been about the money. Not about conservatism. If most of the models were that, we might be in deep do-do.

MartaBrixton wrote:

I disagree, you can't buy everything. I used to know a guy, he was my regular customer. The guy is SOOO rich, for him 200 pounds is like 20 pense. I used to talk to him a lot, he was an interesting person but very lonely and had some issues. So once he said- you don't have to work anymore. I'll be paying all your bills, I'll be giving you more money that you earn now and I'll pay for your Uni, I'll be takin you for holidays, shopping etc. You can live your life and do what you want, just please come to see me few evenings every week. I said NO! And he was actually handsome and I did like him but because he offered me that Ive never spoken to him again because Im not a hoe. Guys think they can buy everything because a lot of women sell themselves, I think its very himiliating to do it.

I believe that it is true that "money cannot buy happiness!"   I know of some very wealthy people who are so insecure about their money, they can't seem to enjoy it anyway.   Perhaps it has something to do with how one comes into money?   It seems the ones that started out poor, then earned their fortunes working hard or through their own means are more able to be happy or at least more secure about it.

Kate Victoria  wrote:
Hey. I am one of the "absolutely no nudes."

Honestly - there is no price I would shoot nude for. It is just a personal choice as I study law and feel that the images may damage my credibility / people's perception of me within a law career. I see the beauty in nudes, and respect llamas that do them. However, I'm just not one of those llamas.

Another reason is that my partner requested I didn't do nudes when I initially began llamaling and I respect that. I am passionate about llamaling, but far more passionated abOut the people I love. For personal reasons, I requested he cease smoking. I therefore respect his request as he did mine.

My last reason is similar to some I've heard - tht I would not want everybody to have the ability to access these photos of me. That's just a personal choice as I feel social pressure. As I said, I do respect the art form, and sometimes wish I didn't feel social pressures restricting my work, but I accept the decision I have made and embrace the aspects of llamaling that I am most interested in.

Hope my input is useful

Your input is useful.  Thank you!   You are unconditional in your stance of no nudity for yourself, and you respect those people who do pose nude all the same.  I can appreciate that!

RKD Photographic wrote:

I hear this all the time and yet still fail to understand why shooting (good-quality & tasteful) nudes could in any way be considered as being detrimental to a person's career regardless of what her future plans might be...
If it's brought up you say "I used to be a model"...

If it really is a barrier, I think it says more about the hypocrisy of the people you work with than anything else...

The former First Lady of France was a former nude model - didn't do her any harm at all...

Americans are much more conflicted over nudity than many other Nations.

New Art Photo wrote:
Seeing how everyone is venting today....

I was raised during the period of intense 70's Feminism.
You know: "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." Statements like that.

I was trained that ONLY men were obsessed with sex, and kinky sex-- that women as a group where the helpless victims of men's creepy sex drive.

As the years have passed, and especially with the advent of the internet, I  have learned  there is just as much lust and sexual role playing-- dominance and submission fantasies in the Lesbian community as  among the supposedly evil straight men.
  All this talk about being seen as a "Sex object" is basically bullshit...: If the person who's looking turns you on-- gay, straight or lesbian--people like it.

The gender mudslinging is a bit ridiculous. I mean, a woman does not NEED a man or vice versa simply because of the gender. A person needs another person if they enrich each others lives, no matter the gender reason. And conversely, a person does not need another person unless they are going to genuinely enrich their life. Even saying that, "need" isn't the most accurate word. I could survive just fine without my SO, but I do enjoy having him in my life.

However, I have to disagree with you on the 'sex object' thing, simply because it is blatantly obvious looking at the media, our society and cultures all around the world that women are seen as sex objects. Watch a commercial. Read some history. Heck, read the bible even; women were meant for sex, rearing children and cleaning Yeah it's gotten a bit better, but women are seen more in a sexual light than anything else.

Gennaver wrote:

Oh my goodness, this is so sad. All he was looking for was a friend and instead of being one and telling him that he doesn't need to "buy" your friendhsip you totally shut him out completely. Oh dread.

I don't think he thought you were a ho but, that he had some major inappropriate boundaries in wanting to provide and give you anything you needed. That is a bit pathological and well, now tragically sad because you cut him off because of it.

Yikes, what a sad situation for that man. Hopefully he will find a true friend.
Jen

Um... he didn't want a friend... he wanted a regular prostitute... If he wanted friends, he could join a club or something, instead he proposed to be a sugar daddy in return for regular sex...

Gennaver wrote:

Oh my goodness, this is so sad. All he was looking for was a friend and instead of being one and telling him that he doesn't need to "buy" your friendhsip you totally shut him out completely. Oh dread.

I don't think he thought you were a ho but, that he had some major inappropriate boundaries in wanting to provide and give you anything you needed. That is a bit pathological and well, now tragically sad because you cut him off because of it.

Yikes, what a sad situation for that man. Hopefully he will find a true friend.
Jen

You're off the topic just a bit, but you are so right!  It is sad, but money really can't "buy" love ... even if someone did pay a large sum of money for the company of another person, it's very unrealistic to think it would turn out like that fairy tale movie "Pretty Woman!"  Loneliness is not cured by money.  I've known of people with money and seemingly a wonderful life that still are depressed.  Some have even committed suicide.   So perhaps honesty would have been better in the case of Marta's "want to be friend?"

James Sioux wrote:
Models have the right to choose whether they want to do nudes and photogs should respect their decision.  Sometimes it's not about money, it's about friends, family, social consequences, and later career aspirations (I would love to see Sarah Palin naked though, LOL).  But, what is non-negotiable now could become negotiable later, depends on the models' circumstances.  I don't try to persuade, convince, or negotiate with models to pose nude.  If they pose nude, it's completely out of their own will.  Sometimes quite frankly, I don't want to see certain models naked.  It would spoil my appetite.

By the way, I absolutely abhor models who state "will only shoot nude for Playboy" in their profile.  Models, don't say this on your profile.  This statement is a conceited expression of superiority, immature, total statement of contradiction for someone who doesn't shoot nude.  I will skip such profile immediately.  Somehow that my work is inferior, somehow appearing nude in Playboy is ok, but posing nude for a regular nude photog is not ok.  This is the wrong thinking.  Won't get you far in society.  Don't do that.

Yes, James, I agree with you ... we all have choices, and should respect each others decisions on these boundaries that we make.   I also realize that we can all be selective about whom we work with.  Back when I shot weddings, I would often times add some extra to my fee estimate if I thought the couple might be difficult to work with.   I've had a Bridezilla a time or two before!  There are some people that no amount of money will get me to work for.  Selective is a good word!

It was one of those not quite clear or open ended statements made on a models profile that got my photographer friend and myself thinking on this question. I don't wish to offend a model by asking her to clarify ... "Does this mean that you might shoot nudes if the pay were enough?"  No one is able to communicate perfectly all the time, so I guess there is no way around it but to directly ask?

Rachael Bueckert wrote:
Again, you didn't read my post carefully. I said that I didn't want to ADVERTISE myself as an object to whack off too, example: Playboy. I explained why I didn't want to do any nude, art nude included, then I mentioned that I didn't want to do something like playboy since the sole purpose of those magazines is masturbation (and light reading). I understand there are several different types of nude modeling, nude art, ect ect. I understand that not all nude work is for masturbation, and I understand that some men will whack it to absolutely anything whether the image was created for masturbation or not. Read more critical, and don't put words into people's mouths please.

No, I don't think you get it?  Playboy is an iconic publication that has had some great writers and cartoonists as well as photographers.  You consider it to be about "advertising" sex and that is not all what Playboy is about.   Mainstream commercial advertising often uses "sex" appeal to sell products or services!  The vast majority of advertising in Playboy IS mainstream, meaning ads without nudity that can be posted anywhere.  Pornography is created with the sole purpose of sexual gratification, but Playboy is so mainstream now, I would not consider it porn.   I wont go any further than to say we have differing opinions on this.

New Art Photo wrote:
Seeing how everyone is venting today....

I was raised during the period of intense 70's Feminism.
You know: "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." Statements like that.

I was trained that ONLY men were obsessed with sex, and kinky sex-- that women as a group where the helpless victims of men's creepy sex drive.

As the years have passed, and especially with the advent of the internet, I  have learned  there is just as much lust and sexual role playing-- dominance and submission fantasies in the Lesbian community as  among the supposedly evil straight men.
  All this talk about being seen as a "Sex object" is basically bullshit...: If the person who's looking turns you on-- gay, straight or lesbian--people like it.

Hey .. I'm not venting here!    This is a good healthy discussion, and you've made some valid points!  Women enjoy sex and masturbate too! 

Back to the topic, there are as many opinions on this as there are people.  My estimate is that the vast majority of men and women here have their various limits as to nude modeling.  A simple "Yes" or "No" does not communicate those limits in all cases.  Some models get angry about photographers having to ask for clarity, so they post more details as to those limits.  A lot of photographer may not read or understand, so they still have to ask.  Also money does not influence everything, but sometimes it helps.

Cynthia Serrano  wrote:
I personally do not shoot nudes and would not feel comfortable doing so I think model's who say "I will only shoot nude for playboy" think that if they shoot for playboy it would open more doors and ultimatley they will get more shoots/gigs as opposed to shooting with any photographer paid or not IMO

Thank you for replying, Cynthia.  Some women will think that Playboy is great to pose for, and if they get to work with Ken Marcus ... I think I'd agree!  It's no guarantee though!  How you feel as a model is extremely important because it's hard to fake it if you are not comfortable.  Most of my work is clothed, but I don't wish to have models feel uncomfortable shooting with me either way.

Rachael Bueckert wrote:

The gender mudslinging is a bit ridiculous. I mean, a woman does not NEED a man or vice versa simply because of the gender. A person needs another person if they enrich each others lives, no matter the gender reason. And conversely, a person does not need another person unless they are going to genuinely enrich their life. Even saying that, "need" isn't the most accurate word. I could survive just fine without my SO, but I do enjoy having him in my life.

However, I have to disagree with you on the 'sex object' thing, simply because it is blatantly obvious looking at the media, our society and cultures all around the world that women are seen as sex objects. Watch a commercial. Read some history. Heck, read the bible even; women were meant for sex, rearing children and cleaning Yeah it's gotten a bit better, but women are seen more in a sexual light than anything else.

I most certainly have read books and studied history.  Jokingly/sarcastic ... "Well let's kick those male models outta bed and into the spotlight to be used as sexual objects!"  Why aren't men being exploited more?  Because they've been in power for thousands of years.  Certainly children (boys too!) have been exploited for sexual purposes through out history, and it is disgusting! 

Things are getting better.  Men are respecting women and children more .. although there are still many who do not.  However the nudity has little to do with it.  Men and women have been portrayed in classic art for thousands of years.  The first printed books were medical books showing the human body in graphic detail.  Nudity  in itself is not exploitative.  Nudity was not a big issue until much later in human history.  It is the media that exploits it.

Rachael Bueckert wrote:

Um... he didn't want a friend... he wanted a regular prostitute... If he wanted friends, he could join a club or something, instead he proposed to be a sugar daddy in return for regular sex...

Maybe is he too shy to go to a club?  There are many people in society who have difficulty connecting with others.  To assume that he wants to be a "sugar daddy" for regular sex is your own assumption and you may be wrong.   There are men who in their desperation for human contact will pay for the company of others.  There are even some wealthy women who do the same.  Having money does not buy you true friendship or happiness.  Again, I know of many wealthy people who are depressed and lonely.  They need to do something about that.  I am damn near broke most of the time, and I'm able to be happy! 

Patrick Walberg wrote:
If you are a model who doesn't do nudes, is this non negotiable or ... do you have a price?   The details of this question would be if a photographer of the quality that you admire were to offer you any amount of money (within reason), is there a dollar amount that would get you to change your mind? 

The reason for this question is that another photographer and I were discussing if models were absolutely "non-negotiable" on nudity or if there are some that could be persuaded with the right amount of money?

Some say "Will go nude ONLY for Playboy" for example.  If you are absolutely "non-negotiable" could you please elaborate on why?  I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, I'm curious to learn more about just how negotiable some models are. Discuss!

i have a professional job, but more importantly my boobs are laughably uneven. when i tell photographers i won't do nudes usually they chime in with the "awww, you're not fat, you're gorgeous" spiel (btw i love my body) but honestly, if they really want to shoot nice photos they'd do better getting someone else whose boobs are more symmetrical. anything of me topless would just look silly

Rachael Bueckert wrote:

If you were a careful reader, you would have noticed that I said I 'didn't want to ADVERTISE myself as an object to whack off to', such as the models in playboy. I'm fully aware that the right man will whack off to a bird shit that resembles the shape of a boob.

and if you read my post carefully you would have noticed that I said NUDE models don't ADVERTISE themselves to be objects of masturbation.. just because they pose nudes doesn't mean they welcome the chance to become some object of inspiration of masturbation.

So, IF you chose to pose nude (not saying you would) that doesn't mean you are advertising yourself as an object of masturbation.

Nudity has nothing to do with "advertisement" of such a thing.

Playboy on the other hand... (no pun intended)... But there are models that would never pose for Playboy but still pose nude.

Caustic Disco wrote:

i have a professional job, but more importantly my boobs are laughably uneven. when i tell photographers i won't do nudes usually they chime in with the "awww, you're not fat, you're gorgeous" spiel (btw i love my body) but honestly, if they really want to shoot nice photos they'd do better getting someone else whose boobs are more symmetrical. anything of me topless would just look silly

That is absolutely not the reason people shoot art nudes...
smh.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Some say "Will go nude ONLY for Playboy" for example.

Is a totally acceptable response.

With most, its a level of comfort.

I always tell new models, "leave the box unchecked for Nudes. It keeps you out of the searches. When photographers approach you, you make the call."

If I need a nude model (very rarely), I look in portfolios for Nudes or Implied Shots. I am approached more by models looking for nudes than I ask...

I never judge or even care if a model is doing nudes, thats just up to them.

TheLittleG Photography wrote:
i feel if they spell it out on there profile that they will NOT do nudes, then asking them if they would is rude, disrespectful, and unprofessional.

i know i don't have to worry about it because i am not that good of a photographer yet and the models wouldn't even consider the thought if i asked.

but i have always been taught that NO means NO

I've noticed with women NO often means "not yet". Communication breaks down barriers and can make a friend.

In sales NO means ask 5 more times. But in an intelligent way, after asking questions and overcoming objections. The customer must get what they want.

Another essential in sales is qualifying the customer, to not waste time on folks who CAN'T buy. Otherwise you risk missing an opportunity with a real buyer.

Everything is negotiable. I bargain down the price at Walmart.

New Kidd Imagery wrote:

That is absolutely not the reason people shoot art nudes...
smh.

nope, it's the reason i do not do nudes . i'm sure people shoot art nudes for different reasons.

Carl Blum Photography wrote:
Wow, what a thread. I had to go back to the original more than once to see what the topic was...
Yes, with some models, they have a price.


Is a totally acceptable response.

With most, its a level of comfort.

I always tell new models, "leave the box unchecked for Nudes. It keeps you out of the searches. When photographers approach you, you make the call."

If I need a nude model (very rarely), I look in portfolios for Nudes or Implied Shots. I am approached more by models looking for nudes than I ask...

I never judge or even care if a model is doing nudes, thats just up to them.

Smart man   I totally agree with all that you said...not sure it will let you leave the box unchecked once you check yes or no...I tried it and didn't work but they should have a more neutral box to check for this one...something like "implied onlys or topless only or maybe;)" ...something along those lines.

Caustic Disco wrote:

nope, it's the reason i do not do nudes . i'm sure people shoot art nudes for different reasons.

Wow.. in other words, you would do nudes if your boobs were 'even'?

interesting.
If the answer is yes, I would consider looking into the genre (only if it interests you of course)

If the answer is no, then that is an excuse and not a reason.