Photographer
MCmodeling
Posts: 749
Sonora, California, US
I'm placing a casting for implied. Would you consider it nudity or not? I wish the castings had a implied option rather nudity rather then yes or no.
Model
Liv Sage
Posts: 431
Seattle, Washington, US
If she has no clothes on, it's nude. Covering with body parts and hands doesn't count as non-nude. Your best bet is to simply hire someone who does nude - that way, if you did get a nice nude shot you could easily use it. It'll make your job a lot easier to simply find a model who is comfortable with nudity.
Photographer
Rob Photosby
Posts: 4810
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
ASmallWoman wrote:
If she has no clothes on, it's nude. Covering with body parts and hands doesn't count as non-nude. Your best bet is to simply hire someone who does nude - that way, if you did get a nice nude shot you could easily use it. It'll make your job a lot easier to simply find a model who is comfortable with nudity. 100% agree. In my experience, models whose comfort level extends only up to implied are very often too preoccupied with what might be seen incidentally to produce good images.
Photographer
Carle Photo
Posts: 475
New Orleans, Louisiana, US
You state you have over 15 years experience & you are asking this question.
Hire a nude model to shoot your "implied" concept & that will solve your issues.
Model
Dea and the Beast
Posts: 4796
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
If you get a girl who states No nudes, she won't wany to take her kit off in front of you, regardless of what the actual image willor won't show.
Get an experienced nude model to cover her naughty bits.
Photographer
goofus
Posts: 808
Santa Barbara, California, US
Dea and the Beast wrote:
If you get a girl who states No nudes, she won't wany to take her kit off in front of you, regardless of what the actual image willor won't show.
Get an experienced nude model to cover her naughty bits. I have not found that to be true at all..I have shot a lot of 'implied' models and they wander about the studio w/o clothing..but just do not want any naked pix of them 'out there'
it's a personal decision for them... and of course I never press it
Photographer
Risen Phoenix Photo
Posts: 3779
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Dea and the Beast wrote:
If you get a girl who states No nudes, she won't wany to take her kit off in front of you, regardless of what the actual image willor won't show.
Get an experienced nude model to cover her naughty bits. I somewhat agree, though I have seen many models who say no to nudes actually shoot nudes and implieds. The point about not wanting to be nude in front of the photographer though the shoot itself is implied has only happened once in 9 years.
Photographer
Risen Phoenix Photo
Posts: 3779
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
ASmallWoman wrote:
If she has no clothes on, it's nude. Covering with body parts and hands doesn't count as non-nude. Your best bet is to simply hire someone who does nude - that way, if you did get a nice nude shot you could easily use it. It'll make your job a lot easier to simply find a model who is comfortable with nudity. Agreed, though you don't necessarily have to hire a nude model. Remember most nude models who photograph other nude models do that on a strictly trade basis. To just want to charge male photographers and not other female togs only seems sexist to me.
Sure work with a model who is comfortable being nude, paying or not paying is the decision between a model and photographer.
Model
MatureModelMM
Posts: 2843
Detroit, Michigan, US
You have to be naked in order to do implied poses, unless there's a lot of photo editing done after the fact. I know that someone will say they have seen it done where the model remains covered until she's in a position to be photographed and nothing is showing. That is totally the exception.
If you want a model to pose for implied shots, you need a model who is OK with being naked in front of the photographer, because he is going to see her naked. That's totally the bottom line. Both of them need to be OK with the reality. For that reason, all the previous replies about hiring only a model who does nudes when you want implied poses are absolutely correct.
In 30 years of modelling, I have never once had anyone say they were only interested in doing implied shots, but it's not unusual for a few poses done during a session while I am naked actually turn out not to reveal anything. We don't purposely set up the poses with that in mind though.
Photographer
goofus
Posts: 808
Santa Barbara, California, US
MatureModelMM wrote:
tit's not unusual for a few poses done during a session while I am naked actually turn out not to reveal anything. We don't purposely set up the poses with that in mind though. I always try to knock out several 'nuthin showin' pix in case the model would like them for instagram and facebook
Model
Liv Sage
Posts: 431
Seattle, Washington, US
Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
Agreed, though you don't necessarily have to hire a nude model. Remember most nude models who photograph other nude models do that on a strictly trade basis. To just want to charge male photographers and not other female togs only seems sexist to me.
Sure work with a model who is comfortable being nude, paying or not paying is the decision between a model and photographer. Whether or not models pay models is not relevant here. That's an entirely different scenario and here's why (though, I personally think it should be fairly obvious to someone of average intelligence):
No, I don't work trade for photos with other women. We trade for modeling experience - I photograph them/they model for me and in return they photograph me/I model for them. In fact, if I don't get photos from those shoots, I don't even get upset at all as I was trading MODELING time. Not photos. That is a completely fair trade.
And if a man was as good of a model, as physically attractive as the women I photograph, also as good of a photographer, and also wasn't going to try to have sex with me during the shoot, I'd be willing to do the same trade with him. Oh, and he should model nude too. Like me. Because that's the trade.
So far, this hasn't happened. Though, I'd be happy to trade with a male photographer if that were the situation. You know any? I'd love some names - I'm actually looking for men to photograph.
Photographer
FFantastique
Posts: 2535
Orlando, Florida, US
ASmallWoman wrote:
It'll make your job a lot easier to simply find a model who is comfortable with nudity. Concur.
I've had a model tell me that a particular shoot I was doing didn't require, I concur, but I like to have the headroom! :-)
Photographer
FFantastique
Posts: 2535
Orlando, Florida, US
Ionalynn wrote:
You state you have over 15 years experience & you are asking this question. Should he wait another 15 before he asks? ;-)
Better to ask and be thought a fool, than never to ask and remain one! [paraphrase of some Chinese proverb?]
Photographer
Eric212Grapher
Posts: 3780
Saint Louis, Missouri, US
MCPHOTO wrote:
I'm placing a casting for implied. Would you consider it nudity or not? I wish the castings had a implied option rather nudity rather then yes or no. There are plenty of models who do implieds, but not full nudity. The model does not have to be nude to do implied. The model can simply appear not be wearing clothing, but have the fabric hidden from the camera's view. I've had models who will get naked for implieds, and some that do not.
Your casting call should be based on whether the model needs to nude or not to obtain an implied nude. Would a strapless bra (bandeau top) be concealed from view? If not, you need to request a nude model. Bottoms might be covered using a c-string. Of course, your casting call needs to explain in detail just how much needs to be showing to the camera's view.
You might consider posting two casting calls, and tailor your message to the specific audience it may attract.
Retoucher
3869283
Posts: 1464
Sofia, Sofija grad, Bulgaria
Dea and the Beast wrote:
If you get a girl who states No nudes, she won't wany to take her kit off in front of you, regardless of what the actual image willor won't show. This is very wrong - not only as a fact, but also as an approach. It is not about what you show but about how you show it.
I have shot quite a few models who are ok with implied but not with explicit. It is important how you approach the person and the work, not the nipple or the other parts you exhibit. You can exhibit full frontal nudity in a beautiful way or exhibit implied in a very ugly and vulgar way. What I have noticed is that there is no woman who wouldn't like to be nude. The only stopper is the social opinion about it, which is the actual factor that makes it such a big deal, and because of which the very concept of 'implied' even exists.
Get an experienced nude model to cover her naughty bits. Experience has nothing to do here. And if you think of this as 'naughty' you are still in the wrong approach.
Photographer
Mark Salo
Posts: 11726
Olney, Maryland, US
Dea and the Beast wrote:
Get an experienced nude model to cover her naughty bits. anchev wrote:
Experience has nothing to do here. And if you think of this as 'naughty' you are still in the wrong approach. This is a common expression in England. As well as "kit" although that is becoming more common in the U.S.
Model
Dekilah
Posts: 5236
Dearborn, Michigan, US
I feel like ASmallWoman and Ionalynn already gave the general response I have, but I've got a few notes...
Generally, I suggest photographers work with a nude model for implied concepts as nude models are less likely to be upset by accidental slips and won't be panicking or worried about the photographer seeing anything.
In addition, I've seen more cases of implied (but not nude) models wanting photos removed or later regretting them because, while they may not have actually been nude and nothing is showing, they can be more sensitive to how the photos are interpreted by viewers or they may not have expected the upset over them, particularly if they don't normally shoot that sort of work. I'm not saying this doesn't happen with nude models, but it seems to happen more often with implieds, especially if the model is very new to doing them.
I also can't really recommend implieds to models who don't pose nude because I've seen way too many photographers take the photos, have the model sign a release, and promise to edit the photos or promise not to post the more revealing, and then do it anyway leaving the, usually very new, model in a bad spot because she signed the release but also took the photographer's word.
I see this is a possibly complicated issue and that's why I've shared these couple scenarios. I know we'd all love for things to be simple, and sometimes they can be, but you do have to think about things a bit.
So really, working with someone who is comfortable with nudes is probably best unless you happen to find a model who is experienced with implieds and totally comfortable with the whole process.
Photographer
Abbitt Photography
Posts: 13564
Washington, Utah, US
photo212grapher wrote:
There are plenty of models who do implieds, but not full nudity. The model does not have to be nude to do implied. +1.
Saying I should only hire nude models for implied work is like saying I should only consider a sports car for my 5 minute commute to work.
Finding affordable nude models can be difficult, Finding affordable models who will do implied work is sometimes much easier and more affordable. I've done many TF shoots with models who will do implied, but not nude. Often that's all a shoot requires.
Advertise what you actually need in my opinion.
Photographer
Rays Fine Art
Posts: 7504
New York, New York, US
On several occasions (meaning no more than 5 or 6) I've photographed models who never wore less than panties and bra or a bikini swimsuit but posed for implieds, such as here ![https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/110608/07/4def890dc273b_m.jpg]() and here ![https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/131201/07/529b50953c8ae_m.jpg]() I've found that it's not all that unusual for models, especially inexperienced ones, to want to do this, but I've also found that unless it's a shoot in which these shots are only incidental, it's usually just not worth the effort. Usually, they've just not been able to project the "feeling" of comfortable nudity. So I agree that you're probably better off using a model who is comfortable just being nude. I don't agree that it's necessary to avoid models who say "No Nudes" if you want to shoot implieds or even full nudes. Probably half the models who have posed with some degree of nudity for me say that they do so just to keep the requests for nudes down to those who shoot in the styles the models like for themselves. You just need to be up front and not confrontational. If soliciting a model who says "No Nudes" but says yes to things like body paint, erotic or fetish, I include a sentence such as "I see that you say no nudes but you are also interested in erotic (or bodypaint, etc.) which often requires an element of nudity. Just to be sure that we're both on the same page, this project might involve some degree of nudity, at least on set, even though your private parts won't be visible in the final pictures. Would you be O.K. with that?" If she says "No", it's no. If she says "Yes", it's yes. And if she says "Maybe" we discuss further until we are in complete agreement. Almost everyone I've approached this way has appreciated the open and up-front, respectful approach, and I suspect that many have posed for me who would not have posed for other photographers. All IMHO as always.
Photographer
Risen Phoenix Photo
Posts: 3779
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
ASmallWoman wrote:
Whether or not models pay models is not relevant here. That's an entirely different scenario and here's why (though, I personally think it should be fairly obvious to someone of average intelligence):
No, I don't work trade for photos with other women. We trade for modeling experience - I photograph them/they model for me and in return they photograph me/I model for them. In fact, if I don't get photos from those shoots, I don't even get upset at all as I was trading MODELING time. Not photos. That is a completely fair trade.
And if a man was as good of a model, as physically attractive as the women I photograph, also as good of a photographer, and also wasn't going to try to have sex with me during the shoot, I'd be willing to do the same trade with him. Oh, and he should model nude too. Like me. Because that's the trade.
So far, this hasn't happened. Though, I'd be happy to trade with a male photographer if that were the situation. You know any? I'd love some names - I'm actually looking for men to photograph. The point I was trying to make is that whether the photographer is a male or female the model can chose to shoot trade with them whether nude or implied. Female models will often shoot nudes of other traveling models at no cost.
I think traveling models often only see male photographers as dollar signs. That's ok with me that's what they do to make a living. Good for those models. They also tend to think that many models won't shoot nudes without being paid, thus the advice is to "hire" the model.
That's just not necessarily the case and there are plenty of models that will shoot nudes on a trade basis.
There is a big tent of models out there those who want to be paid and those who want to collaborate and be a part of the photographers art.
What ever works, fr what ever reason is fine with me.
BTW... R Michael Walker is one of the finest photographers out there. An assistant to Ansel Adams along with Ken Marcus and Judy Dater as well as others . He also has a number of images of his at the MOMA.
For a number of years he has shot models and photographers nude in his home bathtub. These Portraits are exceptional. They are raw and emotive. The images of those photographer nudes are fantastic. If you can see his work I think you will be much impressed. For him it is not about shooting beauty rather the character of his models. As a master printer his prints are exceptional.
Model
Dea and the Beast
Posts: 4796
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
I somewhat agree, though I have seen many models who say no to nudes actually shoot nudes and implieds. The point about not wanting to be nude in front of the photographer though the shoot itself is implied has only happened once in 9 years. That's your gamble.
I remember the days when the fora were full of photographers griping about chicks not understanding implied and that someone will see them nude or at the very least topless. 
Model
Dea and the Beast
Posts: 4796
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
anchev wrote:
Experience has nothing to do here. And if you think of this as 'naughty' you are still in the wrong approach. You had to look at my naughty bits before, you tried to solicit your services to me some time ago.. not sure how you don't understand sarcasm, and don't anyone come at me with the lame excuse of second languages, alles klar?
Model
Liv Sage
Posts: 431
Seattle, Washington, US
Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
There is a big tent of models out there those who want to be paid and those who want to collaborate and be a part of the photographers art.
What ever works, fr what ever reason is fine with me.
BTW... R Michael Walker is one of the finest photographers out there. An assistant to Ansel Adams along with Ken Marcus and Judy Dater as well as others . He also has a number of images of his at the MOMA.
For a number of years he has shot models and photographers nude in his home bathtub. These Portraits are exceptional. They are raw and emotive. The images of those photographer nudes are fantastic. If you can see his work I think you will be much impressed. For him it is not about shooting beauty rather the character of his models. As a master printer his prints are exceptional. I care about both art and making a living - being able to feed myself and have a roof over my head while also creating and being a part of art. I'm fairly well educated - believe me, if I was only interested in money, I'd be working in another field. But food and having a home are essentials for me, so while I don't see people as glaring dollar signs, I also know my market value in this industry and want to be able to support myself as an autonomous human being (i.e. not living with my parents).
And yes, I know of R. Michael Walker. We've been in correspondence on different occasions, and he is a master printer as well as an amazing photographer.
|
and here 
