Forums > Model Colloquy > Models who do not shoot nudes but post nude photos

Photographer

Laveen Photo

Posts: 6

LAVEEN, Arizona, US

Something that has puzzled me for some time is that I will frequently see model profiles where the model says she does not shoot nudes; however, when you go to the portfolio there will be nudes. Probably most frequently they will be cover-ups or maybe only show the model from the back. I find it confusing when the portfolio is not consistent with the "don't shoot nudes." I would love to get an understanding of this seeming contradiction.  Personally, I do not bring up the topic of shooting nudes until I have at least shot once with a model and then I may never bring up the subject. Ultimately I wonder if it would be inappropriate in that type of situation to bring up the subject with the model. I would appreciate any thoughts on this topic.

Jul 09 20 04:06 pm Link

Photographer

j_francis_imagery

Posts: 273

Los Angeles, California, US

I see it more the other way around. They say they do, but they put none in their own portfolio.

Jul 09 20 04:42 pm Link

Photographer

Znude!

Posts: 3131

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, US

It's no more confusing than models who say they model but really don't.

Jul 09 20 05:30 pm Link

Photographer

Laveen Photo

Posts: 6

LAVEEN, Arizona, US

That is not as puzzling to me, being willing to pose and shoot nude but not posting them. If a model says they will shoot nudes I am then less concern about bringing up the topic, but if they say they do not then I want to respect that; however, if they show nudes in their portfolio that is where my confusion starts.

Jul 09 20 05:32 pm Link

Photographer

Ken Marcus Studios

Posts: 9329

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

What they may mean is . . . I've shot nudes before, but I'm not interested in doing it again.

Or . . .  I love to shoot nudes, but only with photographers that I want to shoot nudes with.

Jul 09 20 05:39 pm Link

Photographer

Shadow Dancer

Posts: 9484

Qil Qal'eh, Bāmiyān, Afghanistan

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
What they may mean is . . . I've shot nudes before, but I'm not interested in doing it again.

Or . . .  I love to shoot nudes, but only with photographers that I want to shoot nudes with.

This. It really is that simple.

Jul 09 20 08:21 pm Link

Photographer

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY

Posts: 6568

Uniontown, Pennsylvania, US

Laveen Photo wrote:
Something that has puzzled me for some time is that I will frequently see model profiles where the model says she does not shoot nudes; however, when you go to the portfolio there will be nudes. Probably most frequently they will be cover-ups or maybe only show the model from the back. I find it confusing when the portfolio is not consistent with the "don't shoot nudes." I would love to get an understanding of this seeming contradiction.  Personally, I do not bring up the topic of shooting nudes until I have at least shot once with a model and then I may never bring up the subject. Ultimately I wonder if it would be inappropriate in that type of situation to bring up the subject with the model. I would appreciate any thoughts on this topic.

If You're speaking of the details section on a Models main page the answer is simple, they opted not to make a selection and the system chose one for them.

The Model may also show implied nude images although they are not nude.

Jul 10 20 03:01 am Link

Photographer

Eric212Grapher

Posts: 3539

Saint Louis, Missouri, US

Laveen Photo wrote:
Something that has puzzled me for some time is that I will frequently see model profiles where the model says she does not shoot nudes; however, when you go to the portfolio there will be nudes. Probably most frequently they will be cover-ups or maybe only show the model from the back. I find it confusing when the portfolio is not consistent with the "don't shoot nudes." I would love to get an understanding of this seeming contradiction.  Personally, I do not bring up the topic of shooting nudes until I have at least shot once with a model and then I may never bring up the subject. Ultimately I wonder if it would be inappropriate in that type of situation to bring up the subject with the model. I would appreciate any thoughts on this topic.

Those are called implied nudes. It is sort of halfway between a Shoot Nudes: Yes and No. For some, as long as their nipples and pubic area are not seen by the camera, they are good. However, it doesn't mean they will pose for anyone that way. Even if a model checks Shoots Nudes: Yes, this does not mean she is willing to shoot nudes with everyone. So what you see in her portfolio may be something she reserves for photographers she knows and trusts.

If a model checks Shoot Nudes: No, I respect that. I don't care if they have a full leg spread nude in their portfolio, they said "No nudes." That image may be from years ago, or last week with a photographer they know well. Any model viewing my portfolio knows I shoot nudes, so if they are interested in that, they will tell me. Treat their "No" as meaning "No." Quite simple.

The difficulties I have are the models who check "Shoot Nudes: Yes" but show nothing of the sort in their portfolio, and not even seen in their "credited photos" page. This is where a conversation needs to take place. Some models will pose nude, but stipulate those images are not to posted anywhere. Huh? What? No, thanks. Others might be willing to shoot implied nudes given the right concept. Communicate with them, and they can respond according. One time a model changed her profile option to No.. Message received.

Jul 10 20 11:13 am Link

Photographer

Laveen Photo

Posts: 6

LAVEEN, Arizona, US

Thanks all, the answers do add some perspective. I guess I am one that likes clear communication of parameters, but I am probably too old-school. I also realize that I probably have a different take on the definition of implied nudes. To me if a model is nude but covers up or does not expose to the camera vital areas of her anatomy that is still nude. To me implied nude is where you compose a shot of a model who is covered but make it look like she could be nude (I probably tend to take things a bit to literally). For example, I know of a photographer who has done a series of shots with models in short shorts and tube tops sitting with their knees up. You see no clothing (which is there). To me that is a truly implied nude. That said I recognize that  cover-ups are generally referred to as implied.

Thanks again.

Jul 10 20 06:29 pm Link

Photographer

Mark Salo

Posts: 11212

Olney, Maryland, US

Laveen Photo wrote:
. . . To me that is a truly implied nude. . .

Nude, partial nude, implied: What matters is the model's definition, not yours.

I ask a prospective model if she is comfortable with "full frontal". If she is not comfortable with that, it's up to her to describe her limits.

Jul 10 20 07:51 pm Link

Model

Kelly Kooper

Posts: 1240

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

There's some debate here between whether implied is considered nude. Because every definition will be slightly different, you're always best to have sample images of the style you have in mind so the model can veto before the shoot the kinds of images she isn't comfortable doing. You should both be absolutely clear on this before shooting.

Jul 10 20 09:59 pm Link

Photographer

Ivan123

Posts: 1014

Arlington, Virginia, US

There must be a dozen threads on this going back more than a decade.  The best interpretation that I recall is "I shoot nudes, but not with you."  As others have pointed out, the only thing that really matters is the model's definitions and comfort levels.  Concerning "implied" nudes, there are two things going on here.  Some models are comfortable being photographed nude.  Others models are OK with letting a photographer see them nude as long as the camera does not record them nude.  Then the issue is, does the model feel comfortable with a particular, specific photographer's seeing them nude?  And are they confident that the photographer will pay careful attention to what is and is not visible in the frame?  Maybe not.  I've had several models who were happy to pose nude as long as their faces did not show.  They are absolutely adamant about this.  And one later told me that she posed for only for a couple of photographers because she did not trust others to respect her "no face" rule.  All about what the model is comfortable with.

Jul 12 20 04:18 pm Link

Model

Notavailableforhire

Posts: 6563

MacMurdo - permanent station of the US, Sector claimed by New Zealand, Antarctica

There are many levels of nude images, yet MM only has a yes or no choice. To some people, it isn't "nude" if it's just the backside, yet to some it is.

To some it's not "nude" if they are just topless, yet to some it is.

To some it's not "nude" if they are wearing sheer lingerie, yet to some it is.

Model Mayhem could have made this easier for models to make it clear to photographers, but they didn't.  And photographers could stop blaming models for being stupid, fickle, or for baiting and switching but they won't.

Jul 12 20 04:58 pm Link

Photographer

Chris Macan

Posts: 12884

HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US

I suspect by not listing nudes it keeps them out of the search for a certain type of photographer,
and lessens inappropriate  or annoying solicitations.
But I could be wrong.

Jul 12 20 06:22 pm Link

Model

LadyOrias

Posts: 33

Tampa, Florida, US

i can only speak on generalities as i dont speak for all models,  but......

if a woman's bio says they dont shoot nudes but you see them its usually because of one of these reasons.....
1) the nude pics are old and theyre no longer comfortable with their body
2)  the woman is in a relationship that precludes her from appearing that vulnerable anymore
3) they dont want random solicitations exclusively for nude work and would rather that type of dynamic evolve though mutual understanding after working together enough times
4) theyre pivoting their focus to change their image and define a clear new direction for a career shift, etc.
5) they only do nudes under specific situations like if its paid or for a published photographer (which they should clarify)
6) The want nudity to be their artistic choice in the moment and work together on ideas that they may be open to evolving when theyre moved by the moment
7) they want to be the one to solicit photographers for nude work to ensure theyre portrayed in a style that they find classy
8) they dont want to be lumped into the nude model pool which can be seen derogatorily by some
9) they change their limits like they change their underwear and theres no hope of ever making sense of things
10) banana banana 9 is not an even number

in general if you see it,  they shouldnt be offended when you seek clarification, but you shouldnt only be contacting them for something they blatantly say they dont do. that just sounds creepy.  if you're interested in working with them anyway, then lead with that then later just politely inquire which of their listed limits or portfolio are more updated because you were confused

Jul 13 20 09:50 am Link

Photographer

Vector One Photography

Posts: 3722

Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
What they may mean is . . . I've shot nudes before, but I'm not interested in doing it again.

Or . . .  I love to shoot nudes, but only with photographers that I want to shoot nudes with.

Or, I love to shoot nudes but my new boyfriend won't let me.

Jul 19 20 01:02 pm Link

Photographer

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY

Posts: 6568

Uniontown, Pennsylvania, US

Znude! wrote:
It's no more confusing than models who say they model but really don't.

lol

Jul 20 20 04:10 am Link

Photographer

Midnight Picnic

Posts: 4

Los Angeles, California, US

Chris Macan wrote:
I suspect by not listing nudes it keeps them out of the search for a certain type of photographer,
and lessens inappropriate  or annoying solicitations.
But I could be wrong.

This is an explanation a model gave me once; she had responded to my casting call for a nude shoot, and since her profile listed her as not doing nudity, I was double-checking that she understood and was comfortable with the concept.  She was, and we had a great shoot.

Jul 20 20 12:54 pm Link

Photographer

63fotos

Posts: 495

Alhambra, California, US

Laveen Photo wrote:
Something that has puzzled me for some time is that I will frequently see model profiles where the model says she does not shoot nudes; however, when you go to the portfolio there will be nudes. Probably most frequently they will be cover-ups or maybe only show the model from the back. I find it confusing when the portfolio is not consistent with the "don't shoot nudes." I would love to get an understanding of this seeming contradiction.  Personally, I do not bring up the topic of shooting nudes until I have at least shot once with a model and then I may never bring up the subject. Ultimately I wonder if it would be inappropriate in that type of situation to bring up the subject with the model. I would appreciate any thoughts on this topic.

What I have seen is that a model's profile will say she shoots nudes, or doesn't, but her casting call says the opposite.

Jul 21 20 08:55 am Link

Photographer

DTP - Photography

Posts: 57

Chesapeake, Virginia, US

Chris Macan wrote:
I suspect by not listing nudes it keeps them out of the search for a certain type of photographer,
and lessens inappropriate  or annoying solicitations.
But I could be wrong.

That doesn't stop photographers from asking. Had a female friend who joined a few years ago and she stated no nudes in her port and was still asked if she'd shoot nude by a number of photogs.

Jul 30 20 08:23 pm Link

Photographer

DTP - Photography

Posts: 57

Chesapeake, Virginia, US

j_francis_imagery wrote:
I see it more the other way around. They say they do, but they put none in their own portfolio.

Could be because they want to get paid to shoot nude and don't want to give away the photos. Just guessing.

Jul 30 20 08:25 pm Link

Photographer

Aberotica

Posts: 491

Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom

Implied nudes? Okay, how about an implied fee? wink Back in the day when this first became a "genre" someone said, "what does it mean?" I said it means they are naked under their clothes.

Jul 31 20 04:07 am Link

Photographer

LnN Studio

Posts: 288

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US

The question the OP asked reminds me of a tee shirt saw on the boardwalk at Jersey shore many years ago on a beautiful amply endowed your lady which pretty much answered any question guy may have

" Yes I do...but NOT with YOU"

Jul 31 20 11:30 am Link

Photographer

ROUA IMAGES

Posts: 227

Phoenix, Arizona, US

Some models shoot nudes when they're starting out then change their minds later about doing it as time goes on; though I do tend to agree with the general explanation that it's a matter of selective choice for most for specific photographers.  That is, "For you, I'll shoot nudes.  For everyone else, however? No."   Thus - when they have their selective favorites like that - why shoot them at all unless it's a particularly fantastic shot that can use no one else but them?

Jul 31 20 08:47 pm Link

Photographer

63fotos

Posts: 495

Alhambra, California, US

Is a wet t-shirt considered implied?

Aug 01 20 08:38 am Link

Photographer

Dan Howell

Posts: 3372

Kerhonkson, New York, US

I have said for years (decades now) that models are free to set their own boundaries and apply them as inconsistently as they choose. Shoot them or move on. Not worth getting grumpy about.

Aug 01 20 08:54 am Link

Photographer

TomFRohwer

Posts: 1587

Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

Dan Howell wrote:
I have said for years (decades now) that models are free to set their own boundaries and apply them as inconsistently as they choose. Shoot them or move on. Not worth getting grumpy about.

+1
But we can state that it is a not so clever idea to run a shop and show items in the shopwindow you do not intend to sell... Kind of double bind.

Aug 01 20 09:07 am Link

Photographer

Vincent Arthur

Posts: 901

Red Bank, New Jersey, US

Chris Macan wrote:
I suspect by not listing nudes it keeps them out of the search for a certain type of photographer,
and lessens inappropriate  or annoying solicitations.
But I could be wrong.

This

Aug 01 20 01:24 pm Link

Photographer

Jason McKendricks

Posts: 6016

Chico, California, US

There was a time when models - especially new ones - would practically be besieged by photographers who were overly re eager to schedule nude shoots. Any one photographer may have been perfectly respectful and appropriate but when a mountain of messages come in it would make these models a bit skeeved out. Thus some of them would select "no nudes" in hopes of staying off the radars of GWCs. They may still be perfectly willing to shoot nude with the right photographer but will be very selective about it.

Alternatively, a model may once have shot nudes and has chosen not to do them anymore. She is allowed to change her mind about what she will shoot.

Aug 01 20 02:51 pm Link

Photographer

Carle Photo

Posts: 475

New Orleans, Louisiana, US

Dan Howell wrote:
I have said for years (decades now) that models are free to set their own boundaries and apply them as inconsistently as they choose. Shoot them or move on. Not worth getting grumpy about.

TomFRohwer wrote:
+1
But we can state that it is a not so clever idea to run a shop and show items in the shopwindow you do not intend to sell... Kind of double bind.

Ummmmmm
Models are PEOPLE, not ITEMS!
Models are also free people who are hired (or not) to do a job, they are not bought or sold.
Also.... Many times items are in shop windows that are not for sale, they are just a part of the display. Just because you can view an item in a shop window, does not mean it is for sale. Some items may be, some may not be.

Aug 01 20 06:22 pm Link

Photographer

Jerry Nemeth

Posts: 33355

Dearborn, Michigan, US

Dan Howell wrote:
I have said for years (decades now) that models are free to set their own boundaries and apply them as inconsistently as they choose. Shoot them or move on. Not worth getting grumpy about.

There are always other models available.

Aug 01 20 07:02 pm Link

Photographer

jmusse

Posts: 1724

New York, New York, US

Laveen Photo wrote:
Something that has puzzled me for some time is that I will frequently see model profiles where the model says she does not shoot nudes; however, when you go to the portfolio there will be nudes. Probably most frequently they will be cover-ups or maybe only show the model from the back. I find it confusing when the portfolio is not consistent with the "don't shoot nudes." I would love to get an understanding of this seeming contradiction.  Personally, I do not bring up the topic of shooting nudes until I have at least shot once with a model and then I may never bring up the subject. Ultimately I wonder if it would be inappropriate in that type of situation to bring up the subject with the model. I would appreciate any thoughts on this topic.

I shoot a lot of nude models that they didn't display they are okay with nudes in their own port. The reason I got is that if they say "Yes" to nude openly, they get a lot the request that isn't offer pay and don't add value to their port. Plus a lot of GWC and creepy guys. This is more than let me see and hear your ideas, and explore photographer's portfolio to see if worth for them.

Aug 03 20 05:11 pm Link

Photographer

Jon Winkleman Photo

Posts: 139

Providence, Rhode Island, US

Some models want to avoid creepy men with cameras. So their general rule, especially with new photographers, is “no nudes.” Sometimes if they work with someone they trust they might be open to nudes at some point. There are also many models here that used to do nudes then for whatever reason decided they didn’t want to shoot nudes anymore. Some mean they do not do full frontal nudes but may sometimes be open to partial or implied nudes.

The new conversations about consent in regard to sex should also apply to nude photography. Just because someone has consented in the past does not mean they have to give consent in the future. No one should be shamed or stigmatized if they do change or occasionally move their normal boundaries of consent.

From most of the models I have spoken to who say no nudes but have them in their port, many simply do not want to attract photographers who are only interested in nudes. Frankly no model has to describe their current or past consent or justify why they are setting their current boundaries. We just have to respect them.

Aug 22 20 10:37 pm Link

Model

Victoria Morrisa

Posts: 130

New York, New York, US

She doesn’t want to get inquiries about nude shoots.

Aug 23 20 01:38 am Link

Photographer

Rays Fine Art

Posts: 7504

New York, New York, US

Generally it's an attempt to keep the "creep factor" under control, especially in smaller markets where the model is more likely to be recognized by her employer, pastor, etc.  (And yes, I suspect that there a number of such people prowling MM model portfolios)

I have a category in my portfolio called "Anonymous Nudes" for just that purpose

Aug 28 20 09:36 am Link

Photographer

shotbytim

Posts: 1034

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, US

In some cases they may be fine with shooting nude but are prohibited from doing so by a non compete agreement with a previous photographer or publisher. This is very common with models who have posed for Playboy. Playmates, anyway. I'm not sure about Cybergirls and Special Editions.

Sep 19 20 05:00 pm Link

Photographer

shotbytim

Posts: 1034

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, US

Laveen Photo wrote:
Thanks all, the answers do add some perspective. I guess I am one that likes clear communication of parameters, but I am probably too old-school. I also realize that I probably have a different take on the definition of implied nudes. To me if a model is nude but covers up or does not expose to the camera vital areas of her anatomy that is still nude. To me implied nude is where you compose a shot of a model who is covered but make it look like she could be nude (I probably tend to take things a bit to literally). For example, I know of a photographer who has done a series of shots with models in short shorts and tube tops sitting with their knees up. You see no clothing (which is there). To me that is a truly implied nude. That said I recognize that  cover-ups are generally referred to as implied.

Thanks again.

+1

Sep 19 20 05:11 pm Link

Retoucher

happynathan

Posts: 66

Shanghai, Shanghai, China

Post hidden on Aug 27, 2021 05:31 am
Reason: violates rules
Comments:
Spam

Aug 26 21 02:59 am Link

Photographer

woodpaint51

Posts: 11

Arlington Heights, Illinois, US

I'm confused when their profile has none, and says 'no nudes', yet I found their profile when scrolling through a photographers profile and she shows up doing a dozen nude pics for that photographer.  Maybe others too. But the profile says 'none'.  Is it a matter of experience, or asking for more money to shoot an unplanned nude set of pics?  Baffles me for sure.

Oct 01 21 11:44 am Link

Photographer

RoyMayh

Posts: 23

Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US

Maybe it is time to get rid of this confusion and remove that whole categorization. It's useless.
For every argument one may have why one would want it that way, there is a perfectly valid counterargument why it is the other way around. I think we've mostly heard and seen it all on here.

Models should and do post whatever they want in their profile.
Photographers can approach models regarding whatever project they have, nude or non-nude.
Model will reply whether they are interesting or not or ignore.

All the rest of the 'emotions' that are generated by this 'mismatch' are kind of artificial. Both models and photographers I feel get way too emotional about it, I used to be the same way, but 'cleansed' myself of it lately to simplify things.

No, it should not feel insulting to be approached to do a nude project, you have the option to say no, no need to act like your dignity and professionalism was assailed, some of the responses I got in the past blew me away frankly. If photographer was not respectful in some way then decline, ignore or report to moderators.

Only my opinion of course.

Oct 07 21 08:02 pm Link