|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Imply nude... What exactly is this?
Is this a general term or would this depend of each model? Is just that I have some model that say: I don't do nude, but I'm ok with imply. Then I visit the model's port and I see what I consider nude. So, how would you define it? How is onw different from the other? E.P. PS: Please don't give me the ask the model cr... Feb 13 08 09:55 pm Link the model appears to be nude but the image shows nothing that would be considered no no parts.  The model may in fact be nude or not depending, they are generally nude however. Its also a means for a "GWC" to say to a model who does not get naked for pictures, "I don't want to shoot nude photos of you, I just want to see you nude! but will take great care to not get it in the shot" Stephen Eastwood http://www.StephenEastwood.com Feb 13 08 09:58 pm Link StephenEastwood wrote: LOL Feb 13 08 10:00 pm Link I am new at Model Mayhem too. However, it seems that if you are naked and are covering your penis or your breasts with your hands or some other object it is called "implied nude." That also seemed like nude to me until I came here. I might be wrong, of course. Feb 13 08 10:00 pm Link KevinMichaelReed wrote: What???? I think its in wikapedia?? I swear!!! Feb 13 08 10:01 pm Link StephenEastwood wrote: No, you're SO right!!! Feb 13 08 10:03 pm Link StephenEastwood wrote: Love it! Feb 13 08 10:04 pm Link Ghaleon wrote: Naked to me too. Feb 13 08 10:06 pm Link KevinMichaelReed wrote: Why do some people get so offended by that at times???? and than you wonder what made them get that offended Feb 13 08 10:08 pm Link StephenEastwood wrote: "no no parts" = Genitalia ? Feb 13 08 10:11 pm Link implied nude: (1) (as stated above) model looks naked, and probably was to get into position, but has "the goods" covered by SOMETHING so as to not be visible in the photograph; (2) weasel words for those who want to appear bolder than they are. Feb 13 08 10:11 pm Link StephenEastwood wrote: You have me sold. Feb 13 08 10:12 pm Link StephenEastwood wrote: if it wasnt in wikapedia before it will be now ..LOL Feb 13 08 10:12 pm Link "Implied nude" is a term models use to define "nudes with limits". What is not included usually in an implied nude is full-frontal nudity, brightly-lit nudity, closeups of the most private ares, erotic shots... (all subject to the model, of course). Models are usually fully nude, but want something left to the imagination of the viewer. There are cases where models believe that they can leave clothing on that the photographer will retouch out later, but in my opinion these requests aren't worth the extra time to do so, and waste everyones time. Feb 13 08 10:12 pm Link El Pollo Photography wrote: breast, or should I say nipples or areola, Pubic hair from any region, penis, labia majora, vagina (kind of hard to see but some photographers have made an art of the macro lens usage here) and for some buttocks! Feb 13 08 10:15 pm Link artblanche wrote: artblanche: Them: Is your avatar imply? Feb 13 08 10:16 pm Link El Pollo Photography wrote: implicitly Feb 13 08 10:19 pm Link StephenEastwood wrote: Seriously man, I'm already all confuse just with my broken English (Habla espanol, lol) Feb 13 08 10:20 pm Link El Pollo Photography wrote: Yes, I'd have to say that your avatar and mine are both "implied". Feb 13 08 10:22 pm Link i think it depends on individual models. I've been asked countless times what i consider "implied" and honestly i cant give a flat answer because it also depends on how comfortable i feel with the photographer. but i would figure it falls more along the line of not showing the entirety of the "goodies" haha Feb 13 08 10:22 pm Link El Pollo Photography wrote: I don't consider yours implied. She is just nude. You just don't see anything. I think implied just...gives the illusion of being nude. Feb 13 08 10:23 pm Link El Pollo Photography wrote: Sorry, yes it is an implied. Feb 13 08 10:24 pm Link C Nguyen Photo wrote: Yes its implied. Feb 13 08 10:24 pm Link what a daft conversation. Feb 13 08 10:25 pm Link StephenEastwood wrote: can i be featured in it Feb 13 08 10:28 pm Link StephenEastwood wrote: You should make it anyway =P Feb 13 08 10:28 pm Link C Nguyen Photo wrote: I'd have to disagree. This model could actually be wearing a full dress and heels for all we know. A bare shoulder or leg does not imply nudity to me. In fact, if a model thought she could show a little shoulder when booking an implied nude shoot, she would be completely be wrong in my opinion. Feb 13 08 10:28 pm Link artblanche wrote: Oh now I feel prudish for thinking a little leg is implied, hehe. Feb 13 08 10:30 pm Link artblanche wrote: I would say the OP is not implied I am seeing too much of what I should only see when the plumber is fixing the sink or the contractor is walking around the house, for it too be implied. Feb 13 08 10:32 pm Link Traditionally the term means the shot shows the model in a way in which she appears to be, the nudity is implied, but the viewer can not really tell whether she or he is actually nude. Another related term which is often not used on the forums, is covered nude. In a covered nude, the model is obviously nude, but the 'parts' are covered so that they can not be seen in the photo. This is an example of an implied nude.  This is a covered nude.  Feb 13 08 10:33 pm Link C Nguyen Photo wrote: It is implied, I looked and can easily see that she may well be naked and in fact I would want to think she is naked, and if its an ad for an afterbath body gel I woudl assume she naked and that would be the point, though I do not know she were naked, its likely that she may well have been naked! Feb 13 08 10:33 pm Link StephenEastwood wrote: I agree that showing the crack makes this image a bit more than we need to see for "implied". Feb 13 08 10:35 pm Link StephenEastwood wrote: *considers* Feb 13 08 10:36 pm Link artblanche wrote: My contractor taught me that some Spackle takes care of that! works great! Feb 13 08 10:36 pm Link Crack kills, by the way. Feb 13 08 10:37 pm Link C Nguyen Photo wrote: Hey no more wise cracks! Feb 13 08 10:39 pm Link C Nguyen Photo wrote: artblanche wrote: You crack me up. Feb 13 08 10:40 pm Link Nude is nude. I always considered implied to be not nude but looks nude. I shoot nudes but down play the "goodies" I do not consider any of them implied....I think we have one of these magic undefined terms that I would love to see a section on MM defining so we all get on the same page... Feb 13 08 10:40 pm Link Feb 13 08 10:40 pm Link Doug Lester wrote: So which is this - Implied or Covered? Feb 13 08 10:41 pm Link |
