Colin Talcroft wrote:
OK, another linguistic question ...

hmm. more splitting of word hairs ...

... in photography. a visual art.

~ F

wandering eye wrote:

Sorry.. but you guys can't be more wrong..

im·plied     [im-plahyd]
–adjective
involved, indicated, or suggested without being directly or explicitly stated; tacitly understood: an implied rebuke; an implied compliment.

I can't see how you guys can use that word in the sense you are using it. You're talking about "faked" nudity.  Faked is different from implied.

An implied nude photo doesn't show any nudity (any more than a bikini does).. but the *implication* is that the model was nude on set.

Lets go with your argument. If a model is nude, but cover the bits. So according to you, that is *implied* nudity (which you did a great job of looking up a thesaurus. Now my question is this:

The model IS nude isnt she? Just because she covers it with her hands, props etc, she IS still nude. By the way, nude = not wearing anything. So where is the suggestion or the implication?

HOWEVER, using our definition, the model is actually wearing something and is therefore NOT nude but due to clever angles, lighting, props etc, makes the viewer perceive the model as nude, now that IS *implied*, *suggested* etc.

Lets look at it another way. If a couple are acting on a scene and both are naked. They both have to do a scene where audience are to understand that they are having sex. We call that "implied sex". Using your definition would mean that they *ARE* just that the audience do not see actual penetration. If that is the case, then they ARE having sex whether you see it or not.

In most mainstream movies, actors and actresses have *implied sex* (think Ethan Hawke and Angelina Jolie in taking lives) which means there is really no sex involved, just the angles and actions makes viewers perceive that the characters they played are having sex, thus *implied*, *suggested*. Same argument for "implied nudity".

Randy Tay aka Khayman wrote:

Lets go with your argument. If a model is nude, but cover the bits. So according to you, that is *implied* nudity (which you did a great job of looking up a thesaurus. Now my question is this:

The model IS nude isnt she? Just because she covers it with her hands, props etc, she IS still nude. By the way, nude = not wearing anything. So where is the suggestion or the implication?

Read the definition again.  S/he may *actually* be nude but the photo does not actually show the nudity (ie the naughty bits)... hence the implication.

HOWEVER, using our definition, the model is actually wearing something and is therefore NOT nude but due to clever angles, lighting, props etc, makes the viewer perceive the model as nude, now that IS *implied*, *suggested* etc.

Lets look at it another way. If a couple are acting on a scene and both are naked. They both have to do a scene where audience are to understand that they are having sex. We call that "implied sex". Using your definition would mean that they *ARE* just that the audience do not see actual penetration. If that is the case, then they ARE having sex whether you see it or not.

In most mainstream movies, actors and actresses have *implied sex* (think Ethan Hawke and Angelina Jolie in taking lives) which means there is really no sex involved, just the angles and actions makes viewers perceive that the characters they played are having sex, thus *implied*, *suggested*. Same argument for "implied nudity".

Sorry but no.. they are not having *implied* sex.. they are *faking* sex.  Eg. an implied insult is still an insult.. you're just not coming out and saying it.

Again.. there's a big difference between implying something and faking it.  If they were to imply that they were having sex then they would be suggesting that they are *actually* having sex but showing the sex act (ie penetration).. which is not the case.

To put it another way.. to imply something you must actually be doing that thing.. but in a round about way.  eg. implied payment (you were paid.. but not explicitly.. it was included in some other amount).  A stuntman isn't *implying* that he's jumping off of a 50 story building.. he's *faking* that he's jumping off of it.

I'm repeating myself I suppose.. but I can't really think of a better way to make the concept clear.

Randy Tay aka Khayman wrote:
A quick question to those who argue that implied nude means a truly nude model covering his/her bits with hands etc:

If a model is nude and has her back taken hence not showing nipples, breast or pubes and her hands are at the hips, is that nude or implied? Using your definition it is implied but the fact is, clearly she is nude and hence, not implied.

The notion of implied nudity isn't about the supposed state of the model.. but the fact of the photograph.

Colin Talcroft wrote:
OK, another linguistic question: People seem to use the term "implied nude" very loosely. To me, the logical assumption is that a model in an implied nude shot is NOT nude, but is made to appear nude. That is not, however, how people seem to use the phrase. So what does 'implied nude" mean to you? Can someone here point me to the quintessential implied nude?

you are correct

but she can be nude and just not completly showing it (although most togs paying the nude rate for example, might like to show it - more often than not)

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
The model may be in fact nude but not showing the parts the would put it in a nude category.

i'd aggree with this. may be a ht where the model iscovered by surroundings/ fabric etc over certain areas, may be a photo of the back of an obviously naked model.

wandering eye wrote:
Sorry.. but you guys can't be more wrong..

im·plied     [im-plahyd]
–adjective
involved, indicated, or suggested without being directly or explicitly stated; tacitly understood: an implied rebuke; an implied compliment.

I can't see how you guys can use that word in the sense you are using it. You're talking about "faked" nudity.  Faked is different from implied.

An implied nude photo doesn't show any nudity (any more than a bikini does).. but the *implication* is that the model was nude on set.

IMO you are exactly right. The word implied means that by looking at the photo the only way it could have been shot is if the model was in fact nude on the set.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
The model may be in fact nude but not showing the parts the would put it in a nude category.

Jennifer Lauren wrote:
Hi!

Implied nude to me would be mean naked (but, covering up private parts).

Visit my port and you'll see what I mean.

Merry Christmas

But then there is also such a thing as:

"You follow the letter of the law, while desecrating the heart of it!"

See the "Nude or Not Nude" thread that I started a couple of weeks ago.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

carlo Di Paolo wrote:
I really don't care for this implied nude thing. It is the one major element that causes the hold your own boob syndrome, or the hand bra. Good nudes take guts, and if you don't have the guts then just keep your clothes on. I don't like anything done half assed. It results in disappointing overly clique images, I rarely see a good one.
It's a lot like a car with a sunroof, if it's not a convertable why bother?

What he said!

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

wandering eye wrote:
Read the definition again.  S/he may *actually* be nude but the photo does not actually show the nudity (ie the naughty bits)... hence the implication.

I did. It means suggested, which means not necessarily so.


Sorry but no.. they are not having *implied* sex.. they are *faking* sex.  Eg. an implied insult is still an insult.. you're just not coming out and saying it.

Again.. there's a big difference between implying something and faking it.  If they were to imply that they were having sex then they would be suggesting that they are *actually* having sex but showing the sex act (ie penetration).. which is not the case.

To put it another way.. to imply something you must actually be doing that thing.. but in a round about way.  eg. implied payment (you were paid.. but not explicitly.. it was included in some other amount).  A stuntman isn't *implying* that he's jumping off of a 50 story building.. he's *faking* that he's jumping off of it.

Not necessarily. Implied payment not necessarily meant I was paid, it could mean that it *appeared* i was paid. Or a suggestion that I was paid, but I am still NOT paid. E.g. If i receive a post dated check, that is implied payment. But is the money in my bank? NO!.

A stuntment is not *faking* a jump. He IS jumping and there is no implication because he DID it. And in using the sex act again, faking and implying in this case is the same because there is implication the characters they play is having sex although they are not. As you yourself said, "If they were to imply that they were having sex then they would be suggesting that they are *actually* having sex but showing the sex act (ie penetration).." which they ARE suggesting that they are having sex, at least the characters they are playing while they the actors are not, hence implied.

We can go on forever or we can just agree to disagree.

Colin Talcroft wrote:
OK, another linguistic question: People seem to use the term "implied nude" very loosely. To me, the logical assumption is that a model in an implied nude shot is NOT nude, but is made to appear nude. That is not, however, how people seem to use the phrase. So what does 'implied nude" mean to you? Can someone here point me to the quintessential implied nude?

to the viewer she is still covered in some fashion.

wandering eye wrote:

The notion of implied nudity isn't about the supposed state of the model.. but the fact of the photograph.

But the question is still unanswered. Will that be implied or nude?

Project Photography wrote:


an implied nude from my port


and another

The first one is not implied. She IS nude. The second one is not either. The model is just topless.

Ransom J wrote:
Implied nude=nude minus the WOW parts.

AKA porn lite

AKA drop your fucking hands already!

Implied nude is taking a hit of weed and not inhaling.
B-o-o-oring.

Colin Talcroft wrote:
OK, another linguistic question: People seem to use the term "implied nude" very loosely. To me, the logical assumption is that a model in an implied nude shot is NOT nude, but is made to appear nude. That is not, however, how people seem to use the phrase. So what does 'implied nude" mean to you? Can someone here point me to the quintessential implied nude?

I'm one of those who defines it loosely; it could mean what it does to you, as if the model may be wearing something that is obscured by the pose, whether it's an actual garment or just a "modesty cloth". It could also mean that the model, while not clothed, is holding some object between the camera and the body part whose exposure would make the photo "nude" (see my photo of Brittany with a hat for a bra). It could mean that the model, while not wearing a garment, is covered by a sheet or some other cloth-in art class, that's called a "draped nude". It can also mean that a totally nude model is simply posed so that her nipples and genitals are not visible.

Randy Tay aka Khayman wrote:

But the question is still unanswered. Will that be implied or nude?

Actually the question was answered quite succinctly.. I'll be more.. wordy:

If you can't see any nudidy in the actual photo (ie there are no naughty bits visible in the photo) then how exactly is it a nude photo?

If I take a picture of a girl standing next to a car.. but no part of the car is visible.. is it an automotive photo (or whatever category those sorts of things are in)?

No.

Whatever happened on set has no bearing on whether or not it is a 'nude' or 'implied nude' the only thing to be considered is what you see in the pic.

Simple decision making method:

if (can see naughty bits) then
   nude_photo = 1;
   implied_nude_photo = 0;
else if (model most likely actually nude on set)
   nude_photo = 0;
   implide_nude_photo = 1;
else
   nude_photo = 0;
   implide_nude_photo = (maybe)
endif

there you have it.

To put it yet another way:

it's a nude photo if and only if you can see the model's naughty bits.  The implied nude status may be up for a bit of debate but actual nudity is a pretty cut and dried affair.

wandering eye wrote:

Actually the question was answered quite succinctly.. I'll be more.. wordy:

If you can't see any nudidy in the actual photo (ie there are no naughty bits visible in the photo) then how exactly is it a nude photo?

If I take a picture of a girl standing next to a car.. but no part of the car is visible.. is it an automotive photo (or whatever category those sorts of things are in)?

No.

Whatever happened on set has no bearing on whether or not it is a 'nude' or 'implied nude' the only thing to be considered is what you see in the pic.

Simple decision making method:

if (can see naughty bits) then
   nude_photo = 1;
   implied_nude_photo = 0;
else if (model most likely actually nude on set)
   nude_photo = 0;
   implide_nude_photo = 1;
else
   nude_photo = 0;
   implide_nude_photo = (maybe)
endif

there you have it.

To put it yet another way:

it's a nude photo if and only if you can see the model's naughty bits.  The implied nude status may be up for a bit of debate but actual nudity is a pretty cut and dried affair.

Something is very wrong with this definition. If that is the case, a close-up of the face can be called "implied nude" since the naught bits cannot bet seen.

If the model is nude, whether the "bits" can be seen or not, it IS nude. Period. If model is not, but made to think she/he is, then it is "implied". Is that so hard to understand? What happen on the set may or may not have bearing but whether the model is REALLY nude or not does. Ok, simple logic. If I you stripped yourself but naked and cover your bits with your hands and walk around. I'll bet you everyone will agree you ARE nude and not implied. Still think it is implied? Tell that to the judge. HOWEVER, if you wear a skin suit and made the illusion that you are nude, then it is "implied".

BTW, in those so-called implied nude pictures I have seen, I have no question they ARE 100% nude and not implied at all. (Photoshopped ones are exception in this case).

But like I said, lets just agree to disagree.

naomimarie wrote:
Implied to me means just that implied, where through the use of props etc....to hide the fact that the model is wearing clothing( not much clothing) to give the impression  or imply that the model is nude when in reality the model is not.  Images where the model is nude but covering or posing where one does not get a view of the private regions, in my opinion would fall under covered nude  of course this is only my view...

Seems to be the most common version of the meaning *by models*, where as photographers interpret it to mean "naked, but you can't see the naughty bits." Question for the models -- how to make sure that meaning comes across to the photogs?

i.e. does "will do implied but not nude" definitely mean hidden thong-and-pasties? How does a photographer correctly interpret "will do nude" (i.e. showing the details or not showing the details?)

Obviously both parties can chat it out, but it may waste time for both as well.

Reason I bring up the difference in interpretations was that when I've used MM's Casting Call forum, one problem is the option of selecting "Nude" versus "No Nudity" on the fill-out form leaves a lot of room for misinterpretation. I shoot a lot of lingerie, which by definition can involve a lot of partial/implied/sheer/etc. But how to convey that quickly to someone surfing through ads?

UIPHOTOS wrote:
As others have stated, if someone used PS to remove the thongs or whatever, the FINAL PRODUCT is what matters, not what is happening DURING the shoot..

Apples and Oranges..

From the model's standpoint, however, it seems to make something of a difference. The one who had her thong PS'd out - if the photographer had then somehow photoshopped IN nipples and pubic hair convincingly, the photograph would qualify as nude, but the model may still consider it "implied nudity" because she was dressed on the set?? 

An extreme example, but point being it seems once again there are different perceptions depending on whether one is in front of, or behind, the camera.

jack4photos wrote:
This is implied nudity.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=972487

The model was fully naked but the pose hid the "naughty bits".

Jack

Exactly, otherwise any model wearing anything would be implied nudity.  You are implying "full nudity" but not showing full nudity by, as everyone else has put it, hiding the "naughty bits".

You can't really imply full nudity by wearing clothes can you? If you are wearing a shirt...partially open..you are still wearing a shirt.  If you have on lingerie...you are still clothed...albeit partially.

Randy Tay aka Khayman wrote:

The first one is not implied. She IS nude. The second one is not either. The model is just topless.

Completely off topic...but this image also raises a double standard.  His nips can show...but if hers show she is nude and that can't be displayed.  Hmmmm..

Steven Eldridge wrote:
Regardless of the "webster" version of the word...the model may in fact be nude.



The rule I've always followed was that nothing downstairs or breasts should be visible.  A bikini is not implied nudity.  We are talking photography right?

A bikini shot is just that...swimwear.  A nude shot is just that...nude (usually full nude).  Artistic nudes can also be full nudes.  Implied nudes are when you hide aspects of the female or male body to conceal the full nudity.

Do a google search on implied nudes and you will come up with all sorts of things.  Most of them will "not" comply with the dictionary version of the word.

A dictionary is a reliable and an offical source, googling is not.

This model is nude. If I put the model in bed with sheets covering her private areas and she appears to be nude, but is in fact wearing a bra and panties which can't be seen, then that is implied. Because she appears to be nude when in fact she is not.

Steven Eldridge wrote:

Exactly, otherwise any model wearing anything would be implied nudity.  You are implying "full nudity" but not showing full nudity by, as everyone else has put it, hiding the "naughty bits".

You can't really imply full nudity by wearing clothes can you? If you are wearing a shirt...partially open..you are still wearing a shirt.  If you have on lingerie...you are still clothed...albeit partially.

Yes you can. If a model is wearing clothes but if YOU as the photographer can make it SEEMED like she is not, then it is implied. To do a "implied nude" shot takes alot of skill in set up and lighting, and not just "Hey! get naked but cover your bits" then click and annouce "there, implied nudity". If your model wears a lingerie and you show the lingerie, then it is a lingerie shot. Again, if you are skilful enough to create the illusion that she is not, then it is implied nudity.

Steven Eldridge wrote:

Completely off topic...but this image also raises a double standard.  His nips can show...but if hers show she is nude and that can't be displayed.  Hmmmm..

Off topic? how so? We are still on the topic of "implied nudity" and I am arguing that the picture shown is not implied nudity unless you can proof otherwise and at least show me it is off topic.