|
Forums >
General Industry >
Show me "implied nude"
carlo Di Paolo wrote: Yes yes, finally a photographer who understands what it REALLY meant and not just "see, everyone says so!" Dec 29 06 12:32 am Link double posting  Dec 29 06 12:32 am Link naomimarie wrote: i have to agree with naomi... this is the way i see it... or don't see it actually... lol... Dec 29 06 12:38 am Link So, the shot in my ModelMayhem portfolio immediately to the right of the B.B. King shot (sorry, I can't figure out how to do the URL thing) is implied nudity because the genitals are in shadow and the breasts are not visible. Hmmmm. Dec 29 06 04:47 am Link Colin Talcroft wrote: I think you posted this in the wrong place... Implied nude.. just by the words makes me thing of an image that someone calls nude but isn't...? Dec 29 06 05:10 am Link I think of it as nude, but not showing anything.  Dec 29 06 06:10 am Link Ya know.. I've been reading this thread for a few days and I just can't seem to understand how some people want to comprehend the word "implied" If your model is WEARING a nude bodysuit, and is stretched out on a park bench, strewn in strategically placed vines.. well guess what, you've pulled it off.. IMPLIED the model is nude, when the model truly IS NOT NUDE. HOWEVER - If your model is UNCLOTHED - no matter how you slice it, he/she is NUDE - It really doesn't matter what part of the body you cover with some other body part, the body is still UNDRESSED - there is NO IMPLICATION the model is NUDE, because the model, is in fact.. NUDE. Just how do you get "implied nude" from a model, naked as the day they were born.. covering their genitals with their hand? What are you implying? That your hand (or pineapple) is big enough to cover your genitals? or that you are flexible enough to cover both of your breasts with your arm and cover your genitals at the same time without the benefit of clothing? For those of you who think that is implied nude, just who are you all trying to convince? Yourselves that you are not shooting nudity? or the models whom you are falsely advising to undress before the camera? So the following question is posed to all those models who put "I don't do nudes" in their ports.. will you strip down to your birthday suit and cover your goodies with your hands, allow that shot.. and be comfortable in the fact that you haven't been a "NUDE model" or..... will you simply NOT remove your clothing before the camera -period? Dec 29 06 06:53 am Link I think Bryanna has hit the proverbial nail on the head. Dec 29 06 02:04 pm Link  Dec 29 06 11:08 pm Link ...another Implied Nude, by my definition:  Helena of Gold Dec 29 06 11:17 pm Link wandering eye wrote: This is the correct answer to the question. If you can tell from the image that the model is indeed nude, then it is NOT implied. Just covering up the privates does not make it implied. Dec 29 06 11:21 pm Link If you ask me, the shot two posts up is "implied topless." The knot tied at her hip implies that she is wearing a bikini bottom. Certainly not implied nude. Dec 30 06 12:37 am Link yonika wrote: this is not implied. this is a partially clothed (beautiful) woman covering her breast. Dec 30 06 12:48 am Link dgold wrote: this is nude, nothing implied here, she's really naked. Dec 30 06 12:49 am Link People are arguing this like they are lawyers in court. There seems to be at least some agreement on the resulting photo, she looks like she's nude, but may or may not really be nude, so the only thing that really matters is the communication between the client, or photographer, and the model. From the viewer's perspective it shouldn't matter one whit whether the model was wearing a thong and pasties, a bikini, or nothing at all, as long as the naughty bits aren't seen. What you see is what you get. The photographer is considerably more concerned, as anything the model wears will limit his range of shots. Naturally, a GWC will be far more inconvenienced than an experienced art nude photographer. The model is even more concerned, as wearing nothing might allow the photographer to shoot more than the model bargained for. The classic "holding her own boobs" shot can easily be shot by any but the most prudish model. She simply turns her back, drops the towel, holds her boobs, and turns around. Nobody knows, or cares, if she's wearing pasties. If she's to be lying naked on a bed, however, using a sheet or pillow to cover the naughty bits, then she's constantly worried that the sheet will slip and something will show. She's constantly looking over her shoulder to make sure there's no one lurking on set, or congregating outside the window, looking at the uncovered parts. If a model posts "I've been modeling about two weeks. NO NUDITY, but I might consider implied, with the right photographer" then you damn sure better get your definition clear before you shoot. If it's an experienced model with a portfolio full of nudes, then an "implied nude" shoot should be much easier. I prefer the terms from the film and TV business, "nude on set" and "nude on camera." If you agree to "nude on set" then you will be nude on set, a number of people will see you naked, but no naughty bits are to be filmed, and if they are, they can't be used. If you agree to "nude on camera" then the naughty bits will be filmed, will be used, and anyone on the planet, now and forever, will be able to see them for a few dollars or a couple of mouse clicks. In both cases, the naughty bits will be explicitly defined by negotiations between your lawyer and the company's lawyer, and everyone will sign it. Dec 30 06 12:56 pm Link Marquita C wrote: Oh great...we now have a new category since PS was used to create the Implied Nude. So now we have to add Applied Nude? It's so much less confusing to shoot perfume bottles lol. Dec 30 06 01:01 pm Link C David Stephens wrote: Bailiff, whack his pee pee! I object. Dec 30 06 01:02 pm Link C David Stephens wrote: This makes a lot of sense to me. Dec 30 06 01:04 pm Link Thanks very much for this. I wasn't aware of the terms "nude on set" and "nude on camera." That's a useful distinction, anyway--not that it matters to me personally--, but I think that will clarify things for people on this thread that have been trying to sort the two out. Personally, I have never done a shoot with a model wearing clothes in my life (the model; I'm dressed), so I'm very comfortable with nudity and I work with models that feel the same way; worrying about "nude" or "not nude" or "maybe nude" has never been an issue for me while shooting. I originally asked the question just because there didn't seem to be a consensus about what "implied nude" means. I was just curious about what other people thought. Dec 30 06 01:12 pm Link jack4photos wrote: We should all start using these more professional and more accurate terms immediately. Dec 30 06 05:05 pm Link Kimberlyannqt wrote: You claim to be an attorney but you don't know the difference between "your" and "you're"? And you can't spell "nipple"? ... Right (giggle!) (... or should I say giggel!) Dec 30 06 05:40 pm Link |
