|
Forums >
General Industry >
Since We're Obsessed With Nudity: Definition Q
Suppose I take a picture of a model wearing fairly brief panties, such that only her hip is visible. Then I airbrush out the panties (which is easy because it's just the curve of her hip, not redrawing any naughty bits.) Is it still not a nude? Is it an implied nude? Just curious.  If you want to see an example of the sort of picture I mean, look here: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/40642031/ This isn't the best example because she's not nude anyway, but it will show you what I'm talking about. In the original photograph, you can tell quite clearly that she's wearing panties. In this photograph, her arms cover most of them: a section of them was visible on her left thigh/hip, which I removed because I thought it made the picture a lot cleaner. M Jan 16 07 10:00 am Link I don't get the whole "implied" thing. Most of what I see in that catagory IS nude. It's just not frontal. Implied (to me) means something like being behind a door with a bare leg sticking out. Makes you wonder "if"? but whatever... Jan 16 07 12:59 pm Link kelvin pinney wrote: Yes. Jan 16 07 03:03 pm Link kelvin pinney wrote: You *do* get the implied thing! Jan 16 07 04:08 pm Link Implied nude, to me, means, "The picture makes it look like she was naked but she actually had some form of clothing on." Covered nude, although it sounds a little paradoxical, to me means, "She was naked but something other than clothing, including possibly her own limbs, hair, etc, prevents the viewer of the photograph from seeing anything that would otherwise make the picture a nude." If it's implied, nobody saw nothin'. If it's covered, the photographer may or may not have seen something, but the viewer does not. It's more important when casting/discussing than when describing a picture, because if done well, there is no way to tell an implied from a covered. I have done covered nudes where the model got into position while I was turned away, so I still didn't see nothin'. I shot a model once who I swear was a Jedi Master: she was right in front of me, in a shower stall, for twenty minutes, stark naked, and I didn't see a dogdamn thing. I would *blink,* and she would be in a new position. It was extremely impressive. The photo I posted a link to is not implied or covered or in fact nude, since she's wearing pasties. (Wasn't my idea, long story, I still thought the pic was cute so I posted it.) But she was also wearing panties which have been digitally removed from the picture. M Jan 16 07 04:10 pm Link To my way of thinking, if we're talking about the images that's one thing, the photoshoot is another. I've worked with many models who were nude on the set, but the images were what I call "implied nude". As far as the images are concerned, to me, a nude is an image where there was no attempt to hide anything from the viewer. Nudes, to me, have a nipple of the pubic area showing. To me, if those areas were in a shadow, covered with hair, hands, or objects (other than clothing), then it's an "implied nude". If those areas are covered with some type of clothing, then it's "fashion". All this is about the IMAGES. Models should understand that although a SHOOT may be to get images in the "fashion", or "implied nude" categories, in order to get the right shot, nudity on the set may be a requirement, on occasion. I did a shoot recently where I was working with a model who didn't want her nipples to show in the finished images. I was OK with that and felt I could get some great images within her comfort boundaries. For the shoot, she was virtually nude and her nipples were clearly visible in the viewfinder when I took the images, but in Photoshop, I cloned her hair longer to cover her nipples and the resulting images were "implied nudes". In these instances, photographers should make that clear in the beginning, since most models don't like surprises when it comes to nudity. Anyway, my point is, when it comes to using the labels of nude, artistic nude, erotic nude, implied nude, what's on the set is one thing, the images are another, sometimes. Oh, nevermind. :-) Jan 16 07 04:39 pm Link Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote: I don't get it. Nude is the absence of clothes. Implied nude is implying the absence of clothes but hiding it with an object. Clothed is clothed. If they look like they don't have clothes on, it's nude. It's got nothing to do with nipples or pubes. It's about skin vs fabric. The definition is wrong. It could be re-catagorized as Overt, Tasteful (sheeesh- so ambigious), and covered nude. BUT STILL NUDE. Jan 16 07 08:00 pm Link People in America need to stop being so offended by nudity. For hell's sake, get over it you over sensitive babies. you should be more offended by the violence. I mean, really, you can show violence and blood in a movie, not too mention lots of cussing, and have it be PG - 13 but as soon as there's a little nip slip, BAM, magical R rating. Okay my rant is over. Sorry. ~Flip Jan 16 07 08:08 pm Link Flip Ashley wrote: Stop making sense. It doesn't work here or with the current moral police Jan 16 07 08:11 pm Link |
