|
Forums >
General Industry >
Models that say "NO NUDE". . .
but then have implieds in their profile. How does this equate? So what is going on here. I just commented to one, she has 'no nudes or implied or glamour' on the top line of her profile, but you look at her portfolio page and she has this shot where she's laying on her back wearing a $1000 coat (which is open) and a pair of $500 boots, and nothing else. Her nipple is barely hidden by a small piece of fabric. I told her she should either change what she has in her profile (no implied or glamour) or eliminate this photo because it's contradictory. So she has been ragging at me that I don't know what I'm saying. Well excuse me, it's clearly an implied. She's laying on her back with her leg lifted up to hide her vagina, and if the photo wasn't so small her nipple could probably be discernable unde the little cloth thing (it's not quite a scarf, looks more like a tie). Her excuse is it's not implied because it was with a professional fasion photographer and her management approved of it. And she claims it's not glamour because she has no makup on and you can't see her T&A. Well you can see her 'T', she's laying on her 'A', but she's obvioulsy not wearing anything other than this $1000 coat! Wouldn't you consider this implied and/or glamour? And she's not the only one, I've seen other models say 'no nudes' and have several implieds on their portfolio page. I've seen one that says 'only implied' but has a photo of her in the nude with her nipples hidden but you can make out the front of her vagina. Is this contradictory or what? Why do they say one thing and do another? I'd like to hear what others have to say about this, and what others think about this, models and photographers. On the side I think people in the US are so freaked out about human bodies, I mean come on, we all have them, and we all know what they look like. Some are nicer than others, and if you have a nice one and are trying to use it to make money why get so uptight about others seeing it! If the only thing you ever want to do for being a model is show up in the JCPenny catalog fine, but Playboy models make way more than JCPenny models make! Apr 04 06 11:20 pm Link Robert Torre wrote: Is there an issue with the cost of what she is wearing? Why is that being brought up? Robert Torre wrote: Or Vogue? Apr 04 06 11:26 pm Link Sometimes you're better off to not say a word and just move on to the next model. Apr 04 06 11:28 pm Link It is contradictory, but just because someone may have done an nude or implied in the past doesn't mean they'll be willing do one in the future. I see how it can be confusing though, and I can see the arguement to remove images that might confuse people looking for work. Apr 04 06 11:29 pm Link Weird. So is that like saying "It's not illegal for me to smoke pot because my doctor approved of it"? I haven't the faintest idea what that particular chickadee meant by it. Although I have to admit, once you start taking your clothes off, some very odd lines start getting drawn. I'm still figuring out where some of mine are. Apr 04 06 11:30 pm Link OH SWEET!!! here i was thinking this groundbreaking novel topic was never going to get brought up on the forums!!!! THANK GOD FOR THIS INSIGHT!!! Apr 04 06 11:31 pm Link Models are only human, if they happen to be comfortable its amazing how many want to " play " for the camera. Giving anyone a tough time about what they may have in a profile vs the type of photos in a portfolio just invites conflict. Chill out its no big deal, what would you rather her page say " I'll show you anything you want " ? Its all a mind game. most of the great models I know can flash a look that will drop you down to your knees, and leave you breathless ! Keep shooting, live and learn, FA Apr 04 06 11:34 pm Link John Jebbia wrote: Agreed. What was the point of this question anyway? I think only to stir the pot a little. Apr 04 06 11:35 pm Link Marker220 wrote: Isn't that what the forums are for? Sure seems that way sometimes... Apr 04 06 11:36 pm Link Robert Torre wrote: Seems like a unproductive way to spend your time.... Apr 04 06 11:42 pm Link Robert Torre wrote: Dear Confused Hobbyist, Apr 04 06 11:42 pm Link  I find it detestable & annoying too, but we've talked it to death Like John J said, leave it & move on to the next one Apr 04 06 11:48 pm Link SLE Photography wrote: that horse is nude... Apr 04 06 11:53 pm Link This is like an adult temper tantrum. We live in a free country and are free to do pretty much what we want, when we want and how we want. Models and photographers alike. We are free to make up our own minds and can change them. This is more a matter for negotiation. In this specific case, you've made a model mad - huge mistake if you want to work with her - ever. At this point it is unlikely that you'll ever get to work with her or others like her. Similar to the MI man - whose models ALL get excited when they shoot with him. You might want to try putting yourself in their shoes. My experience is that new models often post limited limits - meaning what they will do with most ANY photographer. They often relax them over time - either with experience or because they see an image they want to try or because they've found a photographer they feel comfortable with and that treats them like a human. You know, someone they trust. Established models, post limits within the confines of where they want their career to go - period. If they decide that they want to push the envelop and see something in your work that really appeals to them. They'll come to you. Any attempt to convince them - will surely have a negative effect on their impression of you. And likely won't work with you. Others models dance an internal dance based on a variety of factors. Family, friends, relationships, etc. What they want to do vs. what they think they should do. As a general rule, shoot all models for a project that doesn't exceed any posted limitation. Once you've estaplished some trust and a solid professional working relationship - you'll know if you should approach a model with a project that might push their limits. Or not. Expecting a model to do something just because she has with someone else, is a loosing proposiiton. Just my .02 cents. Apr 04 06 11:57 pm Link SLE Photography wrote: Well technically since it's artfully posed with its legs hiding the good bits, it's only an IMPLIED nude. Apr 04 06 11:57 pm Link One more thing... Many models who are under contract with Playboy probably put NO NUDES on their port. It's nothing personal. It's just that you're not HEF. Apr 05 06 12:07 am Link SLE Photography wrote: might be but its obvious that she/he is actually comfortable normally and someone PSed in a guy with a stick and made it all intimate. now its not implied nudity..its implied S&M and if you read the release carefully its not agreed for. Apr 05 06 12:10 am Link Can we make some sort of test on how to search the forums for topics already COVERED before they are able to acces the boards for posting? Star Apr 05 06 12:11 am Link I was trying to give her some constructive criticism, but she responded with the price of the coat and shoes and the line about her agent approved it. She came back at me like the area291 thing about me being an amature. The way I see it, if a model states she doesn't do nudes, she shouldn't have a nude on her portfolio page. In this case it's like she won't do arbitrary nudes, but with the appropriate photographer under the appropriate conditions she might do an implied nude. Many models do say limited nudes, nudity only for paying assignements, etc.. Since she was willing to do an implied nude in a $1000 coat with the 'right' phoptographer shouldn't she have a statement like that (implied nudes only under certain circumstances)? My thing is I'm not a game player, and I don't intentionally lie. If I don't know something I won't pretend I do, and if I think I understand something but later find out I was wrong I will admit I made a mistake. And I don't like game players. What something like this profile tells me is this girls a game player. Am I wrong? Some have posted I should move on, but isn't this site about finding models to work with and giving other members constructive criticisim, good or bad? Apr 05 06 12:14 am Link Robert Torre wrote: There are a lot of Playboy Cybergirls on this site. They put some of their Playboy photos in their portfolios. Yet, they usually put NO NUDES in their port. Is that innapropriate? Apr 05 06 12:17 am Link The way I see it, if she says no nudes that should be the end of discussion. Go grumble and complain to yourself while clicking the next profile. SIMPLE. Apr 05 06 12:19 am Link Koray wrote: LMAO!! Apr 05 06 12:21 am Link John Jebbia wrote: The way I see it, if they put nude photos on their portfolio page they shouldn't put a blank NO NUDES on their profile. Apr 05 06 12:23 am Link Robert Torre wrote: Then it's a good thing you don't make the rules around here. Apr 05 06 12:24 am Link SLE Photography wrote: Koray wrote: Oh THAT'S it, open up even MORE worm cans Apr 05 06 12:28 am Link John Jebbia wrote: I don't play by rules, but I don't trust hypocrites. Apr 05 06 12:29 am Link Robert...you are right but I personally am tired about all this obsession and rejection about nudity in this forum. I agree about moving to next model or shoot the same model with clothes on but no need to make a thread. its like another "flake" or "photoshop" thread but "this time its special" one. seeing one "nude" is in persons head no matter what. remember all those people looking at each others and imagining...you, me, and everybody else are nude in those eyes. just let her be. Apr 05 06 12:29 am Link who has this much time on their hands? are u guys rich or what, get a job. Apr 05 06 12:30 am Link John Jebbia wrote: PS if you are 'under contract" to Playboy you CAN'T do nudes for anyone else. Apr 05 06 12:32 am Link Robert Torre wrote: You don't need to trust anyone you have no intention of doing business with. Apr 05 06 12:32 am Link SLE Photography wrote: SLE Photography wrote: Oh THAT'S it, open up even MORE worm cans ...wait...worms...errr...uh oh...not sure I'd like to open those Apr 05 06 12:33 am Link Mike Walker wrote: I don't think the OP realizes that. Apr 05 06 12:33 am Link can we lock this thread for redundancy? Star Apr 05 06 12:35 am Link Robert Torre wrote: Have you ever thought that this model might not be operating with a full load of brains? Apr 05 06 12:36 am Link If someone says one thing and does another that's called dishonesty. Dishonesty is a term which in common usage may be defined as the act of being dishonest; to act without honesty; a lack of probity, to cheat, lying or being deliberately deceptive; lacking in integrity; to be knavish, perfidious, corrupt or treacherous; charlatanism or quackery. Apr 05 06 12:38 am Link Robert: You are right. She is using inappropriate photos to represent her target market in her portfolio. A friend would point that out and realise what she did with the input was entirely up to her. A friend would also let go of it as soon as it was shared with the model. Jim. Apr 05 06 12:38 am Link Why does this topic come up at least weekly? Apr 05 06 12:40 am Link theda wrote: Well... if you think about it, there's only so many issues we could possibly discuss that fall within the industry. Eventually, I suppose we'd run out of things to talk about. I suppose having brand new threads give us all a fresh new perspective. Apr 05 06 12:43 am Link John Jebbia wrote: Because people ignore sticky topics and will continue to ask thge same questions over and over as if no one had ever thought of it before. Besides, Tyler took our stickies away. Apr 05 06 12:48 am Link This forum has gotten out of hand. It's not at all what I intended ore expected. There have been a few good responses, but many that are a waste. I have figured something out here tonight, many of the people on this site don't know how to treat something with respect. It's not about the 'nude' thing, it's not about rules, it's not about having time to kill, it's about being honest and attempting to give someone constructive criticism and having it taken has a hateful thing, which it was not meant to be. Apr 05 06 12:49 am Link |
