CareLyn Anita wrote:
To some you may have to say "full nude" to make the point clear , for those who are timid or in experienced you may have to say:
" full nude non explicit" or "full art nude".
I have heard all of these ,but TO ME nude means NAKED , nothing, no clothes jewelry etc....
Did  the model have nudes in her port? if not you can probably  deduct she did not do them prior and you may have to explain the situation fully.
If I claimed I did nude,  was booked to do nude and showed up only to do topless ,i would think the photographer would be dissapointed and a little ticked that he hired me for the day...or possibly choose to cancel on the spot.

I have shown up to a nude shoot and been asked if i brought gloves jewelry etc... I kind of felt bad but nude is nude and nothing was said about jewelry and gloves prior.
Kinda the same situation but reversed.

I agree totally...usually when a model asks me what they should bring to a shoot, my answer is "nothing" -- more often than not, the model still brings a plethora of clothes shoes and accessories with them, but it's been a long time since I felt bad about not using the stuff they choose to burden themselves with. 

I work with one model who always specifies that she only does "topless" and not "full frontal" [as she calls it]...but she is comfortable being photographed fully nude from behind...which is a little odd to me, but I just accept it as part of her comfort zone.

ANNABELLA wrote:
I wouldn't say so. Here I am topless but covered. So I dunno what that would count as

J n X Photography wrote:
is a topless shot cropped waist high nude?

partial nudity is still nudity.  Just not full nudity, get it?  Kinda like full-frontal and implied penetration in the porn industry (soft vs hard core porn)

I buy that. Looks like it's you and me against the world.

J n X Photography wrote:
is a topless shot cropped waist high nude?

No, it's a topless shot.  You can't make judgements about what's going on outside the frame of the photograph when yo've no information.  How do you know the subject isn't a mermaid?

RED Photographic wrote:
How do you know the subject isn't a mermaid?

You sniff the picture?

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
The expression "covered nude" resolves only to a matter of degree... and in NO case is it NUDE!!!

A MATTER OF DEGREE - BUT NOT NUDE


I [along with many of the other photographers AND models in this thread] absolutely, positively, refuse to play the "degrees of nudity" game. If it is not nude [nude = without ANY covering] then it is NOT "nude." Full stop. End of story....

As a side note... I shot editorial and features for a nudist print magazine for years. I KNOW WHAT "NUDE" MEANS... unlike, apparently, yourself and the model in the OP's tale of woe.

Studio36

Um, no reason to be rude, and I do know exactly what nude means.  My point in sharing my "tale of woe" was simply to say that there ARE reasons why models may say they do nudes and then not actually do them at the shoot. I was reading this thread to mean (as you seem to hint towards here) ' some models aren't smart enough to know what a nude is and isn't', so I was just trying to shed some light on other reasons a model would agree to do a nude and then not do it.

To illustrate what I (emphasis) mean by covered nude:



VS an implied nude:



VS nude (check my port)

I was nude when the top photo was taken. But used my own body to COVER specific areas. I am NOT saying a covered nude is clothed.  Of course not, that would be ludicrous.  For the bottom photo, I had on a bathing suit, so wasn't nude but nudity is IMPLIED.  The top photo isn't an implied nude, I AM nude (whether or not I am showing my um "parts" lol).

Scott Evans wrote:

LOL,,,well I am not a GWC, nor am I a perv.  I asked a question that I thought was straight forward and that was do models know the difference between nude and topless?  Not talking about horrible experiences, pervs or anything like that?  None of that was mentioned in my original post?

Hi Scott,
Oh gosh, I sure didn't mean to hint that YOU are a GWC.... I highly doubt that based on your port. And I'm NOT saying that some people don't know that nude means nudity.

Some of the responses you were (are) getting read as any model who says she does nudes and then doesn't or vice versa must be stupid to not know what nude means.

To add, though, even had the idiot photog I worked with not been a GWC, I still wouldn't have shot nude with him as was originally planned simply because we wound up shooting later in the day than expected and I was worried about my neighbors returning home.  I have no clue what your studio setup is, where you shoot, etc., is it possible that there is something about the environment that is making some of the models you work with have second thoughts about shooting nude with you?

Hope this finds everyone having a great morning,
Caroline

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
I work with one model who always specifies that she only does "topless" and not "full frontal" [as she calls it]...but she is comfortable being photographed fully nude from behind...which is a little odd to me, but I just accept it as part of her comfort zone.

Yeah, but like I noted on page 1, it seems like a lot of folks don't consider butts naked
They can show them on network TV after 11 & they're not 18+ here so maybe people are desensitized?
Kind of like how they think teens no longer think of oral sex as "sex" due to Clinton?

Caroline Ann Martin wrote:
VS nude (check my port)

I was nude when the top photo was taken. But used my own body to COVER specific areas. I am NOT saying a covered nude is clothed.  Of course not, that would be ludicrous.  For the bottom photo, I had on a bathing suit, so wasn't nude but nudity is IMPLIED.  The top photo isn't an implied nude, I AM nude (whether or not I am showing my um "parts" lol).

So by your reasoning we are all nude... all the time... underneath our clothes; hands; newspapers. I DON'T buy it. You play on the semantics of "exposed nude" vs "concealed [covered] nude"? You're joking. You are not "nude" in either image. If that were true, that you are, then it can also be said that every model is nude in every image in which they appear... underneath, of course, whatever they are wearing or covering themselves with. And even you would have to agree, I think, that that is sheer and utter nonsense. It's the Donald Rumsfeld school of logic:

...we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know....
- - - Donald Rumsfeld

...The absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence....
- - - Donald Rumsfeld [attributed]

Studio36

Caroline A Martin wrote:
Um.... read my posts again....  What I am saying is that I SHOT nude. How much nudity the photo shows is a seperate issue.

Exactly my point - you are extrapolating something that is nonsensical - being nude but hidden, AS WE ALL ARE NEARLY EVERY MINUTE OF OUR LIVES, to being factually nude in an image. One does not = the other.

Here is a picture of some Uranium Oxide U3O8 [aka yellowcake] - can you extrapolate that to a nuclear weapon? to a pottery glaze? to a power plant? NO! What you see is what you get.



Here is a picture of a girl in a brief bikini... can you extrapolate that into being a nude image? NO! What you see is what you get. What I can say with certainty, though, is that she IS nude underneath the few square inches of fabric she covers herself with.



Lastly, here is your image... you show not an inch more skin than the bikini allows. Can you extrapolate this to being a nude image? NO! What you see is what you get. You may have been nude UNDER your hands, just as the bikini girl, above, UNDER her minuscule covering, but neither one is a "nude" image. What you seem to be claiming is that you are nude IN THE IMAGE when you are not and you make that claim because you were nude at some level when it was made. What I claim is that you could wear a burqua and still claim to be nude when you are photographed in it... nude to be sure... underneath the burqua... but it wouldn't EVER be a nude image, and neither is this one of you.



Now this is a nude - absolutely no ambiguity, and no extrapolation... presented as a link only due to forum policy
LINK

Studio36

Scott Evans wrote:
If a model wants to wallow in semantics between covered nude, partial nudity, implied nudity, 1/2 covered nude, 3/4 covered nude, full frontal nude, yadda yadda yadda, then man we are in a world of trouble.

Then it seems, with some models, we are in a world of trouble. And that defines, to a large extent, the world of "Internet modelling"

Studio36

Scott Evans wrote:
I am working on a art project that requires full nudity.  I have run into models who say they do nudes, but then when it is time to shoot they only go topless.

I mean I grew up in New Orleans and even there they had topless bars and "all nude" bars.  Topless meant no top, hence the word TOPLESS?  Nude meant, well nude, as in nothing on?  We can put a man on the moon but yet we struggle with this simple distinction?

So I ask, is topless ans nude the same thing or should a model list to what degree they will go nude?  I am NOT looking to piss anyone off, just asking a for real question!

I think you're going about this backwards -- there are so many variations on nudity and sexuality, and the combination thereof -- rather than expecting a model to explicitly attempt to list everything "she'll do," I think you simply need to accurately and simply describe your project, and what, if any nudity or sexuality will be required. Then let her decide if it's the sort of thing she is interested in doing.

Examples:

Hi -- I'm looking for a model for a project -- she needs to be standing under a waterfall with the water cascading over her. She will be topless wearing a bikini bottom and a flower lei that covers the nipples completely. The intended usage is for a travel agent promoting winter travel to exotic locations. The shoot should take about two hours, and payment will be $75 per hour. Let me know if you're interested. . . . .

Hi -- I'm looking for a model for a project -- I'm working on putting together a set of erotic pictures for sale to websites. Full nudity is required, including open-leg spreads. The shoot will take about two hours and payment is a flat $300. Let me know if you're interested. . . .

Rather than assuming that you both are on the same page about all the different definitions (erotic nude, artistic nude, implied nude, topless, etc.), I've found that it's just a lot easier to spell out exactly what the project requires, so there is no misunderstanding.

Paul

bang bang photo wrote:

I think you're going about this backwards -- there are so many variations on nudity and sexuality, and the combination thereof -- rather than expecting a model to explicitly attempt to list everything "she'll do," I think you simply need to accurately and simply describe your project, and what, if any nudity or sexuality will be required. Then let her decide if it's the sort of thing she is interested in doing.

Examples:

Hi -- I'm looking for a model for a project -- she needs to be standing under a waterfall with the water cascading over her. She will be topless wearing a bikini bottom and a flower lei that covers the nipples completely. The intended usage is for a travel agent promoting winter travel to exotic locations. The shoot should take about two hours, and payment will be $75 per hour. Let me know if you're interested. . . . .

Hi -- I'm looking for a model for a project -- I'm working on putting together a set of erotic pictures for sale to websites. Full nudity is required, including open-leg spreads. The shoot will take about two hours and payment is a flat $300. Let me know if you're interested. . . .

Rather than assuming that you both are on the same page about all the different definitions (erotic nude, artistic nude, implied nude, topless, etc.), I've found that it's just a lot easier to spell out exactly what the project requires, so there is no misunderstanding.

Paul

Perfectly said Paul!

Wynd Mulysa wrote:
The OP has still refused to be more specific in his story, not allowing us to know if there was a communication problem.

Let's just all keep replying by saying "no" to his question, without knowing anything about the story he opened this thread with or being able to help him in any way.

Wow, this is so profound.

The only communication problem is that some models do not feel or know there is a difference between nude and topless. There appears to be no story to tell other than a couple of models showed up and thought topless meant "nude".
If you're interested in more specifics in his story try sending him a PM asking him, although his post seemed pretty specific to me. He wants to know what people consider nude and what people consider topless.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To answer the OP I concur with the general consensus that nude is full nude and topless is just that, topless.

RED Photographic wrote:

No, it's a topless shot.  You can't make judgements about what's going on outside the frame of the photograph when yo've no information.  How do you know the subject isn't a mermaid?

You say "tomato" I say "tomatoe"...Is the cup half empty or half full???