|
Forums >
General Industry >
First implied, advice?
I'm doing my first implied shoot and would like to hear what kind of advice you guys might have for me. Also, what are done methods you have tried, liked or disliked as far as pasties (etc) goes? Thanks! Jan 19 14 09:20 pm Link I don't really shoot implied nudity on purpose but I can tell you what drives me crazy. It's seeing photos of women who are obviously and awkwardly covering up their bits and pieces for the photo. It should either look very natural OR overly exaggerated in my opinion. Anything in between is just fake looking. ETA: Don't know why you'd wear pasties. If you're actually worried about the photographer seeing you naked you'd be better off just not shooting that type of stuff. It'll show in the photos that you're uncomfortable being nude. Jan 19 14 09:35 pm Link Depends on who you're working with. With a legit photographer... realize you'll be nude and nobody cares. With someone who wants to see boobies, even with pasties, they'll get their fix, you're covered, and its still no big deal. Jan 19 14 09:36 pm Link Ditto on Keith's post above. Poses should be relaxed, natural and just so happen to leave strategic areas out of sight in the photos. If your first concern is keeping your ladybits out of the photo, you will not look relaxed and natural. This shot was from this model's first implied shoot.  Work with a photographer whose work you like and whose references have checked out, ideally, someone that you've worked with before to give you a little more comfort with them. Likely that it will feel a bit awkward for the first 15 minutes or so. Don't do "the" shot that you really wanted first. Save it until you're had a chance to relax a bit. As far as pasties, I've never had a model use them, although it wouldn't bother me if she did. I have had a few models that didn't want me to see them and I would turn my back while they got into position. A minor inconvenience, but if it keeps the model looking comfortable in the photos, it's worth it. About 1/2 of the models that started the shoot on this basis would tell me midway through the shoot not to worry about it, as they became more comfortable being nude on the set. Jan 19 14 09:48 pm Link All Yours Photography wrote: +1 Jan 19 14 10:04 pm Link "Don't be nervous"? I mean...if this is your first time, and you are American, not raised as a nudist, then chances are you have misgivings about skin. So just go into this for the experience, expect that you'll probably be pretty nervous and that the shots will convey that. But....if you happen to realize that it's no big deal and you feel more relaxed halfway though, then good, better shots. Work with a photographer you TRUST, one you have worked with before. Then you don't have to wear pasties, you can just say you don't want to show this bit or that, and she/he will make sure you're "implied" before pressing the shutter button. Whether you are indoors or outdoors, have a handful of classic poses in mind. Shop on a site like "Pinterest" for ideas. For instance, a simple Google search of "implied nude pinterest" yielded this collection, which I think has a lot of those classic poses in it. http://www.pinterest.com/tjswinno/implied-nude-posing/ (18+) Remember you are the muse for a classic greek sculpture....and not a young girl hiding her boobs. Grace & beauty always outlive propriety. Jan 19 14 10:10 pm Link Melanie J Utz wrote: Pasties, what is that? Implied nude means that you are not nude in the view of the camera. You are indeed nude in front of the photographer. You can cover with your hands or clothes, but why bother. Just keep you clothes on and be comfortable. Jan 19 14 10:36 pm Link Keep all of your clothes on.... Jan 19 14 10:45 pm Link Pasties are a bad idea for a variety of reasons. If you have to have pasties for shooting "implied", you're not ready to shoot that yet. So don't. If you're going to shoot shots with nudity where the nipples aren't meant to show, then shoot with a photographer you trust and have an agreement that no images that show nipples will be released. Simple as that. This is what big girls do. Jan 19 14 10:53 pm Link If you're shooting implied but worried about being nude or partially nude in front of a photographer or crew, then you shouldn't be shooting implied. Plain and simple. If you're nervous or apprehensive, it WILL show in your posing and expressions. You'll be more concerned "covering' yourself than doing the job you should be doing. If the photographer is legit, he will make sure nothing is revealed in the photos. Jan 19 14 10:56 pm Link Back in 2009 I booked a shoot with a model... she told me she was cool with implieds but not nudes... During the shoot she was just trying to cover herself and all the pics were a waste.. I cut the shoot short... every single image she had that look of not comfortable... since then... I shoot with models who do nudes... and if the final image is an implied its all good.... They are lots of models who are comfortable being nude.... they just don't want pics showing their bits... and walk around the studio butt nekkid... no problem working with them....  Just make sure you are comfortable nude and have fun shooting Jan 19 14 11:10 pm Link Incident Image wrote: Yeup.... Jan 19 14 11:15 pm Link As others have noted, try to look natural. It looks awkward when the model is covering up just for the sake of implied. That being said, pasties do look odd unless you're doing pin up / burlesque. You can get a lot out of using fabric and clothing. And if you get uncomfortable, I would let the photographer know. I know it can be disconcerting your first time. Jan 19 14 11:20 pm Link Others have said it. But I'll repeat it. A photographer you trust and not caring who sees what during the shoot are essential. I you're not comfortable, don't do it. Jan 20 14 05:26 am Link Marc Damon Retouch wrote: Others said it, he repeated it and I'll quote it for emphasis. Jan 20 14 05:30 am Link Marc Damon Retouch wrote: Mark C Smith wrote: Quoted also. Jan 20 14 05:42 am Link -JAY- wrote: Along these same lines, I was going to recommend that she just whip them out and shake them around to get over her fear, but your idea is probably better. Jan 20 14 06:19 am Link Pasties? Sounds like you should not be shooting, you are too nervous and its bound to show. Jan 20 14 06:26 am Link The methods that I've had the most success with when shooting a model who's nude but doesn't want the bits to show in the photo: Having a release that details the limits of what we're shooting and what we do with it. Explaining what I'm doing and looking for in the direction. Telling the model if something's showing that she doesn't want to show and giving her time to fix it. Letting her see the shots. But as noted above, until the model is comfortable with the concept, and/or trusting of the photographer, the tension is going to show in the shot. And I tend to agree that if the model's worried about pasties, the model may want to rethink the shoot. People's personal limits should be honored, period, whether it applies to photography or other things. I have nothing against having inhibitions. I have quite a few myself. But if you're not comfortable with pushing the envelope some, then maybe it's best to wait. A picture is forever, especially now. Jan 20 14 06:41 am Link My advice would be to edit the info in your profile, because there were not 3 "kidnappings". Perhaps you never bothered to read the whole story. Oh wait,..Is that advice you want? Jan 20 14 06:43 am Link Keith Allen Phillips wrote: Implied does not mean that the model is nude. Look up the concept of implied. It implies that the model is nude while in actual fact she is not. Are you, perhaps, referring to partial nudity? Jan 20 14 06:48 am Link All Yours Photography wrote: The photograph looks like a full nude to me. Jan 20 14 06:50 am Link Incident Image wrote: If you are shooting implied then why would anything be revealed to either the viewer or photographer? Jan 20 14 06:53 am Link The Aperture Studio wrote: You obviously aren't clear on the concept of implied nudity. Jan 20 14 06:55 am Link The Aperture Studio wrote: um.... no. Just no. Jan 20 14 07:01 am Link first of all, choose a photographer with good taste. (i would not choose them based on the fact that they are offering to pay more money.) secondly, as so many others have pointed out, if you look like 90% of your concentration is on making sure nothing shows, then it will be a waste of time. also understand that the photographer will see you naked and if you are relaxed in your poses, in some frames things will end up showing. you should have a clear understanding that those images will not be used, or will not be used on mm, or will not be used without your permission, etc. if nudity is a huge issue for you - you can tell the photographer that you want to add a line to the release that addresses that arrangement. if they refuse to add that, it could be a sign of a potential problem. but discuss all of that before you get to the shoot, not afterwards. it's not fair to the photographer to try to impose restrictions after the fact. Jan 20 14 07:12 am Link Keith Allen Phillips wrote: ??? Jan 20 14 07:15 am Link The Aperture Studio wrote: "Implied nude" is about the final result. Jan 20 14 07:23 am Link Over the last 30 years, I've used "implied nude" with both meanings. It seems the modern "internet" definition is as Keith has described - and for the most part, it is the definition that almost all models use today. Back in college in the 80s, we had a more nuanced set of definitions than what is usually used today. Nude. Pretty self explanatory. Demure nude (or modest nude). As the example above - nude but no "bits" showing. Draped Nude. Nude but using clothing or fabric for modesty. Implied Nude. Subject is not nude, but photographed in a way to appear nude. Plus I'm sure there were other delineations I've forgotten since then. It seems the older definitions are archaic and rarely used today, which is too bad, I think they would help with some of the misunderstandings that people have when it comes to trying to set up an "implied shoot". Jan 20 14 07:54 am Link The Aperture Studio wrote: you may in fact be correct as far as the literal definition of implied, but in practice, most people here (including models) use it to mean "nude but nothing showing", and as such there is no "bait and switch" intended. Jan 20 14 08:01 am Link Keith Allen Phillips wrote: I have stated my views. It appears that you are unsure of what you are stating. Jan 20 14 08:12 am Link There is no such thing as an "implied" nude shoot. You are either nude or you aren't nude, whether your bits are shown are not has to be discussed with the Photographer before the shoot. If you aren't comfortable enough to be naked in front of the photographer, you really shouldn't be doing it. If it is a good photographer, he will not be gawping at you, but will be concentrating on his end of the shot with lighting and cameras etc. Jan 20 14 08:14 am Link howard r wrote: It is both a literal and a real life definition. You are correct that many photographers use the term in that way but it is still not correct. The question also is: Is it professional to do so? I can see a GWC doing something like this but not a professional photographer. I know that this is Model Mayhem and the site does attract GWCs, as well. Jan 20 14 08:25 am Link The Aperture Studio wrote: Hmmm... by your definition, I see no implied nudes in your "Nudes and Implied Nudes" folder. But this is getting off-topic from the original post. Jan 20 14 08:36 am Link The Aperture Studio wrote: Heck, GWC here, I do it all the time. Deliberate obfuscation is one of the main tools of my trade. Tell 'em it's implied then get 'em nekkid. Jan 20 14 08:40 am Link When I started in photography - admittedly in the dark ages - there weren't so many sub-set definitions. Essentially, it came down to what the end product was to be. In Peter Gowland's book, "Guide to Glamour Photography", he defines a particular sub-set as "nude-but-not-nude". Photos of this sort would be used in advertising, for instance, when the client wanted a model to appear nude on the package or print ad, assuming that text or product placement would cover the strategic areas. At that time, it was generally assumed that the model would be nude during the session. Jan 20 14 08:48 am Link AJScalzitti wrote: Exactly Jan 20 14 08:56 am Link Jeff Fiore wrote: yeah, i just noticed that as well - lol Jan 20 14 08:57 am Link I would say give it a shot. If you can't get comfortable you could always stop. Jan 20 14 08:59 am Link J O H N A L L A N wrote: This ++ Jan 20 14 09:12 am Link |
