The Aperture Studio wrote:

The photograph looks like a full nude to me.

By strict definition (model is obviously not wearing any clothing), it is.  The general working definition of implied on MM is just that nipples, labia and sometime buttocks are not visible in the photo.

All Yours Photography wrote:
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.

...
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. ...

I agree and recommend being very comfortable with the photographer and having an agreement in what the ultimate objective of the shot is.

Jen

Kens Lens wrote:
She has not logged on since the 19th the day of her post, dollars to doughnuts the alleged shoot is not happening.

Oh,
Sigh, tsk.

Jen

J-Gan wrote:

I have done my fair share of implied shoots without seeing nipples or pubic area so I totally disagree with this. 

To the OP, don't do any leaping or spinning.

I think you're missing the point.  It's not like I, the photographer, have to do a cavity search or confirm "yep, she's got nipples."  It's that a model who gets nude but then tries to hide any part of her genitals from the photographer while being nude is going to look stiff and is not likely to produce decent poses.  The point is not to pose so the photographer doesn't know if you're nude.  The point is to create shots where the viewer can't tell if you're nude or not.  And that's a big difference.

Ed

Rob Walker wrote:

This ++

This +++