|
Forums >
General Industry >
The term "Implied Nude"
I'm a first time poster here - was not sure if this was the correct forum... I provide the following for discussion because I have wondered about other’s opinions / perspectives regarding the term “Implied Nude”. I have always had a problem with the term “Implied Nude” because (with the exception of images such as framed for head and bare shoulders) in many images categorized as “Implied Nude”, there is obvious nudity but the person is covered up by pose, prop, framing or lighting (PPFL). I use the following are categories when describing images. 1st Category: Identity or Non Identity Identity: The face of the person being photographed is seen Non Identity: The face of the person being photographed is not seen because PPFL hides their identity. I am of the opinion that not including someone’s face in an image provides opportunity for interpretation (by the viewer) that allows more empathy and less stereotyping. (i.e. “I can envision myself sitting naked on the couch in the sunlight reading a book” vs “Why would that person allow themselves to be seen like that?”). 2nd Category: Nude or Not Nude Regardless of how a picture is shot (PPFL) a person is either nude or not nude. 3rd Category: Revealing Nude or Non Revealing Nude Revealing nude: Any modest / private areas a person is comfortable having photographed are seen in the resulting image. Non revealing nude: Utilizes PPFL to hide any modest / private area a person is not comfortable having photographed. The resulting image is obvious nude (not “implying” nudity because you see bare shoulders); the person would have had to be nude for that resulting image, yet it does not reveal areas the person is not comfortable revealing. A person can be photographed in a “revealing nude” or “non revealing” pose; I describe these terms as revealing (or not) the private or modest body areas because some people may be comfortable revealing certain areas of their body more so than other areas (buttocks vs genitals vs breasts). Combining these categories together can result in the following types of images: Identity / Non Nude – The person is clothed and his / her face is seen. Non Identity / Non Nude – The person is clothed but his / her face is not seen. Allows the viewer to feel empathy towards the person in the image or put themselves in that pose / position because there is no face seen in the image; An image of only a person’s hands folded over the handle of a cane can evoke emotions, compared to seeing the identity of the person holding the cane which could lead to questions / stereotyping of the person in the image. Identity / Nude / Revealing – Full nudity and person’s identity are seen in the image. Identity / Nude / Non Revealing – PPFL is used to cover modest / private areas of the person but their face is seen in the image. Non Identity / Nude / Revealing – Full nudity is seen in the image, but the person’s face is not seen. Non Identity / Nude / Non Revealing – PPFL is used to cover modest / private areas of the person as well as used to hide the person’s identity. What I do not provide here is a category for images of someone in some state of undress or transparent covering. Someone could argue the category of Identity or Non Identity / Non Nude / Revealing if a person is partially clothed / covered yet revealing a modest / private body area. I tend to think in terms of someone's modest / private area being photographed as revealing nudity regardless if other body areas are clothed or covered. I would include that example under either of the Identity or Non Identity / Nude / Revealing categories. Also, for the reason that I believe a person who is not comfortable with posing as “Revealing nude” would allow a body area they are uncomfortable having photographed to be seen even if they are clothed. Feb 07 22 10:44 am Link WOW! So complicated! As always "implied nude" means what your model says it means. That is, what is your model comfortable with? Sirius Images wrote: Feb 07 22 12:15 pm Link Welcome to posting on the forum, I would say this is really overthinking it as the semantical distinctions aren't really that important here. The most overlapping use of the term is that areola and reproductive parts aren't visible on in the image, actually areola might even be fine with the actual nipple being not shown. Many models are content with being naked in person, on set, may enjoy the validation and intimate setting, while not wanting that explicitly shown on camera. It's not really about the creativity of making an illusion of nudity. If you want that artistic constraint, thats up to you. Feb 07 22 12:20 pm Link Two answers, as others have already pointed out... First answer. "Implied Nude", in the case of a photo, is where "nudity is suggested". Although key areas that would clearly settle whether the model was actually nude or not, are not showing in the photo. It is, therefore, "implied". The viewer believes that the model was nude, but can't be sure. Second answer. Some models have their own understanding of what THEY believe "implied nudity" means. Some even think that wearing lingerie is "implied nudity". And as they are the ones doing the work, you should understand what THEY mean by it. If you're going to be working with someone on an implied nudity project, both of you will want to make sure that you are on the same page before the shoot. And I'm afraid they're not likely to shift over to using a different set of terms. So communication is still key. Feb 07 22 03:43 pm Link The images speak for themself. If the person is obviously nude because noting is covered it is a nude If there is doubt then it is Implied. Many models have no problem being nude but want cover in photos. Some models feel uncomfortable being nude but are fine with the bare minimum covered and then cover that so it appears they are nude, Appreciate the art for what it is and don't get hung up on definitions and overthinking the unimportant stuff Feb 07 22 04:53 pm Link The term "implied nude" in practise actually means "not nude", it hardly makes sense. Similarly, "bottomless" in this context means fully nude rather than nude from the waist down only as might be imagined. Feb 13 22 06:28 am Link Bob Helm Photography wrote: This. Photography is a visual language. Adding in the ambiguity of other languages increases the risk of misinterpretation. Feb 15 22 05:14 am Link AgX wrote: Quite so. "Implied nude" is a contradictory and confusing term, which I try not to use. Feb 15 22 09:31 am Link It is highly unlikely that the modeling world is going to adopt a whole new set of terms. At least on MM, and likely beyond, Implied nudes, demure nudes, and covered nudes are all lumped under "Implied nudes". Accept that and move on. Ask models enough questions prior to the shoot that the two of you are on the same page on shoot day. Feb 25 22 05:25 pm Link I’ve been in this close to twenty years. EVERYBODY has a different take on what implieds are. But by and large models understand and seem to agree that at the least, whether by shadows, posing style or prop their naughty bits won’t be visible in the final image. Feb 28 22 10:29 am Link Sorry, I gave up on reading all that halfway thru Good luck getting models to reply, when you write as convolutedly and lengthily as that! * Models usually interpret 'implied' to mean they are nude but not revealing / covered ... although it really means they aren't Nude - but seem to be. Mar 03 22 09:57 am Link implied: no naughty bits shown nude: naughty bits shown Mar 03 22 10:21 am Link Hahahaha didn't read. Ain't nobody got time fo' dat. However: Nude: tits and bits out. Implied: tits and bits only viewable to the set personnel. If you have to discuss what it is, lemme save you 100 hours right now and tell you to go hire a nude model (she'll likely scoff at having to cover up, but at least you won't be losing your finished shoot when Squeamish gurl decides her boyfriend doesn't want her mug on the interwebs after all). Mar 04 22 03:35 pm Link You all seem to take yourselves and opinions way too seriously. And when it concerns the naked female form, your ability to keep it in perspective seems shockingly limited - responses are all over the place. Your 'portfolios' (if you can call it that) are just one nude figure after another....with little point to the imagery at all, except to expose women, feed your addiction and share your fetish. THIS is why there's a shortage of healthy engagement and membership left on MM. Mar 06 22 01:29 pm Link jmatthewsfoto wrote: Wanna come say more things to my face about all that? Mar 13 22 01:24 am Link jmatthewsfoto wrote: Were you looking in a mirror when you wrote that? Mar 13 22 10:50 am Link As someone who identifies as neuro-divergent, I understand and agree with the OP. Inaccurate terminology drives me up the wall and it's hard enough to deal with neuro-typicals who don't understand the neuro-divergent need for everything to be spelled out in crystal clear terms beforehand. Mar 13 22 11:10 pm Link DS Photographique wrote: Then it would be good to lead with that, as people can seldom divine others' needs. Mar 13 22 11:41 pm Link My interpretation of "implied" nude has been that of practicality between the model's actually being nude versus being modestly covered in appropriate places on the set. |Example:| The final image suggests the model is nude based on how the image is shot and presented but with the condition that the model is actually not nude or unnecessarily exposed on-set to the photographer and/or crew during the time. I.E., - if the model is topless, rotated 3/4 away from the camera and the image hints that they are fully bare-breasted in the shot, the model's nipples are actually covered via pasties, tape, etc., and are not exposed fully on the set to the photographer and/or crew in the process. However, it's not uncommon to see the term applied, with the final image itself in mind and not the conditions on set at all, to where the model is more than likely fully nude on-set but the presentation only hints of such in the end result (with all relative bits being omitted or hidden in the pose or by props, etc.) I still see the initial interpretation as the correct one for the term but I honestly don't fuss over it all that much. To reiterate what's been mentioned previously, it comes down to the what the photographer and the model determine "implied" is going to be when it comes to production. Mar 14 22 04:39 am Link |
