Shooting Implied Nude
Topic Start Date: Thursday, January 20, 2011 @ 10:28 AM (+-5 GMT)
Forum: Fine Art Photography
Hi guys. I am looking for some advice on shooting implied nudes. I am doing my first set of these at a shoot this weekend, and something has been bugging me... do I actually get the model nude? Is it all in the crop of the photo?

I have 2 models lined up for these sorts of shot (1 male and 1 female) and I don't want to ask them to do something which goes against the grain.

I know some shots it will be a case of pulling underwear down slightly or to the side to give the impression of nudity, but with other examples I have seen, the model is clearly naked.

For the male, I will be doing some head on shots (you know the sort of thing... with the top of the abdomen showing). Are guys normally naked for this or just pulling their boxers down suggestively?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.


Posted By: joerv007 01-20-2011 10:28am
This will probably start somekind of ground war ... but essentially implide nude is NOT nude, its just positioning and lighting to make the model appear nude ... if the model is nude with her bits covered she is actually just nude and no amount of fancy wording will change that ...

to be honest implide nudes are such a grey area they are not worth getting mixed up in ... if you want to shoot covered nudes its better to use a model thats completely comfortable with nude ... if you want to shoot a model that doesnt do nude (so it appears she is) find another model ... working so close to a models limits is way more trouble than its worth ...

Posted By: MattMiller 01-20-2011 10:44am
Quoting joerv007:

something has been bugging me... do I actually get the model nude?

NEVER touch the model, let them take their own clothes off. Too many posts on here about inapproriate behaviour from photographers.

Posted By: TSS 01-20-2011 11:21am
What Matt said. Unless the model is prepared to go nude, you are just asking for problems.

Endeavour to Persevere!

Posted By: Kenp 01-20-2011 11:24am
for this kind of shoot if the model has a problem with been nude they should not even respond to the post as it suggests nudity

Posted By: model2010 01-26-2011 08:10pm
Hi Joe

I agree with Matt too, implied nude is such a grey area, they are or they are not nude.

It is far easier to be nude and use fabrics, shirts, robes, lighting etc to 'hide' the naughty bits than to mess about moving straps, holding onto bra's and so on.

You really would be better with models who are comfortable being nude, however, if your models aren't then make sure they have a dressing gown with them to cover up between shots and never, ever touch them. If you need them to move hair off their face, or change the position slightly, then ask them to do it.

Good luck and I am sure we all look forward to seeing the results.


Life is a Cabaret.......

Posted By: SarahJaneModel 01-27-2011 03:44am
Quoting TSS:

quoting post from joerv007:

something has been bugging me... do I actually get the model nude?


NEVER touch the model, let them take their own clothes off. Too many posts on here about inapproriate behaviour from photographers.

I don't think he was actuatly saying he was going to undress the model

Posted By: Mayz_photography 02-02-2011 02:21pm
Discuss it with the models before the shoot so that you're sure you'll all be singing from the same song sheet.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons; for they find you crunchy and good with ketchup

Posted By: Orsoncarter 02-02-2011 02:28pm
Implied nude means lots of different things to different models.

I have an "Implied Nude" gallery on my zenfolio site with 10 implied nude photos of different styles. I ask models which of the 10 photo they would be happy to pose to get a clear idea of what the mean.

Posted By: tarmoo 02-02-2011 05:56pm
If you want to shoot implied nude art, then just shoot it with a model who is comfortable to shoot nude anyway......

You'll get more comfortable images, and you won't end up messing about with "the dance of a thousand robes", which is an awful waste of everyone's time.


Posted By: Bob_d 02-02-2011 05:59pm
I always think implied means they are nude or could be nude but nothing is showing, it would also mean the image isn't 'adult'

Sometimes you just can't tell for sure!!!

Never take anything I say too seriously!!

Posted By: photodorset 02-02-2011 06:09pm
The original meaning of "implied nude" was that the model was only implied to be nude (eg: model behind a sheet).

However, the modern meaning of "implied nude" has changed. Now, it means, as others have said (correctly), nudes where certain critical areas are not visible.

Posted By: Cynicism 02-05-2011 07:29am
You are a photographer so you have to focus at your photography, in case the model is naked or with cloth. You can visit my site for some ideas ..

Posted By: josephchen 11-29-2012 05:44am
Discuss with your models in advance.

But very likely they mean that they are happy to be nude in studio, but do not want nipples or pubes in final shots. Sometimes its just pubes, sometimes its both.

This means their body can cover the bits, or props etc.

It is a changing term, but broadly speaking I think you can expect a nude model, but nothing visible in the final image.

An understandable position as they don't want revealing images out on the internet etc.

Posted By: filmphoto 01-15-2014 04:43am
For a long time I thought this was 'implied' nude as that is how the models described the pose. I was recently informed that this should be described as 'concealed' nude. I agree with the other commenters here, just book an art nude (or higher level) model and have her pose implied nude.

Posted By: ChasC 01-15-2014 05:42am
It's a green philosophy - don't create a new thread, recycle an old one :)

Posted By: persistentvision 01-15-2014 02:24pm
Page 1 of 1 All times are EST (-5 GMT)
This post comes from

The URL for this post is: