Implied or Covered?

Here and there, the term "implied nude" has come up a few times in recent days, and its misuse is turning into a minor pet peeve of mine. I guess because it's being used interchangably with "covered nude" (or "concealed nude") by some models and photographers. An implied nude is when the model is wearing clothing, but is posed in such a way as to imply that she is wearing nothing. The top three images here are examples. Brit and Charity are both wearing lingerie, but posed in such a way as to suggest otherwise, and Elizabeth is simply wearing a strapless top which is cropped just out of frame. The bottom two (May and Charity) are examples of covered topless images, in that they are clearly not wearing tops, but are covering their nipples. I suppose the shot of Charity could also be considered an implied nude because of the fact that she's in the shower, one might presume that she's fully nude, although she's wearing undies.

When I first posted the above paragraph as part of an earlier version of this entry, I thought I was mainly pointing out a language problem, however, based on one comment to the original post and several entries in other blogs, some photographers seem to be taking this as a model problem. The comment was so strongly worded that I pulled the entry in order to reconsider whether the topic I was addressing was really the topic I'd raised.

These photographers have stated in pretty strong terms that they won't mess with models who draw these distinctions and limit themselves to implied, covered, or partial nudity. They state that that "nudity" means nude, naked, 100%, with virtually nothing held back, and they won't work with any model unwilling to go 100%. That's not to say that every shot shows everything, but rather that for the model to participate in the making of the art, she has to be comfortable with full nudity, put herself totally in the photographer's hands, and not limit the poses by insisting that certain areas are always concealed. "How can you bare your soul if you can't bare your body?" seems to sum it up.

Part of me wants to take that "all or nothing" stand. Unless you have a specific commission, the market for non-nude model images is pretty limited in terms of selling prints or publishing. But more importantly, when a model is not holding back, that shows in the finished image. To my mind, it seems that letting go would be a much more enjoyable experience for the model than constantly worrying if some bit is showing or not. And it's one less thing for me to worry about behind the camera.

However, rather than draw a line in the sand, I'm going to continue taking it on a case-by-case basis. While I am shifting more of my work efforts to the art nude side of things, there are models I enjoy working with who have good reasons for their limitations, and I can respect them for that. Perhaps at some point I'll make the leap from being a "photographer" to being an "art nude photographer" but for now, I'll leave my options open.