Lachance Photography wrote:
Where do you draw the line at implied vs explicit images?  I recently did a shoot where the I told the model that I wanted to shoot up to implied images.  She had no issue with this as she had been in a foreign version of Playboy.  In my opinion implied shots consist of topless images where the breasts are covered, rear images that show a hint of crack, and frontal low cut images.  She did plenty of these but she also posed completely topless or had a nipple showing, and rear shots without any covering as well as frontal shots that showed a hint of the pubic region.  To me this crosses a line into explicit territory am I wrong?  I also like to back up my photos by uploading them to Dropbox but I am concerned such images may violate there rules/terms of service.

you could back up to a thumb drive.

it doesn't care and is port able.

Lachance Photography wrote:
Where do you draw the line at implied vs explicit images?  ... She did plenty of these but she also posed completely topless or had a nipple showing, and rear shots without any covering as well as frontal shots that showed a hint of the pubic region.  To me this crosses a line into explicit territory am I wrong?  I also like to back up my photos by uploading them to Dropbox but I am concerned such images may violate there rules/terms of service.

Here the pertenient TOS line:

Dropbox Acceptable Use Policy wrote:
Dropbox is used by millions of people, and we're proud of the trust placed in us. In exchange, we trust you to use our services responsibly.

You agree not to misuse the Dropbox services ("Services") or help anyone else to do so. For example, you must not even try to do any of the following in connection with the Services:

publish, share, or store materials that constitute child sexually exploitative material (including material which may not be illegal child sexual abuse material but which nonetheless sexually exploits or promotes the sexual exploitation of minors), unlawful pornography, or are otherwise indecent;

Provided your model is 18+ and signed a model release, the question is whether whether the image is unlawful or indecent. Doubtful your description fits unlawful. Is it indecent? Unlikely if you've seen similar images on MM and other reasonable websites or publications. That's highly subjective, and Dropbox could invoke that TOS, but they have many photographers and models using their accounts to transfer and store images. If they were to use FB/IG or even MM's non-mature criteria, they would immediately lose a lot of business.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:
This is what happens when photographers needlessly start making up definitions ("implied") and camera models (Canon D IIc for "classic" when there never was any confusion if people just used the correct model number) that are already well-defined.

Implied does not have anything to do with putting a hand over bare breasts.  That in no way is "implied".  It's merely someone's naked breasts with a hand in front of it.  Again - that kind of stuff is not "implied".
[...]

Wow, that's a new one...

I.E. The (above) claim that if the nudity is implied in the photo, but IF they really are either topless or nude, but it's not explicitly shown, then (according to you) it can't be called "Implied".


Google's response:

Not too surprisingly, a quick two second Google search immediately came up with Google's AI definition when I searched for:  "implied nude" define

""Implied nude" refers to images that, while not explicitly showing nudity, give the strong impression or create the visual suggestion that the subject is nude, even if they are partially or fully covered. In essence, the artwork or visual creates the effect of nudity without explicitly depicting it, leaving it to the viewer's imagination.


I.E.  IT DOESN'T MATTER whether they are ACTUALLY nude (but it's not explicitly shown) or whether they really are not.  The ONLY criteria that counts, is that the image itself suggests it, but doesn't explicitly show it ("leaving it to the viewer's imagination").

Of course, you are free to suggest that Google and its AI summary of the common understanding online, along with an awful lot of other online information that the AI used to come up with its summarized conclusions, are all (according to you) completely wrong.  But, clearly, based on how AI summarizes that online information, your viewpoint seems to be very much in the minority.

LightDreams wrote:
Wow, that's a new one...

I.E. The (above) claim that if the nudity is implied in the photo, but IF they really are either topless or nude, but it's not explicitly shown, then (according to you) it can't be called "Implied".


Google's response:

Not too surprisingly, a quick two second Google search immediately came up with Google's AI definition when I searched for:  "implied nude" define

""Implied nude" refers to images that, while not explicitly showing nudity, give the strong impression or create the visual suggestion that the subject is nude, even if they are partially or fully covered. In essence, the artwork or visual creates the effect of nudity without explicitly depicting it, leaving it to the viewer's imagination.


I.E.  IT DOESN'T MATTER whether they are ACTUALLY nude (but it's not explicitly shown) or whether they really are not.  The ONLY criteria that counts, is that the image itself suggests it, but doesn't explicitly show it ("leaving it to the viewer's imagination").

Of course, you are free to suggest that Google and its AI summary of the common understanding online, along with an awful lot of other online information that the AI used to come up with its summarized conclusions, are all (according to you) completely wrong.  But, clearly, based on how AI summarizes that online information, your viewpoint seems to be very much in the minority.

Please stop using Google AI as a reference.  What's not surprising is that you ran to Google as opposed to actually using a dictionary.

My viewpoint (and definition of the word "implied") is indeed the minority.  Just like the majority of people may say "I could care less" when it doesn't make any sense in the context being used.   Just because the majority of people say something incorrectly doesn't make it correct.   If you're obviously nude, then there's nothing you can do to make it  so-called "implied"... if nudity is obvious.   C'mon people, this is not just common sense, it's having a basic command of the English language.

If someone is obviously nude... there isn't anything you can do to make their obvious nudity "implied" nudity... because (obviously) they're nude.

Edit:  You're also misunderstanding what you're reading.  Take this sentence..  "In essence, the artwork or visual creates the effect of nudity without EXPLICITLY depicting it, leaving it to the viewer's imagination"   The sentence is not using the word "explicit" in the context that you're thinking, it's using it in the context of "leaving no room for doubt".

So if you have a model with her hand over her bare breasts, there is absolutely *no doubt*  that she's bare breasted because you have *explicitly* revealed the fact that she's bare breasted.  There is absolutely no doubt that she's bare breasted.

A woman wearing a skirt and midriff shirt, skillfully hidden by file cabinet drawers giving the impression of nudity is "implied nudity" because although she's clothed, there's an implication of nudity which is the photographer's goal; the big reveal is often shown in a diptych or triptych photograph(s) which shows how the viewer was tricked.

Alizin_Wonderland wrote:
I've worked as a nude model, on and off, for most of my adult life and I'm technically middle aged at this point - so for a LONG time. Nudity is not "explicit" unless genitals are openly displayed, with a sexual scenario going on. "Explicit" has generally been reserved to describe adult content, not the arts or glamour nude styles one would see in a gallery setting, or even in a "girly mag."

You are correct.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:
Please stop using Google AI as a reference.  My viewpoint (and definition of the word "implied") is indeed the minority.  Just like the majority of people may say "I could care less" when it doesn't make any sense in the context being used.   Just because the majority of people say something incorrectly doesn't make it correct...

Time for a really basic reality check about Google AI.

On things like hard scientific facts, the AI can be right or wrong.  It summarizes the overwhelming information it finds online.  And what is scientifically believed can dramatically change overnight with a major new discovery.  So the current general understanding (of specific scientific "facts") could then be completely wrong.    Also, when it finds a "lack" of information, it tends to (all too often) "make up stuff" to fill the gap.

So you have to understand where the AI is very useful, versus situations where it is questionable.


NONE OF THOSE PROBLEMS APPLY WHEN IT COMES TO DEFINING WORDS.

Why is that?  Well...

Language, new words / phrases and what words and phrases mean, change constantly.    "The Gay Divorcee" (movie title from 1934) meant something entirely different than it does today.  As the major dictionary companies explain, they don't "set the rules" as to what words "mean", they "REFLECT" the "CURRENT UNDERSTANDING" of how people use it and WHAT THEY MEAN by it.  Which keeps constantly changing (requiring constant updates to their dictionaries).

So when Google AI summarizes the large spread "current understanding" of words and what they mean, BY DEFINITION (large spread current understanding of what those words and phrases currently mean), then they mean just that.

Sorry you don't like it or accept it.  But, so it goes...

LightDreams wrote:
Time for a really basic reality check about Google AI.

On things like hard scientific facts, the AI can be right or wrong.  It summarizes the overwhelming information it finds online.  And what is scientifically believed can dramatically change overnight with a major new discovery.  So the current general understanding (of specific scientific "facts") can be wrong.    Also, when it finds a "lack" of information, it tends to (all too often) "make up stuff" to fill the gap

NONE OF THAT APPLIES when it comes to word definitions.  Why is that?  Well...

Language and what words mean, change constantly.    "The Gay Divorcee" movie title from 1934 meant something entirely different than it does today.  As Dictionary companies explain, they don't "set the rules" as to what words "mean", they "reflect" the "CURRENT understanding" of how people use it and what they mean.  Which keeps evolving.

So when Google AI summarizes the large spread "current understanding" of words and what they mean, BY DEFINITION (large spread current understanding of what those words and phrases currently mean), those words mean exactly that.

Sorry you don't like it.  But that's the way it is.

No reason to be sorry.  You are correct about the dictionary.  The result of people muddling words and creating phrases that were clearly defined from the onset is that when it comes to conducting business it creates more work, increases misunderstandings, and requires people to agree on definitions to words that have long been well-defined.
In the 1960's, no one had to guess what "implied" meant.

There's a difference between words changing from cultural progression (bad, gay, sick, etc), compared to ignorance, willful or not (irregardless, could care less, implied).

Test:

  (1)  Stand in the public street, park or sidewalk, cover you breasts with one hand, and your crotch with the other.  When the police show up.  Explain to them that you're not standing there nude with your hands hiding your nipples and vulva -- your nakedness is just "implied".

(2) Do the same thing wearing a skirt and short top and strategically place a file cabinet or other item to obstruct the view of your clothing and when the cops show up... well..  see the difference in their response.

I'll add that my view of the word "implied" is in the minority when it comes to youth on social media particularly.  If I used the word 'implied' in other situations, most reasonably intelligent adults know that the word "implies" means there's an implication of something that isn't explicit (meaning plainly stated or shown).

You're also making my case: "while not explicitly showing nudity"   Explicit(ly) means not leaving any room for confusion or doubt.  Someone with their hand over their breasts does not leave any doubt (or confusion) that the person is nude.  It's just a nude person with their hand over their chest.  There is no "implication" of nudity in such photographs and you just solidified that by the definition that you posted.

Lallure Photographic wrote:
IF, and that's a big if, you can make a model look totally nude, when she is clothed, then you are a very accomplished photographer. You might get away with that, if it is just implied topless, but it gets much harder to conceal any type of panty, or bottoms. Not to mention you would be going to a heck of a lot of trouble, for no good reason. I stand by my previous post, on what constitutes "implied".

Going through all the trouble is what it usually takes to get that kind of result, and that kind of result is the point of implied nude photography.  It takes work.  It's not just some bare chested model with their hand over their chest - which doesn't even have the scant sense of the implication of nudity since he or she is obviously topless.

If you take note, you'll notice that even the current definition of "implied nudity" (thanks to the MM who posted it) posted above is in-line with my initial post.

LightDreams wrote:
1) I get it what you are trying to suggest...

You believe that the reality, BEHIND THE SCENES, of nudity is why you believe that you can't call it "implied nudity".

You don't understand that people use that term on the basis of WHAT THEY SEE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH (regardless of what's happening behind the scenes).  Is that image an "implied nude" (leaving it to the viewers imagination based on what the photo "suggests" is the case)?


2) Out in public with the police is a very bad example for you to use in terms of topless (considering your previous comments about "hands on breasts".

Here in B.C. (and many other places in the world), a topless woman standing on a busy crowded street is NOT a crime, because it's NOT public nudity.  But that varies depending on where you are.

However, NONE OF THAT MATTERS, if you consider (once again) that they consider the photograph, etc, as an "implied nude", judged on the basis of what they see in a photograph (and NOT what's going on behind the scenes).

No, it's not about behind the scenes.  It's about whether there's an implication of nudity or whether nudity is explicitly shown.  IF nudity is explicit (per definition that you posted), which means that there's no confusion or doubt that the person is nude.  Then a hand-bra over obviously nude breasts is not an "implied nude".    Of course it isn't... because if it were, it wouldn't make any sense per the definition that you posted, my assertion, the definition of implied and or the definition of explicit.

Generally speaking, a topless woman standing in public view nude is unlawful in most developed western countries.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:
Generally speaking, a topless woman standing in public view nude is unlawful in most developed western countries.

Not including the 34 States in the U.S. (if my very quick count of the legal map for the U.S. is correct?) where it's apparently legal (whether it's commonly used or not, is another matter), and various Canadian provinces.

And, it seems a large section of the U.K. and Europe, etc, but I didn't bother checking after that...

I know you have your preconceived ideas as to what is the case and what should be the case, but maybe, just maybe, many of your assumptions just don't turn out to be the way you think they are...?   Something to consider.

---

By the way, the reason for so many of these laws, was due to "equal rights" legal challenges comparing women's rights versus men's rights, specifically in terms of being allowed to go topless in public.  The legal "equal treatment" point behind that big legal push, was VERY important.  It's not like the various legislatures all just woke up one day and decided to rush out and pass new laws on the subject.

P.S.  Those legal cases have also had an impact on why so many jurisdictions make a point of not including "topless" in their legal definitions of "nudity".

LightDreams wrote:
Not including the 34 States in the U.S. (if my very quick count of the legal map for the U.S. is correct?) where it's apparently legal (whether it's commonly used or not, is another matter), and various Canadian provinces.

And, it seems a large section of the U.K. and Europe, etc, but I didn't bother checking after that...

I know you have your preconceived ideas as to what is the case and what should be the case, but maybe, just maybe, many of your assumptions just don't turn out to be the way you think they are...?   Something to consider.

---

By the way, the reason for so many of these laws, was due to "equal rights" legal challenges comparing women's rights versus men's rights, specifically in terms of being allowed to go topless in public.  The legal "equal treatment" point behind that big legal push, was VERY important.  It's not like the various legislatures all just woke up one day and decided to rush out and pass new laws on the subject.

P.S.  Those legal cases have also had an impact on why so many jurisdictions make a point of not including "topless" in their legal definitions of "nudity".

Young women should've refused to put a top on from the beginning if men were allowed to, had that been done the law would be the same across the board - but that's another thread.

Something to consider in your research is to understand that when dealing with what's legal *in general* you have to look further than state level.  People hear that several states allow people to escape sales tax (for example)... however upon further research many will find that what is true at the state level is not true for their applicable county or municipality.  Same with various forms of undress.  I'll leave it there.

LightDreams wrote:
On the entirely separate question as to whether "topless" fits the definition of "nude", there's no clear consensus.

The short version of the various definitions indicates that "topless" CAN fit the definition of "nude", but doesn't necessarily have to mean that.

That "gray area" is what you see in terms of how different entities (include MM, the Apple store, etc) define it, and how the legal definition as to what defines "public nudity" varies wildly (as far as whether "topless" is covered by that definition or not), depending on what State, Province or Country you are located in.

So, as a practical matter as far as photography goes (as someone previously pointed out), whether "topless" fits the definition of "nude" or not, really comes down to what you and the model agree it means.

Topless plain and simple fits the definition of nude, and is why some describing a topless person will say "nude up top" or "topless nude", "topless".  It's so easy that there shouldn't even need to be a conversation about it in the context of photography.  If you don't have any clothes on the upper part of your body, then that part of your body is nude.

If you don't have any clothes on the lower part of your body then that part is nude and is commonly called "bottomless".  If you don't have any clothes on your top or bottom part of your body then that's commonly called "fully nude", "buck naked", "butt naked" and so on.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:
No reason to be sorry.  You are correct about the dictionary.  The result of people muddling words and creating phrases that were clearly defined from the onset is that when it comes to conducting business it creates more work, increases misunderstandings, and requires people to agree on definitions to words that have long been well-defined.
In the 1960's, no one had to guess what "implied" meant.

There's a difference between words changing from cultural progression (bad, gay, sick, etc), compared to ignorance, willful or not (irregardless, could care less, implied).

Test:

  (1)  Stand in the public street, park or sidewalk, cover you breasts with one hand, and your crotch with the other.  When the police show up.  Explain to them that you're not standing there nude with your hands hiding your nipples and vulva -- your nakedness is just "implied".

(2) Do the same thing wearing a skirt and short top and strategically place a file cabinet or other item to obstruct the view of your clothing and when the cops show up... well..  see the difference in their response.

I'll add that my view of the word "implied" is in the minority when it comes to youth on social media particularly.  If I used the word 'implied' in other situations, most reasonably intelligent adults know that the word "implies" means there's an implication of something that isn't explicit (meaning plainly stated or shown).

You're also making my case: "while not explicitly showing nudity"   Explicit(ly) means not leaving any room for confusion or doubt.  Someone with their hand over their breasts does not leave any doubt (or confusion) that the person is nude.  It's just a nude person with their hand over their chest.  There is no "implication" of nudity in such photographs and you just solidified that by the definition that you posted.

Two of your main arguments here are 1.  The legal definition as interpreted by police and 2, what society in general thinks.  There's your prblem.  Neither of those definitions matter because you are omitting CONTEXT.  In this case, a photoshoot. 

If I tell the cops "last night I shot Jenny", I may end up in jail for a while until they sort things out.  The general public as well may assume I took a gun and pulled the trigger on Jenny.  Once I tel them I use that term in context of being a photographer, then their interpretation of what I said changes drastically.  Because the defintion of words can change significantly (Example "shoot") or slightly, (Implied) depending on context / the industry in which they are used.  The term implied for instance in photography always expands to mean without adding the word "Nudity" to mean"Implied nudity (nudes)" whereas imlpied in the greneral public could be implied agreement, implied risks.  But in photographer/model world the word "Nudity" is implied in the term "Implied"  (No pun intended)

Lallure Photographic wrote:
All of this, it seems to me, is more about exposure of private parts, whether concerns are from modeling that way, or from the models' concerns about where those images might be used. So, I choose to define what that means by the degree, of exposure. Are you any less topless in an open blouse, with breasts fully exposed, than without the blouse? Of course not. So, in that regard there is no real difference in referring to "topless" as bare from the waist up, and "glamour": where you are exposing the breasts fully, despite wearing a top. There is no real difference for the model.

For models that might be fine with exposing their breasts, but prefer not to fully expose their bottom, that gives them a clearer understanding, of what they are agreeing to, than just "nude", by using the term "topless", which is unlikely to be misunderstood.

The same for "nude" vs. "glamour", where you might be wearing lingerie for part of the shoot, and might be fully nude for part of the shoot. The actual exposure is really very similar, in both genres, but Nude can be just artistic figure studies, while Glamour is sexually oriented.

It is only when you define a category of modeling, and the amount of exposure a category might entail, that categories (genres) mean anything, especially to new models, who have not already learned those things.

Even in lingerie, the degree of exposure can be as little as none (no difference from a bikini swimsuit), to thong panty exposing the cheeks of the rear, or cupless bras, and crotchless panties, or totally sheer and see through fabrics. Lingerie also can take a Fashion approach, or a Glamour approach, in terms of style.................which can also matter to models, and that's why Lingerie and Glamour are used for similar imagery, but with one in a more fashion style, and the other in a more sexy, exposed style.

While models should learn these things over time, newer models need to understand clearly, what is involved. It all comes down to the basic definition of modeling, itself, which is the use of the human body to sell a product ( clothing etc. ), idea, or concept. That might be a sexy beautiful girl, or something in a costume, or even something abstract.

"Genres" are really not sufficient, unless you include all of them, and define them, as to what is involved in doing them. I would like to see "beauty" and "topless" added to MM genres. Beauty to separate that from Glamour, and of Topless to provide a less intimidating form of nudity, than fully Nude, or Glamour, even though topless is a form of glamour, because the term is clear to almost everyone.

It seems the main issue models have on this site and probably others similar, is that most photographers want models that can do anything,,,,,,,,,,,,,,whether with, or without, being exposed, to some degree. That gives models the idea that all photographers are dirty old/young men, which simply isn't the case. I doubt they think of female photographers the same way, even if the female photog wants nudes from the model. The main point I am getting at here, is that models are most useful, if they are flexible, and not inhibited, and they really should not feel uncomfortable in front of the camera, when modeling, because that shows up in the images. If a photographer senses a model is uncomfortable, they might as well end the shoot, because the expressions they want, will not be good.

Here is an example of a question about attitudes in models: You are modeling in a deep neckline top without a bra, and in doing various moves from shot to shot, a boob pops out. Do you laugh it off, or are you totally embarrassed by it?

I leave you with that thought. The answer is indicative of how the female model perceives modeling.

1.  "Are you any less topless in an open blouse, with breasts fully exposed, than without the blouse?"
You can't be any "less topless" compared to you not wearing a top.  Topless means sans top.

2.  "Glamour" does not, and has never been indicative of how much clothing is being worn.  Glamour includes fully clothed, fully nude, and all points in-between.   "Nude vs. Glamour" is senseless in the way people use it.   Nude simply denotes a state of undress (naked) and Glamour denotes a type of photography that can (but doesn't have to) include nudity.

3.  "Nude" means no clothes.  Any reasonably intelligent model, especially one with average IQ or higher, shouldn't need help getting to an "understanding" of what "nude" means.  Nude - sans clothing.  Period.

4.  Topless is not a "form" of any genre, but is a common element in many.

5.  No other genres need to be added to the MM genres because the genres listed more than reasonably cover the kinds of photography the site was designed to showcase.  It's up to the photographer to spell out a prospective shoot to the talent to keep mis-understandings at bay.  Too simple.  One can start with disclosing the basics... "here's what I'm going to have you wear, here's what I'm going to have to do/how I'll have you pose, here's where we'll be shooting, etc.."  It's not rocket science.

Again, photographers need to stop mucking up basic words.  The fact that anyone thinks "topless" or "nude" need further explanation is telling.   Spelling out a shoot in writing and having the talent/model put their signature and thumbprint on the contract/release before hand, keeps everything sailing smoothly irrespective of genre, impressions, etc..

Lallure Photographic wrote:
IF, and that's a big if, you can make a model look totally nude, when she is clothed, then you are a very accomplished photographer. You might get away with that, if it is just implied topless, but it gets much harder to conceal any type of panty, or bottoms. Not to mention you would be going to a heck of a lot of trouble, for no good reason. I stand by my previous post, on what constitutes "implied".

Yes, it takes *some* skill, but not necessarily horribly difficult. Especially with Photoshop.
https://www.tumblr.com/sleepawaits/6135 … er-coulson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEJIjdaxyqI

Lallure Photographic wrote:
Photoshop is NOT photography. Photoshop is photo manipulation, and alteration, after the fact.

HERE WE GO AGAIN...

with Lallure Photographic's latest declaration as to "what is" and "what is not" allowed under his particular, and rather unique, definition "rules".

Just to put his latest grand pronouncement in perspective...

"Ansel Adams was a master of DARKROOM MANIPULATION, particularly through dodging and burning techniques, to achieve his distinctive photographic style"

But, according to Lallure Photographic, "photo manipulation" "after the fact" is "NOT photography".  Whatever Ansel Adams (and MANY other photographers) might think.

Sigh...

LightDreams wrote:
"Ansel Adams was a master of DARKROOM MANIPULATION, particularly through dodging and burning techniques, to achieve his distinctive photographic style"

And then there's his zone system with altering exposure and development time to bring out grey shade zonal/tonal qualities in a B+W negative to ease darkroom manipulation.  A little more concentration when shooting a whole roll of medium format film I was doing versus individual 4x5 negs as Ansel Adams.

Lachance Photography wrote:
Where do you draw the line at implied vs explicit images?  I recently did a shoot where the I told the model that I wanted to shoot up to implied images.  She had no issue with this as she had been in a foreign version of Playboy.  In my opinion implied shots consist of topless images where the breasts are covered, rear images that show a hint of crack, and frontal low cut images.  She did plenty of these but she also posed completely topless or had a nipple showing, and rear shots without any covering as well as frontal shots that showed a hint of the pubic region.  To me this crosses a line into explicit territory am I wrong?  I also like to back up my photos by uploading them to Dropbox but I am concerned such images may violate there rules/terms of service.

I would never count topless as "explicit". I wouldn't even characterise it as nude these days.

I'd have thought explicit means visible genitalia, not just "a hint of the pubic region".

I have shot implied nudes where the model was wearing a strapless bra and panties, but generally speaking, implied nudes today generally means something like "no nipples or pubic hair visible"