"Implied Nudes"? No..Not So Much

Art Model, Panda © 2014 Terrell Neasley

Nude — adj

1. completely unclothed; undressed

2. having no covering; bare; exposed

So this latest few series of blog posts have gotten a little attention. First, I started out with Why I don't do nudes for money. I followed it up explaining how I'm waiting on the right time, venue, and circumstances. I then covered details about my private sessions because I do charge for those. And after this I got a few questions regarding implied nudes, but presently I felt it necessary to decline those requests. Work for hire gets you whatever you want, of course. But integrating it into my regular artistic nude work for no charge is not as doable for me at this time.

Art Model, SuzN © 2013 Terrell Neasley

Implied nudes are just what it sounds like. These are images of women taken that give the appearance the the model is nude, however they are still covered...just not with clothing. This can take the form of using the hands to help cover the goods or strategic angles to keep everything hidden. Sometimes models might use a boa, fabric material, or any type of prop that can be used to cover the breasts and genitalia. I've seen some great work from several photographers who do implied nudes. They are Facebook friendly and can be used in more widely acceptable venues. They can still be considered adult in nature, so placement should still be a consideration. You can see this all over the Las Vegas strip and downtown area, but you'd be less likely to see it on a billboard next to a school.

Art Model, Christina © 2013 Terrell Neasley

I just choose not to do it. At least not for free as I might my other art nude work. I shoot the nude. I have a dislike for hiding or censoring my work. I started out doing this with my own work and it was actually a model, Sara, one of my original art nude models, who practically scolded me for my own self-censoring practices. She articulated to me that there will be enough people in the world who will do this for me that I need not add to their efforts. She reminded me that I am an artistic nude photographer and that is where my passion lies. So why then should I take pictures whereby the elements that qualify a work as art nude are eliminated from the composition?

“It’s the invention of clothes, not nature, that made “private parts” private.” 

― Mokokoma Mokhonoana

Over the years, I have received negative feedback and foul opinions for my work. I like to think that I respect people and their opinions about me. Sometimes I take it personally. In some cases, people may criticize my art, which is fine. Other times, they take it a step further and form an opinion about me personally because I am the author of what they feel to be obscene, improper for moral consumption, and otherwise simply disgusting. At times, I can't say I blame them. Artists have historically pushed and challenged the ideals that society hold dear. I have been disgusted myself by some expressions of artists who use the "art" moniker very loosely. Who am I to define loose, though? Some of my work is way more explicit that what many would be comfortable with despite my artistic editing techniques.

Art Model, Emily © 2013 Terrell Neasley

However here is my deal. We are talking about the human body. I have never understood why society needs "protection" from depictions of a penis, a vagina, or breasts especially when these depictions are non-sexualized. Our most famous art pieces and artists we consider to be masters utilized the nude form as the norm in their work and kids can see this in a museum anywhere. I take issue to the fact that we can be subjected to advertisements that imply nudity or are sexually sensationalized, but breasts in art are morally unlawful. Since when did boobs become taboo? I don't want to use this blog as a soapbox to debate why America would be better off if we were not afraid of the naked body. That's not even the purpose of this post. But I feel like I've addressed well enough on my particulars on why implieds are of less interest to me. I mislike the notion of being afraid of the nude. And if I have any last issue with the implied nude, it is simply the fact that I enjoy shooting the nude...the whole you. The nude you. I would much rather be inclined to shoot a clothed model than an implied nude.

Photoshop World 2013

Art Model, Emily © 2013 Terrell Neasley

"I want the viewer to look into my images and see a new world with new rules."

~ Brooke Shaden

I don't think I've ever posted about my convention or trade show attendences. I've only ever done WPPI and Photoshop World on a regular basis. Today is day one and it was a good day, complete with one learning from one of my favorite instructors, Julianne Kost who is the most brilliant mind/guru of Photoshop and Lightroom I've ever seen. Her dry, yet witty humor keeps you entertained as you unconsciously learn something of value. Before you know it, she's having to cut things short because she's running out of time. I try to get at least one of her classes as a rule. Brooke Shaden spoke during the opening keynote. While Julianne Kost was the most entertaining, I gotta give props to Brooke Shaden for being most inspirational. This little bitty spitfire got up on stage and in a soft, but spirited voice and laid down an air of possibilities that left you wondering what you could do if you cast aside fear and conforming rules (sound familiar) and did what you wanted to do.

Art Model, Emily
© 2013 Terrell Neasley

It was sort of a toss up this time. There are two things I usually want to focus on when I come to these trade shows. One is Photoshop techniques. I had to start out learning Photoshop on my own with a bootleg old copy of PS7 that was given to me when I first came to Vegas, while I was still doing film. It was strictly trial and error. I mean, STRICTLY trial and error. There weren't as much in terms of tutorials on the web as there are today. But it was quite the trick to learn the different tools and what layers were. I eventually got a book to help me.

Art Model, Emily
© 2013 Terrell Neasley

“If I saw something in my viewfinder that looked familiar to me, I would do something to shake it up." 

~ Garry Winogrand

My breakthough came from my first Photoshop World convention. I only attended the free trade show, but when I saw an exhibition of the Nik Silver Efx, I was hooked. Why? I had seen other black and white plug-ins at this point. And I could convert to B&W in Photoshop too. What made Silver Efx so special? Well, I'll tell you. It was the first piece of software that I had ever seen that came so close to the actual darkroom. It aided me in my conversion to digital photography. Before Silver Efx, I just couldn't get the rich black tones that I had with silver-halides in photographic paper brought out by chemicals. It was simply unmatched. The burn and dodge techniques were not mimicked in any other software so well. Masking, which I sucked at in Photoshop at the time, was made more simple with Nik's U-point technology. And on top of all that, Silver Efx, was also the best at simulating the different brands of pro-grade B&W film I used...principally, Kodak TMax 100 & 400.

Art Model, Emily
© 2013 Terrell Neasley

To learn that Nik had several more editions such as Color Efx, Dfine, and Sharpen only cinched it for me. But I learned all this at my very first Photoshop World and its always been a blessing for me every since. Sometimes its learning of a new vendor to process my photos. Sometimes its learning a new post-processing workflow that is much more efficient and effective. Other times, I get educated on a better business practice, such as back-up techniques or copyrights management. One thing I don't really go to Photoshop World as much for is photographic techniques. They have some great lighting specialists here for sure and other tips on improving your photography. I think they are great, but its much easier for me to get photo tips. I can manage that from anywhere.

This year, my focus has been more on the Photoshop end of things instead of the business side. So these are the classes I've been taking as of day 1: Compositing with Julianne Kost, Smart Objects with Dave Cross, and Commercial Post Processing with Jim DiVitale. Days 2 and 3 are a bit more tricky as to my choices, but I will figure it out. Photoshop and post-processing classes have the priority and I can choose 6. Thursday is the longest day and we finish up on Friday. Should be good days ahead.

Riding on Top of the Wave

Art Model, Emma ©2013 Terrell Neasley

"There is a certain relief in change, even though it be from bad to worse!  As I have often found in travelling in a stagecoach, that it is often a comfort to shift one's position, and be bruised in a new place."

~Washington Irving

There is a lot of stuff going on in this business of photography. I can spend the rest of the month in constant discussions without taking a rest and still never touch on half the issues. This is definitely an interesting time in photography...a new paradigm shift, possible devaluation of the services, and trends that will, in all likelihood change how we capture and manipulate light. There is enough to make you wonder whether or not you even want to venture into this thing. You may even contemplate what gear you decide to purchase, and the brand or format. As with all times of change, transition is a definite challenge. My goal is to ride it out like a surfer on a wave. In which case, it is highly important to be on top of said wave, as opposed to being under it!

Art Model, Christina
©2013 Terrell Neasley

What do I mean with all this? Lets look at a couple of points. If you've been reading my blog lately, I've touched on problems for the pro photographer. Look at the news and you can see the Chicago Sun Times firing its entire photo staff. You can read about copyright infringements for photographers in record numbers. There is an increasing expectation of free/cheap services from photographers. Many wedding planners will spend big on food, flowers, the dress, and the venue, but when it comes to the photography, they look for the deal or find the cheapest person holding a camera they can. Let their house catch fire and the first thing they grab is the photo albums. I've been in situations where I've watched a client pay huge sums for everything else to cater an event, then call me and ask me to photograph it for credit and exposure. There is not one event or situation I have worked where the "exposure" ended up as a future gig that made me money. And until they start taking photo credits in lieu of cash for my rent, I'll continue to charge my regular fees, thank you very much.

What about the future of DSLRs? Are these big cameras gonna last? Are they still necessary? I'm predicting that within 2 years, a major camera manufacture will introduce a mirrorless full-frame DSLR. I think its inevitable. Some include the almost 3 times crop sensor like the Nikon 1 system, the 2 time crop Micro Four/Thirds format like the Olympus OM-D, or my fave, the Sony NEX system, particularly the NEX-6 with the APS-C sensor found in DSLRs. Canon is still trying to find its way into the mirrorless market. Some of these gimmicky features like built-in wireless/GPS may be handy for some, but not the masses. But mirrorless technology? Yes, this is coming to a DSLR real soon. Big and clunky will be a thing of the past and that's okay.

Art Model, Alethea ©2013 Terrell Neasley

Times are a-changing. I'm not stopping my photography, so I want to be on top of this wave, hanging ten. I can even tell my own tendencies have adjusted. With travel becoming more and more important to me, weight is of a major concern. I want smaller gear. While I'm still partial to my Nikon D800E for fine art, I don't really want a DSLR second body like I used to have when I shot Canon, along with almost every L-series lens out there. There's not another full-frame to complement my 800e (that I like) and I don't want to duplicate that platform. The D7100 may be close, but I still prefer full-frame. Depending on the money, I think I'd opt for the Sony RX-1R (for $3000) when becomes available, as my second body.

"It is not necessary to change.  Survival is not mandatory."

~W. Edwards Deming

Art Model, Emily ©2013 Terrell Neasley

What I would really like is the Leica M Type 240. Now we're talking about a SYSTEM here. Check out this review. If you don't read all of it, skip to the end. Spoiler: He buys the camera! The Leica is the Mercedes of 35mm format of cameras. Its a rangefinder and is definitely not cheap at just under $8 grand. I would love to travel with just a rangefinder and a single lens, probably the 35mm prime lens. That set up would put me $11,000 in the hole. I can do a lot of traveling on $11,000, or actually $7,000 (the difference between the Sony and the Leica). The thing is that, I just feel like I need to be a Leica owner. There are just some things you need to do at some point in your life. If you haven't done it yet, I think its a must to fly first class on a good airline. I always thought it was trivial. I mean, everybody gets there at the same time, right?

Under the Super-moon,
Art Models Christina, Emma, Emily, Alethea
©2013 Terrell Neasley

No. First Class is the shit. Even if you only experience it once, you need to do it. In addition to that, get behind the wheel of a luxury car on an extended trip...not just a test drive. Whatever you have to do, make that happen. You'll never look at cars the same after that. And in the same light...I think I need to be a Leica owner. You don't have to own the plane you are flying First Class in, nor the Mercedes for your road trip. The same cannot be said of this Leica M Type 240. Renting it would not be the same. You must own it.

I'm certain there is still room on top of this wave, but as any surfer will tell you, you're going to have to practice, get to know your way around a board, and understand the water. In photography, understand the light. Get to know your way around the new technologies. And practice, practice, practice.