indecent or obscene?

The only legal issue of concern to a naturist photographer is whether the final image could be regarded as "indecent or obscene". No formal definition of those terms is available (other than the somewhat unhelpful requirement that indecent images "offend against recognised standards of decency" and obscene images "tend to deprave and corrupt"). In practice, they are defined by the court hearing any charge. That means, in virtually all cases, a bench of magistrates. Different benches will have different opinions at the same time, and the same bench will have different opinions at different times. That's the bad news. Although decisions of magistrates courts do not set legal precedent, they are used as guidance by police, Customs and Excise, and the Crown Prosecution Service. In recent years virtually all decisions have been in favour of regarding naturist material as decent, not as indecent - let alone as obscene (the only known exceptions were either overturned or involved material which might not have been "naturist").

Although not strictly part of deciding whether something is indecent, courts (and others) do tend to take into account the use made of material - except where the Post Office Acts are concerned. Thus a photo in a family album will probably be regarded in a different light to one offered for sale in a magazine.

A simple test to try is "would this photograph be published without problem in a naturist magazine?" - noting that some magazines have a policy of not publishing any photographs of children. If you are unsure of the answer, then the courts could well be unsure that the image is really "naturist".

location and privacy

Naturist photographers are subject to the same legal constraints as other photographers. One constraint is that you shouldn't take attempt to take photographs which might lead to a breach of the peace. So, don't wander around a naturist beach snapping away - not only might you be assaulted, you could be charged for provoking the assault. You are strongly advised to photograph only people where you know they don't mind - although there is no legal "right of privacy", unwanted photography is contrary to naturist ideals. That statement sounds a bit pompous, and some might argue that there is no such set of concepts as "naturist ideals" - but I expect you understand what I mean?