I agree with @parliament-of-owls that just "una figura humana" does not imply that the depicted human being is naked.

But I disagree with both of you about the right translation.

You're right, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary

stark naked [idiom]

wearing no clothes at all

But "una figura humana, sin ropa" does not convey the text completely. The word "clothes" is not present in the original text, why we have to mention it in Spanish?

We want to translate two words: stark, an adverb, and naked, an adjective. Let's choose the equivalents in Spanish: completamente and desnuda, respectively.

So "figura humana, sin ropa" is a translation but not a good one because it does not reflect the original writer's intention.

I suggest

figura humana, completamente desnuda.

You have to add the adverb completamente [absolutely] to reflect the "impact". It's not just naked or nude, it's stark naked.

As I have explained to Charlie, I don't mean that you have to use this kind of translation everytime, a word-by-word approach. My English is not good enough to explain myself. That approach usually is wrong, but in this specific case I think that such kind of translation match the original intention of the writer. Knowing both expressions, in my opinion "stark naked" and "completamente desnuda" are equivalents both in meaning and in this context.

I agree with @parliament-of-owls that just "una figura humana" does not imply that the depicted human being is naked.

But I disagree with both of you about the right translation.

You're right, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary

stark naked [idiom]

wearing no clothes at all

But "una figura humana, sin ropa" does not convey the text completely. The word "clothes" is not present in the original text, why we have to mention it in Spanish?

We want to translate two words: stark, an adverb, and naked, an adjective. Let's choose the equivalents in Spanish: completamente and desnuda, respectively.

So "figura humana, sin ropa" is a translation but not a good one because it does not reflect the original writer's intention. He has used and adverb to remark the degree of nudeness: stark naked, completely nude.

I suggest

figura humana, completamente desnuda.

You have to add the adverb completamente [absolutely] to reflect the "impact". It's not just naked or nude, it's stark naked. It's not just wearing no clothes, it's wearing no clothes at all.

As I have explained to Charlie, I don't mean that you have to use this kind of translation everytime, a word-by-word approach. My English is not good enough to explain myself. That approach usually is wrong, but in this specific case I think that such kind of translation match the original intention of the writer. Knowing both expressions, in my opinion "stark naked" and "completamente desnuda" are equivalents both in meaning and in this context.

I agree with @parliament-of-owls that just "una figura humana" does not imply that the depicted human being is naked.

But I disagree with both of you about the right translation.

You're right, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary

stark naked [idiom]

wearing no clothes at all

But "una figura humana, sin ropa" does not convey the text completely. The word "clothes" is not present in the original text, why we have to mention it in Spanish?

We want to translate two words: stark, an adverb, and naked, an adjective. Let's choose the equivalents in Spanish: completamente and desnuda, respectively.

So "figura humana, sin ropa" is a translation but not a good one because it does not reflect the original writer's intention.

I suggest

figura humana, completamente desnuda.

I agree with @parliament-of-owls that just "una figura humana" does not imply that the depicted human being is naked.

But I disagree with both of you about the right translation.

You're right, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary

stark naked [idiom]

wearing no clothes at all

But "una figura humana, sin ropa" does not convey the text completely. The word "clothes" is not present in the original text, why we have to mention it in Spanish?

We want to translate two words: stark, an adverb, and naked, an adjective. Let's choose the equivalents in Spanish: completamente and desnuda, respectively.

So "figura humana, sin ropa" is a translation but not a good one because it does not reflect the original writer's intention.

I suggest

figura humana, completamente desnuda.

You have to add the adverb completamente [absolutely] to reflect the "impact". It's not just naked or nude, it's stark naked.

As I have explained to Charlie, I don't mean that you have to use this kind of translation everytime, a word-by-word approach. My English is not good enough to explain myself. That approach usually is wrong, but in this specific case I think that such kind of translation match the original intention of the writer. Knowing both expressions, in my opinion "stark naked" and "completamente desnuda" are equivalents both in meaning and in this context.