Photographer
Han Koehle
Posts: 4100
Saint Louis, Missouri, US
DG at studio47 wrote:
Charles West wrote:
This seems an exceedingly strange question. Any photographer who says he didn't see it in the viewfinder is a bold faced liar. Period. What if it's a full body shot so the model's 5'9" frame is condensed into three inches, making even full on nipple a fraction of a centimeter? What if he wasn't chimping EVERY frame? What if she's one of them low-contrast skin types and it's not even visible in thumbnail size?
I've had some pretty major issues that I didn't catch until I reviewed the shots on frame.
Saying anyone who doesn't notice a nipple slip is a liar is pretty extreme.
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
Charles West wrote:
This seems an exceedingly strange question. Any photographer who says he didn't see it in the viewfinder is a bold faced liar. Period. Charles West wrote:
Sorry guys. I forgot about the whole 35mm, 2,000 photos in a session thing. I still shoot 4x5, and yes, I'm extremely slow. Just seems strange to me. "Sorry guys" for your original BS comment, then return to be a little condenscending, self-righteous, and sanctimonious??
For the record I've never shot half of 2000 images. My guess is 30-35% of 2000 max, and that would be a very rare day indeed.
I'd suggest to YOU, the only way someone is going to be a liar about not catching nip slips is someone who is doing a lot of focusing on them. Is it safe to assume you fall into that category?
Photographer
Carlos Occidental
Posts: 10583
Los Angeles, California, US
Did I not apologize for that statement? You guys are a tough group!
It seems you're all just jumping on the bandwagon now.
"Oooo a target! Shoot! Shoot!"
I've already been shot. Several times. I now realize there is more than one way to photograph models.
Why don't you worry about my self righteous ignorance less and stay on topic more.
Photographer
Angelus Complex
Posts: 10501
Columbus, Ohio, US
Art of the nude wrote:
I once found an upskirt in my proofs; and the model had no panties on. I had no idea the shot was there. When I looked through the other proofs, and thought back, it was clear. With set lights, nothing showed due to shadow. When the strobes fired . . . . Ben there, done that.
Remember the first time you had a model in a black or thin shirt with no bra? Of course you can't see through the material, but when the strobes popped and you went over the pics...
Photographer
Angelus Complex
Posts: 10501
Columbus, Ohio, US
Charles West wrote:
Sorry guys. I forgot about the whole 35mm, 2,000 photos in a session thing. I still shoot 4x5, and yes, I'm extremely slow. Just seems strange to me. I haven't shot film in years, and when I did, every shot counted. I still didn't shoot super slow because I know what I'm doing.
2,000 what in a session??? lol Even with the digital, I try to keep it under 200. They're lucky to get me up to 150 with a 3 look session.
Photographer
Stargazy Photography
Posts: 87
London, England, United Kingdom
Angelus Complex wrote:
What uber slow ass photographer has the time to sit back and review the model from head to toe through the viewfinder [cut for brevity] I'm an uber slow ass photographer. I admit it.
I don't have a viewfinder, though. Like Charles, I have a 4x5inch ground glass to study which makes everything upside down and mirrored.
(but I avoid the nip slip thing too by just shooting nudes who don't mind their nips visible)
Photographer
Mickle Design Werks
Posts: 5967
Washington, District of Columbia, US
I'm probably in the minority.
I actually include them in the proofing catalog. Sometimes I miss a shoot or the Model or Agency see a shot that they think is questionable. The catalog is then flagged with these rejects. I want to be as transparent as possible and let them see everything that I shot. I feel that they will trust me more with the care of that images if I am upfront about it's existence and I give them an opportunity to provide input to me about their care and use.
Also, we may like a shot with some slippage and with some post work it can be made usable (like increasing the density of the hair or creating some kind of cover). I don't want that opportunity to be missed.
Photographer
Angelus Complex
Posts: 10501
Columbus, Ohio, US
Charles West wrote:
I now realize there is more than one way to photograph models. Yes, it's called "properly." We're just arguing over your assumption that we're secretly trying to shoot nipples and playing it off like we didn't catch the slip.
I know a photographer that thrives off of getting those types of shots, even tries to pose the models with loose clothing so he can get such pics... We are not friends.
Photographer
Stephen Fletcher
Posts: 7501
Norman, Oklahoma, US
A M Johnson wrote:
I play fair. If the model is not doing a shoot where bits are showing then I delete the slips with the other mistakes. Yep. A deal is a deal.
Photographer
Angelus Complex
Posts: 10501
Columbus, Ohio, US
Stargazy Photography wrote:
I'm an uber slow ass photographer. I admit it.
I don't have a viewfinder, though. Like Charles, I have a 4x5inch ground glass to study which makes everything upside down and mirrored.
(but I avoid the nip slip thing too by just shooting nudes who don't mind their nips visible) You two use different equipment as to where you have to have every shot as perfect as possible, so I can see and respect that stance.
Photographer
H E R B L I S H
Posts: 15189
Orlando, Florida, US
I wish I had not deleted them. There's an idea for a coffee table book!
Photographer
-Scott Evans Photo-
Posts: 61
Houston, Texas, US
Trust matters and if the model thinks there will be no naught bits showing and then she finds out you have perved on her nip-slip then don't be shocked when she gets pissed! Integrity matters and frankly so does your promise. I will say I have done this. If a nip slips and it really makes the shot I will let the model make the call on that one shot. If she says yes then it's a keeper! Scott Evans www.scottevansphotography.com
Photographer
Erasm Roterdam
Posts: 639
Millbury, Massachusetts, US
The Model makes the decision to keep/delete, either if I note the slip on the shoot or during edition.
Photographer
MLRPhoto
Posts: 5766
Olivet, Michigan, US
Angelus Complex wrote:
Yes, it's called "properly." We're just arguing over your assumption that we're secretly trying to shoot nipples and playing it off like we didn't catch the slip.
I know a photographer that thrives off of getting those types of shots, even tries to pose the models with loose clothing so he can get such pics... We are not friends. Has this photographer ever heard of something called "nude models?" I often "pose models" so that a nipple, or much more, shows. I have two whole portfolios devoted to the results. As it happens, they're all done with the models' consent, at the time, and to the final result.
The point isn't that I'm so special, but that there's a substantial supply of models who not only allow, but prefer, nude shots. Why is it so hard for some people to just work with them, if that's what they want to shoot?
Model
John Ujjjjjjj Xghp
Posts: 2298
Ķızıltepa, Navoi, Uzbekistan
Last time this happened, a photographer sent me all the images, told me to hold onto them, and then deleted them from his camera/hard drive.
I'm not quite sure why he sent me them since they were just outtakes, but it was a nice gesture, I think.
Makeup Artist
MUA Amy Elizabeth
Posts: 4985
Miami, Florida, US
So people really can't feel when their nip is exposed? Whenever it happens to a celebrity I think it's for publicity because I'm like, "They REALLY can't feel their boob hanging out?"
Photographer
Shane Noir
Posts: 2332
Los Angeles, California, US
dave wright sf wrote:
i wouldn't delete them from the back of the camera - what if the shot is great, and it just needs a bit of retouching so the nip doesn't show? Ditto. Don't throw out a winning shot just because there is a bit of naughty flesh making an appearance. As long as it isn't in the final image, who cares?
Photographer
Scott Sansenbach
Posts: 568
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US
Charles West wrote:
This seems an exceedingly strange question. Any photographer who says he didn't see it in the viewfinder is a bold faced liar. Period. I don't know about that. There is a lot of stuff to think about (horizons, focus points, not chopping off body parts) and if the model is doing a lot of poses it's not that hard to miss. It usually ruins the shot if nudity is not intended so I'd always tell the model to avoid wasting our time.
Maybe in the studio doing more carefully posed shot's it's less likely but on outdoor location shoots it can easily happen.
Is seeing a nipple really that big a deal? Once you've had a little life experience you've probably seen a lot of them and there are plenty of models who will pose topless.
Photographer
DELETED-ACCOUNT_
Posts: 10303
Los Angeles, California, US
Shane Noir wrote:
Ditto. Don't throw out a winning shot just because there is a bit of naughty flesh making an appearance. As long as it isn't in the final image, who cares? Agreed as well. I actually had an image that was supposed to be implied and a bit of areola was visible. Everything else in the image was great though so I just cloned it out and no one noticed. It was one of my most commented/viewed images while I had it up. What if I deleted that from the camera (which technically would've been impossible given how little was showing and how small my screen is)? I would've never had the image I wanted and would've had to settle for something else.
Now if the nip-slip occurs in an image where I'm certain I'll never use it or it's prominently visible and could not be saved via editing out without looking odd, I'll delete it from the harddrive.
Photographer
Scott Sansenbach
Posts: 568
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US
Star wrote:
they are called sunrises, and i usually ask the mUA or assistant to keep an eye out for them while shooting +1 if you have this luxury. They can also look for clothing tags, stray hairs, etc. etc.
Photographer
Aesthetic Arrest
Posts: 649
Peterborough, New Hampshire, US
millions of years of evolution created them, and now we strive so hard to hide them from the shallow cadences of the squeamish masses . . . like the ocean would ever try to hide its barnacles at low tide.
Photographer
Aesthetic Arrest
Posts: 649
Peterborough, New Hampshire, US
Lisa Levin wrote:
Last time this happened, a photographer sent me all the images, told me to hold onto them, and then deleted them from his camera/hard drive.
I'm not quite sure why he sent me them since they were just outtakes, but it was a nice gesture, I think. easy, he kept them anyway, pretended to delete them and told you so and gave you the copies to make him look like he is ennobling you with this humane and selfless gesture.
Photographer
Shane Noir
Posts: 2332
Los Angeles, California, US
Paul Maher Jr wrote:
millions of years of evolution created them, and now we strive so hard to hide them from the shallow cadences of the squeamish masses . . . like the ocean would ever try to hide its barnacles at low tide. God I hate barnacles...
Photographer
Stargazy Photography
Posts: 87
London, England, United Kingdom
Shane Noir wrote:
God I hate barnacles... Barnacles are the nipples of the ocean. And boy, are there a lot of them!
Model
Faith EnFire
Posts: 13514
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
MUA Amy Elizabeth wrote:
So people really can't feel when their nip is exposed? Whenever it happens to a celebrity I think it's for publicity because I'm like, "They REALLY can't feel their boob hanging out?" no, if I'm wearing something airy, or doing implied, or a sheet or a holey tshirt you can honestly not know that something isn't peeking out
Photographer
Fotographia Fantastique
Posts: 17339
White River Junction, Vermont, US
True story.
I did a shoot with a model (not even nude or implied shoot - she was wearing a corset bustier type thing) where a nipple slipped out in a photo, and neither of us noticed until years later!
Photographer
Art of the nude
Posts: 12067
Grand Rapids, Michigan, US
MikeRobisonPhotos wrote:
If I notice at the time, probably delete, or leave and see if I can photoshop.
I have all sorts of pictures that are being held for later, or only used if cropped, or whatever. I consider it a matter of professional honor to keep my word.
And, I have no intention of using accidental "nip slips." Even if we've done nudes in the same session. Just had a shoot recently where the image which was both her favorite and mine turned out to be a "nip slip." I photoshopped a bit more fabric, you can't tell, and everything's great. Would have been a real shame, and downright silly, to delete it.
Photographer
Charger Photography
Posts: 1731
San Antonio, Texas, US
Art of the nude wrote:
Just had a shoot recently where the image which was both her favorite and mine turned out to be a "nip slip." I photoshopped a bit more fabric, you can't tell, and everything's great. Would have been a real shame, and downright silly, to delete it. +100
Photographer
A-M-P
Posts: 18465
Orlando, Florida, US
Delete usually on camera if catch it while shooting.
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
Art of the nude wrote:
Just had a shoot recently where the image which was both her favorite and mine turned out to be a "nip slip." I photoshopped a bit more fabric, you can't tell, and everything's great. Would have been a real shame, and downright silly, to delete it. Dude, you bumped a 2 yr old thread to reply to yourself? 
At first, I thought this thread would be Vancouver based. 
Photographer
Andialu
Posts: 14029
San Pedro, California, US
I think that nipples should be removed at birth. They are clearly evil and dirty. I propose that they are replaced with a non-erotic bio port for nurturing off-spring.
Photographer
ThatLook Visual Media
Posts: 6420
Nashville, Tennessee, US
Jeremy I wrote:
You know you all have taken then or have had them taken, usually accidentally.
Do you delete them? Keep them archived with the rest?
Inquiring minds and all... Only had a few and I just photoshopped them away.
Photographer
Eros Fine Art Photo
Posts: 3097
Torrance, California, US
Beccalette Synthetic wrote:
I have one in my port.... didn't mean for it to show, but oh well. It's the second one in your portfolio; right? Actually, if you hadn't pointed it out, I never would've even noticed it.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. 
Model
Rachel_Elizabeth_22
Posts: 388
Birmingham, England, United Kingdom
Beccalette Synthetic wrote:
I have one in my port.... didn't mean for it to show, but oh well. Same here, but it's one of my faves lol ^_^ x
Photographer
INKEDividuals
Posts: 4023
Seattle, Washington, US
Jim Macias wrote:
I think that nipples should be removed at birth. They are clearly evil and dirty. I propose that they are replaced with a non-erotic bio port for nurturing off-spring. I agree that they are troublesome. I take special measures during my shoots to avoid nip slips:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/p … 0#27617310 (M)
Artist/Painter
Christopher Willingham
Posts: 21859
Long Beach, California, US
I keep em'. When I'm shooting whatever I can catch I usually keep. Sometimes down the road I'll use them for a reference for a painting or a drawing. All the models that shoot with me know what's up before they work with me. If they have any hang ups about slips and what not - I'll find that out before we shoot.
Photographer
Wysiwyg Photography
Posts: 6326
Salt Lake City, Utah, US
Jeremy I wrote:
You know you all have taken then or have had them taken, usually accidentally.
Do you delete them? Keep them archived with the rest?
Inquiring minds and all... John Jebbia wrote:
While I understand that there is a certain feeling of conquest to get models who don't shoot nude to shoot implied....
Book models who already do nudes when you want to shoot implieds and this suddenly becomes a non issue. +1 (Old post, but still relevant today).
I would likely delete the image.. BUT.. I don't do any "Implied" nude work with anyone other then nude models.. so it would never be an issue.
On the rare occasion that we would do an "implied shot" where the model doesn't do nudes, but wants a shot that shows her body off but not "bits"... it is a specific pose and the shutter doesn't release till the model is in place anyway.
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Jeremy I wrote:
You know you all have taken then or have had them taken, usually accidentally.
Do you delete them? Keep them archived with the rest?
Inquiring minds and all... usually delete, depends on the model desires.
Photographer
AJ_In_Atlanta
Posts: 13053
Atlanta, Georgia, US
Given what I shoot that would be a serious oddity, but if the shot was good I could crop or Photoshop it I would. Then again I don't get offended by topless, it's sort of silly how we treat it in the US.
Photographer
Art of the nude
Posts: 12067
Grand Rapids, Michigan, US
Art of the nude wrote:
Just had a shoot recently where the image which was both her favorite and mine turned out to be a "nip slip." I photoshopped a bit more fabric, you can't tell, and everything's great. Would have been a real shame, and downright silly, to delete it. Cherrystone wrote:
Dude, you bumped a 2 yr old thread to reply to yourself?
At first, I thought this thread would be Vancouver based. Not knowingly, no. It was up on the list; I don't know how. Very strange. I hadn't read all the way through to see who bumped it, but I wasn't looking through old threads.
Very odd.
|
