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?

thanks for the reality check! I had that situation with a model. She looked at several overhead glamor shots post shoot and we agreed the best lighting/pose/expression in the group also happened to have a nip slip. I edited it immediately, the model was ecstatic = a win win. THEN I deleted the 'original' nip slip image.

Leroy Dickson wrote:
No, I don't delete them. Other than horrible technical flaws and the rare brain fart photo, the entire shoot goes onto my proofing site.

AND, I've actually had a few nip slips turn into print orders.

+1

I treat them like the rest of the photos to be honest. Dont know how many times a model who never poses nudes has actually wanted to buy a few of the slips for their own personal collection, just because they "really like them".

I have one or 2 where the model totally forgot they were topless and busted out a pose with a full frontal showing. With the rhythm of me shooting I caught a shot of the pose before catching on to the mistake. In the end the models actually loved those images, wanted it for themselves and granted me permission to use in my physical book.

S de Varax wrote:
I delete them, either while reviewing during the shoot, or after if I find them during processing.
My assistant usually let me know if it's happening anyway so we'll stop and the model can adjust clothing.

+1

Normally we review ALL pix after the shoot on a big screen and immed delete unwanted pictures.

Given the space RAW files take, I usually keep only the pix the models have chosen, plus a few that I really don't want to delete. Unplanned 'exposure' slips are not part of the pix I keep.

STUDIO2401 wrote:
Given the space RAW files take,

At only about $100 per terabyte, I don't take storage space into consideration at all.

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.

Fairly silly statement. Been many cases where I did not genuinely see the slip, probably because I am focused on the overall image composition and not just her ta tas.

Faith EnFire wrote:
Most photographers I've worked with have respected the limits of the shoot. Slips have occured but they've mentioned it and we judged the shot on it's own merits

my slip-and the picture hanging on the wall made this a must have
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/11447175

Was that intended or spontaneous?

Regardless, it is awesome.

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.

*Click*
Move your shoulder to the right.
*Click*
Ok, drop it down.
*Click*
Lean forward, please.
*Click*

As you go forward with reviewing the images after the shoot, you see the nip slip.
What uber slow ass photographer has the time to sit back and review the model from head to toe through the viewfinder, looking for nip slips as they're working? Hell you don't even see it through those tiny ass VF's in the first place.

That's why they usually show up when you're going through the images on the monitor.

I delete them.

Star wrote:
they are called sunrises, and i usually ask the mUA or assistant to keep an eye out for them while shooting

And I do this as well.  In addition, I'm up front with the model and let her know it happened.  If it doesn't contribute anything to the shoot I'll not use it.  If she feels uncomfortable that she was exposed I'll delete it. 

But I have shown a recent one to a model and she suggested I "fix" the slip so she could turn in that shot, which I did.

Trust can carry someone a long way and it has for me.

Jeremy I wrote:

Fairly silly statement. Been many cases where I did not genuinely see the slip, probably because I am focused on the overall image composition and not just her ta tas.

And I'm another one who doesn't examine every line or object in the image before firing off a shot.  For those of us who aren't focused on the boobs, it is easy to miss a slip.

RL_11214 wrote:

Was that intended or spontaneous?

Regardless, it is awesome.

accidental

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.

Angelus Complex wrote:
*Click*
Move your shoulder to the right.
*Click*
Ok, drop it down.
*Click*
Lean forward, please.
*Click*

As you go forward with reviewing the images after the shoot, you see the nip slip.
What uber slow ass photographer has the time to sit back and review the model from head to toe through the viewfinder, looking for nip slips as they're working? Hell you don't even see it through those tiny ass VF's in the first place.

That's why they usually show up when you're going through the images on the monitor.

I delete them.

When I read the first quote the first time, I thought he was saying "any photographer who says they NEVER see a nip slip is lying.  Not true (school pictures, etc) but a valid point in general.  But see it EVERY time?  No way.

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 . . . .

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.

Bullshit. I've been shooting for 27 years and still get things in my images that I didn't notice at the time. Not often mind you, but it does happen. There are also things like action shots where I have the model twirl around, flip her hair etc, or shots where I'm not looking through the viewfinder (either camera on tripod or holding it over my head) and low-light situations.

But yeah, bold-faced liar and all that.

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.

+1

If I like the image for whatever reason, I might ask model's permission to use it.  Wouldn't use it without asking first

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.

Jeremy I wrote:
Fairly silly statement. Been many cases where I did not genuinely see the slip, probably because I am focused on the overall image composition and not just her ta tas.

Angelus Complex wrote:
*Click*
Move your shoulder to the right.
*Click*
Ok, drop it down.
*Click*
Lean forward, please.
*Click*

As you go forward with reviewing the images after the shoot, you see the nip slip.
What uber slow ass photographer has the time to sit back and review the model from head to toe through the viewfinder, looking for nip slips as they're working? Hell you don't even see it through those tiny ass VF's in the first place.

That's why they usually show up when you're going through the images on the monitor.

I delete them.

Lumigraphics wrote:
Bullshit. I've been shooting for 27 years and still get things in my images that I didn't notice at the time. Not often mind you, but it does happen. There are also things like action shots where I have the model twirl around, flip her hair etc, or shots where I'm not looking through the viewfinder (either camera on tripod or holding it over my head) and low-light situations.

But yeah, bold-faced liar and all that.

Art of the nude wrote:
When I read the first quote the first time, I thought he was saying "any photographer who says they NEVER see a nip slip is lying.  Not true (school pictures, etc) but a valid point in general.  But see it EVERY time?  No way.

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 . . . .

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.

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, looking for nip slips as they're working? Hell you don't even see it through those tiny ass VF's in the first place.

Me! 
Also, this:

Stefano Brunesci wrote:
I don't normally work with models who have issues with nipples so it's not a problem
www.stefanobrunesci.com

Tim Hammond wrote:
I generally archive all shots from every shoot, but if there is any accidental nudity beyond what the model agreed to then I point it out to the model, tell her if I think the image is a keeper or would just sit in a DVD in my safe, and ask what her preference is.  I've deleted a few fantastic shots because of that, but I've also had models who "don't do nudes" decide that I was trustworthy enough to do nude work with because of it.  Treating people with courtesy and respect almost always pays off better than hiding things from them.  Model photography is no exception.

+1

I archive everything because of the ambiguity built in to 2257 and the fact that the way it's written 2257 is about keeping records, not about content.  I have no problem taking any part of a shoot that the model objects to totally and permanently out of circulation.  I just don't want a Feebee to come along years down the road and accuse me of corrupting the database.

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...

I delete nothing unless told to.  And they know they exist because they'll be on their discs.

I, however, do not share or use them.

Stefano Brunesci wrote:
I don't normally work with models who have issues with nipples so it's not a problem


Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Yah..model edit=no possibility of slips, who needs to worry about dumb stuff...besides working with the pictures!

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
... However, if the model wasn't intending for certain areas to show, I would not edit, display, or otherwise use such an image without specific consent above and beyond what the model release might say. I also wouldn't use it for obtaining....ummm....err....ahhh...hmmmm...."personal satisfaction"...(if you know what I mean). They aren't that exciting.

True.

I let the model know and let her decide after seeing the photos. If NO GO, then they get deep-sixed, end of story. Trust and respect are priceless. A nipple isn't that big a deal. Three nipples, maybe...

Good luck with that,

Doc

Asia Photo Connection wrote:
Usually, they get deleted.  However, if it's a great photo and post-production can cover up the slip then I'd consider keeping it.  Also, for slips, I often share them with the model before deleting (it the photo is a good one).  Fair is fair and if a model isn't comfortable then that can potentially bite me in the @ss in the future.

Absolutely. I've found that trust* is the coin of the realm.



*along with the ability to take a good picture.

Christopher Hartman wrote:
I delete nothing unless told to.  And they know they exist because they'll be on their discs.

Not the case for photographers who don't give the model a copy of every shot.

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.

Bullshit. Period.

Plenty of times I haven't noticed a number of errors -- not just nip slips -- in the viewfinder because I'm concentrating on other details. And looking through a viewfinder is hardly the same as seeing the shot on a 22" monitor or a big print.

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.

Yes, you are slow, it takes you 2 hours to shoot 6 frames...
But I never cover my nipples either so have at it.

Jeremy I wrote:
Fairly silly statement. Been many cases where I did not genuinely see the slip, probably because I am focused on the overall image composition and not just her ta tas.

true. I shoot static poses and in addition, have the model begin from a pose then break  into movement.Often I am shooting as fast as my equipment will pace.I have only had 3 slips. they all occurred in movement shots and I did not 'see' them until the review.Two of the models did not care, wanted the images edited with and w/o the slip and placed on their CD. none have ever posted the slip images since they only do implied. The third model had me edit the slip out for posting, but wanted the original slip shot to send to a male friend. To date,everyone is still smiling.

Orca Bay Images wrote:

Not the case for photographers who don't give the model a copy of every shot.

Yeah but I'm talking about me.

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 run about 200 images in 4 hours for a typical shoot these days, although it varies with a lot of things.  IF the model is posing nude, and has a limit issue that's relevant to the shot, usually I can tell and make adjustments, although often in that case, the image as taken is more revealing than they want, and shadowing make it work out.  But for a clothed shoot, in a dress or the like, I'm worried about other issues. 

I might allow a "nip slip" through in a case like this set:


Because I knew she was fine with topless, and the tease was part of what we were going for.  But this isn't a typical case.

18+
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2585/412 … 486b_o.jpg