The Celebrity X-Ray Thread

C-T: I really like this suggestion because I tried those techniques and don't come anywhere near what you produced without having the resort to drawing or airbrushing colors on to it. See my version (Level, BCS, Curves ONLY) below.

 

As do I... Not sure how this 'proves' one tech is more valid over others. Below is another Katie Holmes xray. I'll let the masses decide if it's a baddie.



Phunners.... Like or no? To avoid cluttering the thread, send your vote via PM to me with a copy to C-T.

 

DO NOT send me PMs. If you want to discuss methods this is the appropriate place to do it. As far as doing a video that's out of the question - I don't even have enough time to do images lately let alone trying to do & post a video of the process.

I don't have an issue with burn & dodge - I do use those tools sparingly in my final image for shading, but I don't recommend them be used to "discover" things as they are spot tools, and can too easily lead to false things to appear to be what they are not. Brightness, Contrast, Saturation, and Hue affect the entire area and cannot lead to artistic license coming into play where details like nipples/areolas can be burned into existence around a minor artifact or image anomaly.

I don't understand what you are asking about the Katie Holmes pic. On the Maria Menounos pic, the lighting isn't even so it requires masking off areas with a feathered edge to prevent the BCS adjustments from overwhelming the certain areas as it does in your image from the mid pussy on down. Even without doing that, the labia are partially visible.

BTW - if you've got multiple things to post in a short period of time, just use the Edit button to add to your post instead of making multiple posts or it just makes a huge thread that much bigger unnecessarily.

 

*sigh* it's already a big thread. So what different does it make? The mods aren't complaining.

 

He will always doctor his pics and fake them with smudging, drawing, color and burn etc etc, leaving the original soooo different,
and then will try explain the tech away, and have 10 excuses.

Like I said, if you like fakes and pics with over-manipulation, you will enjoy a lot of the work here

I look here sometimes times to laugh at the doctoring :2cent:

 

ok my bad, removed

 

Dude Chloe is ONLY 15

 

The information is DEFINITELY there. From left to right.



1) Multiply only -- already shows desired details.
2) Saturation plane tweak - showing more details.
3) RGB curves - showing more details.
4) Shadows and midtones mixed from (1) and (3)

'Keeping the results real' is not easy ... the actress has to be worth the effort. If you spend the time to layer the four bitmaps then painstakingly tweak the results you can approximate results as detailed by c-through here ...

http://forum.phun.org/showthread.php?t=168882&highlight=x-ray

BTW, if you check the activity of naysayers and see their past works, it is easy to undertand why they troll to get their attention fix.

 

I didn't say that there wasn't visible impressions in my version. I just said that, without additives, my Maria did not come anywhere near to the sample C-T provided. He even mentioned changing the color of the pic to make it look more real. So itsnt a bit unfair blast someone for using one approach while using one that is not all that much different? After all, I didn't clip a nipple from another pic and paste it on to my Brit pic. Whatever, this conversation is boring me to tears... I walk away.

 

Stana Katic has a couple really promising shots on her homepage.

 

I'm with C-T

 

lol, spot on!

 

I'm more amazed and distracted to see a mate of mine behind her!
Good nips though... Her, not him.

 

I only pointed out the fact that you made nipples & areolas with the burn & dodge tools where none existed in the Britney pic you did. This is the problem with those tools - they can easily lead to fakery, and why I don't recommend they be used by most people. Not every bump is a nipple, and if there's no way to determine the areola size in the pic even with a definitive nipple bump, then you are just guessing, and guessing is faking. Colorization is not painting; it's altering the hue of the object across the board of the selected object. This is the same process they used to make B&W films more pleasing to the eye even though it's false color.

 

for xrays, the dodge or other coloring items are really not needed. Like i stated, i only used the tools to bring light out of an area captured in the picture that was already there.

 

The difference: C-through changes the color of the entire or large parts of the garment (white bikini bottom) to match skin color. He doesn't draw pieces of anatomy (much smaller than a bikini bottom) with finer tools like dodge and burn. The color of her bikini bottom is largely irrelevant to the x-ray process. It just makes it look like more of a nude shot but you can still see the fact that it is a bikini bottom. On the other hand, whether or not that areola actually exists or was a pasty, artifact, ect exaggerated with the burn/dodge tools is not irrelevant.

If he had made that white bikini bottom neon purple instead of skin color would it affect how much actual detail was present in the final pic? No.

 

Michelle Trachtenberg. they look puffy

[/URL] [/IMG]

 

http://forum.phun.org/showthread.php?t=92874&p=3510005&viewfull=1#post3510005

​

 

Taylor Swift



maybe just an illusion? but damn, those nips look puffy

 

im having trouble finding some avril lavigne photos can someone post them or send them to me? thanks