The Celebrity X-Ray Thread

If you're guessing, then you're basically making it up. This isn't a fakes thread. There's no shame in not being able to bring out details which may not be present, that's why not every pic can (or should) be done. In this case, there's not much there due to lack of light and the image compression.

 

Why good sir, are those burn marks I detect?

 

Well, this is an interesting point worth some back and forth. I've been playing around with X-raying quite a bit the last couple weeks, mostly on a quest to X-ray some of my favorite celebs who never did or have not yet done nudity and who have not shown up (to my satisfaction) on this thread. The thing is, the thread and the practice is that of X-raying, i.e., trying to reveal that which cannot be readily seen by the naked eye. If we're talking see-throughs, that's a whole nother thing. But, in a c-thru pic, one can pretty much see the detail. Maybe the process makes it more c-thru, and therefore more visible, but there have been some amazing x-rays done in which the detail that is hidden is brought out. It was not visible to the naked eye. However, in most cases, this involves some "enhancement." So, when is enhancing producing a fake and when is it bringing out, in reasonably adequate fashion, the detail that is already in the photo and on the subject?

 

Back on page 13, somebody actually x-ray'd Kylies waxwork dummy...

 

The way I define it (and l practice my craft) is that as long as I can determine the important details (size & position of the nipple & areolas, genitals) through standard image enhancement techniques (brightness, contrast, saturation and maybe hue adjustments) that affect the entire area not local areas like burning can, then that's a true X-ray in my book. Those details I can extract from that process then are used for my enhanced images where I can add shadows & skintone colorization to make it look even more transparent without painting or drawing in content, which would alter the original pixels beyond just their light levels or hue. Skintones I choose are based on ethnicity, age, and/or genetics appropriate to the celeb if they cannot be determined through a partially transparent image.

If you can see nipples (the pointy tips) but can't also determine the size of the areolas for example, then you're faking it in my book. Technically artificially colorizing without knowing the true skintones is also faking, but it's basically like a colorized movie to me - same picture, just more pleasant to look at. The same could be said for adding shadows or completing the roundness of the breasts to show cleavage not brought out, but that's just connecting the curves from what you can see to what you can't. Do I sometimes need to make it up, sure, but it's not really important to the essential details of the image, but it does make it look better in the color enhanced version.

There's plenty of images I start, but choose not to post as there's really not enough evidence of true hidden details in my opinion, which are based on basic human anatomy, and where things should be located.

Sorry for those that don't want to see anything here but pics. I promise to try to have more soon.

 

A while ago, one member "enhanced" a lot of pictures and caused some "conflict" in this thread. The consensus seemed to be against that practice, the mods supported that view and he started his own thread. The guy that started an "X-ray" thread originally on phun was totally opposed to enhancement but I'm going back several years and he's closed down his own X-ray blog.
I'm personally for cthrough's attitude and against the "burners"

 

used gimp 2, no guesswork used, might be just shadow, and i croped out the ugly girl and the old guy/ used the levels, bright and con and one of the filters. still learning sorry.

 

Do you understand how light filters work? They only let in a certain type of light, and filter out the rest, that is what an image x-ray is. What burning does is ADDS TO THE IMAGE. Like putting sharpie marks on a piece of plastic and putting it over a photograph, then, calling that an x-ray.

 

Sorry, but I disagree. At this point there's no actual wavelengths and no filtering. It's all just RGB. All the "x-ray"er does is enhance differences in LCH that's in the picture, nothing more. There's nothing there that you can't already see with the naked eye. It's easy to cheat with the burn tool, but I can just as easily add a non-existent nipple with any other adjustment or filter. The difference is that the adjustments and filters are usually applied to a large area or the whole picture while tools, such as the burn tool, are applied under the cursor, which can appear to add something which isn't actually there. However, the burn tool is acceptable if it's big enough to cover a large area while the filters are unacceptable if you concentrate them on a small spot. It doesn't matter what you use, as long as you don't use them to create something that doesn't exist. The burn tool is unpopular because it's round. If nipples were square, the burn tool would be acceptable.

 

if nipples were square, i'd be a leg man!!! lol

 

imho.:2cent:.... that just shows how bad some of these so called 'enhanced' or 'xray' posts have become..... far too much faking going on now....

its a damn wax dummy... no chance you would get a crotch capture from it, no matter what you did..!!! mainly cause it aint got a crotch like the real thing..!!

what happened to the genuine guys with proper software.....???

ps. and though this is a whinge i guess.... the others winging about peeps not putting names with their requests often takes up half a page, which is just silly..... posters please comply with the thread rules... and whingers who point it out.. stop it now please, leave it to the mod's to deal with regular non compliance to the rules..!!! again... just my ten penneth.

 

Phunners, Phunners!! Less talk, more chicks!!!

Here's some Roselyn Sanchez to get things rollin' again!

 

While I do agree that the dodge and burn tool could possibly be used to actually enhance the x-ray, it isn't. In fact, people call the burned areas nipples... That is not a nipple, a nipple is not perfectly round... And if you think that burning helps, fine, just don't call it a nipple, and try darkening the pixel and see if that actually helps... It usually doesn't.

 

sorry but having done a few of these myself, if you honestly think there is nothing there you can't see with the naked eye, I can attest you are flat out wrong...many, many, many pictures a simple contrast/brightness change will bring things out not seen by the naked eye

burn tool, no need for it ever, it doesn't bring anything out of the picture IN my view....

 

In any legitimate xray I've ever done or seen, when the hidden details are brought out, I was able to go back to the original and see them. I just didn't notice them before. It may be subtle and adjusting the contrast makes it stand out more, but it's definitely there. It's not like real life where you have UV and IR and stuff. Remember that in Photoshop all the pictures are in reality just 3 black and white images. Look at the 3 channels. That's all there is. There is no other information other than that.

 

What we are talking about is the difference between what is discernible, invisible (hidden) but there, and artificial.

X-rays in the truest form enhances what is noticeable, where as, burning makes what hidden more discernible. Clearly, both of these methods are not fakes (examples below).

The problem with burning is too many people don't use the burn tool appropriately, like women who paint a mask with markup instead of enhancing natural beauty. This makes it an artificial image (fake). With the burn tool, less is more.

In my view, there is nothing wrong with any of these approaches. It's just a matter of taste and the desire for realism. We've all seen fakes that look so real that it becomes real in the moment that we look at it and, perhaps, indulge is a fantasy. But for this thread, respect should be shown for the spirit that it was created.




Original

Levels, Brightness, Contrast

Levels and Burn Tool

Artificial

 

is there anything here?

thanks to op.

 

clearly visible, isn't it? I was surprised

 

Can anyone work with these? They look promising...

 

now this is a good work!