The Celebrity X-Ray Thread

K I give up lol

 

By that way of logic there would never be a point to see a woman in lingerie if you've seen her nude. The whole point is the temptation, the allure of seeing something which is not quite visible. It's sexy.

 

Curious to see the evolution of the enhancement process. Please try these pics.
Past Phun:

---------------------------------------------






I'd like to see a few different people try these.
I would also like to see a flood of new pics to try for the restless.
Post some requests people. Keep this thread busy!

 

Who was the original x-rayer? Please don't repost other's work without giving credit.

It's not for lack of requests that this thread isn't busy, it's the lack of good truly x-rayable material, and the availability of time for the few people that understand how to do the processes well that limits how many good x-rays are posted. Many celebs now know about the paparazzi flashes making garments almost transparent, and are taking precautions with nipple tape, or not wearing the fabrics that are susceptible. It's not like there's an x-ray app, you just press a button, and the clothes magically disappear, it takes talent & time. I've tried to teach people how to do it in the past, but there really weren't any that seemed to understand and start posting themselves.

We don't just need a flood of pics that don't have hope; that will just water down the x-ray'd pics that much more, and this thread will end up like the amateur x-ray thread. Please let the bulk of the image selection be up to the x-rayers who know what to look for, and pre-screen a lot of pics before posting good ones.

 

Slightly clearer version of the same Selena Gomez picture posted a few pages back. Can anything be done here or is it not worth it?

 

I have no idea. It's from the early days of this thread. Was wondering what the other's in here could reproduce with their talents. There's definitely a contrast of styles going through the history of this thread.

I don't think you understand how this whole process works.

I'm sure you look through a lot of images to try, but most can't view every image on the net for candidates. It's good to have all the material you can to work with. People shouldn't hesitate to post images that they think are worthy and that may have slipped through the cracks.

IDK, I just like what you guys are doing. Thanks for all the tireless work it takes to produce these and keep it up.

 

I believe c-through's point is that, if one has even the faintest idea of what makes a good candidate - which anyone who's been following this thread for as little as a dozen pages or more certainly does - then there'd be a lot more restraint by folks posting images here.

Instead, what we get is:

• People who haven't bothered to read the guidelines, and/or re-post the same pics submitted earlier (and often only 1-2 pages back, too);

• Lazy sots who don't even have the courtesy to post the actress' name, assuming we all must know this person simply because they do - assumption is the worst conceit, folks;

• People posting random, low-res, celebs-in-two-inch-thick fabrics, hoping that their photo will 'buck the trend'

...and so on.


"Hey, can you do this postage-sized image of Jane Fonda in a winter coat behind that tree in the dark under a new moon? Thanx!!!!!"

Simply put, there's every indication that many folks just 1) haven't read the rules, 2) aren't pre-screening, 3) aren't paying attention at all, and 3) don't respect the actual do-er's time...

...because if they did, they'd stop posting crap.


I've seen literally millions of photos over the years, and from working at my last two boards (p-w, and before that, pornbb), and the number of good candidates is literally 1 in 5-6,000 photos, if that.

That means: folks should stop posting the other 4,999 in this thread!



To be fair, most folks don't need to actually know how a microwave works in order to be able to use one - let alone build one themselves - but c'mon, folks. Make an effort here! This ain't rocket science. Be selective in what you consider before asking the artists to donate their considerable - and valuable - time.


Look, everyone knows that you need:

1) Thin Fabrics
2) High-res images
3) Good back-/flash- lighting from underneath the garment (i.e. reflection off the skin)
4) NO PATTERNS!!!! Smooth, consistent, uniform materials only
5) KNOWN celebrities with NAMES attached! No random models, girlfriends, sisters-in-law, or whatever. There's another thread for that.


If folks aren't going to learn to do this themselves - they should at least make an effort...not to try and piss off the ones that are (doing the work).

(We even had some guy trying to re-post work from this thread using a paid image host on our forums for money. I've since trashed his thread. )


Gets kinda annoying after awhile - doesn't it, guys?


Quality, not quantity.


N'est-ce pas?


Cheers,

-TL (porn-W Mod)

 

I was following you xray uni tutorial a couple of years ago but you stopped halfway.

If c-through didn't know how to xray then he wouldn't be posting.

 

Whuttup Phuners?!!! I haven't posted in this thread for a while...
I've been looking over the recent requests and thought I'd try doing a few from the "dark-material-matrix" that always seems to trick us into thinking there is something there.
Ok, so here are a few quick ones I tried:

Jennifer Love Hewitt


Mariah Carey




Sofia Vergara



Taylor Swift



Taylor Swift OG pic fixed link:


...as always, all i do is adjust lightness and darkness then adjust sharpness, then maybe a little color. Anything after that, i think goes into the fakeness dept, but thats just me. Thanks to all x-rayers that contribute to this, one of the best threads on all the internets!!! We all learn from each other!

 

Some outstanding work in this thread!

Many here do a good job, but I have to give extra credit to iCeleb. Your x-rays are the best I've seen!

 

XirD: There's a LOT of talent contributing to this thread that 'keep it real'; some works that come to mind ...

Edalmudena Fernandez by msnevil http://forum.phun.org/showthread.php?t=92874&page=118
Jorja Fox by bigreaper http://forum.phun.org/showthread.php?t=92874&page=129
Sarah Mutch by Kaleidoscope http://forum.phun.org/showthread.php?t=92874&page=752
Sophie Anderton by x-caliber0069 http://forum.phun.org/showthread.php?t=92874&page=736
Natalie Portman by opo http://forum.phun.org/showthread.php?t=92874&page=97

I remember seeing an exceptional Olivia Williams by 'c-???' but can't locate it.

 

Very nice work. If you feel like sharing, and if it's not too much trouble, could you detail the steps you took to get from point A (original) to C (finished product)? Thanks.

Alot of C-thru's earlier work was pulled by C-thru when they were discovered elsewhere on the net without any attribution (i.e., stolen).

 

max-a-million: There are too many steps to detail the process ... however, this should get you going.

The first collage shows the HSB separation where the S and B planes already show viable information. The next image is a 'negative' of the S plane in where the required flesh tones are evident. The next collage is the RGB separation where the G and B planes show more of the viable information. The last image shows the greatest common demoninator of all RGB values (aka quanta) where the required flesh tones are again emphasized.

Now the hard part ... one needs to play with the curves (remapping) and experiment with recombining the separated planes to get the magic happening. Hope this helps.

Too bad 'C-tru' pulled his work. I personally do this stuff for myself to 'see' what is being hidden and simply share my 'view'.

 

Me too, that's why I really felt bad when it was either being posted by others claiming to be their work, or worse, used on pay sites without my knowledge or permission. That's when I started watermarking my newer stuff even though I didn't want to.

 

Very Nice Work! you are a very welcome addition to phun!!!!

 

Anna Semenovich -russian figure skater

 

Scans by Blackshine, Frost and EM (w/c match original at FHM website) were combined as a composite then used as the original.



c-through: The idea of watermarking did occur to me, but die-hards that want to rip-off our content will do so anyway and will try to remove the watermarks via ugly overlays (or gaussian blurs) only to horribly recompress and introduce tons of JPEG artifacts. Also it seemed moot since I won't be presenting a 'portfolio' to anyone; anonimity is key to having phun and nurturing an avatar is not of interest ... 'xray-ing' and finding rare celeb images is by itself rewarding.

 

iCeleb: your work is already spreading
http://www.shooshtime.com/hollyrude/9681_taylor-swift-seethru-tits-1

 

OK, here, and your previous posts, and the one above where you talk about making a composite to start from, you talk about things and functions I never heard of before or never knew existed. It's all very fascinating and makes my own efforts feel primitive. Can I ask where you learned these approaches? Was it simple experimentation? Either way, you must have a vast knowledge of the photoshop program.

 

Thank you! Good to see you posting again