The Celebrity X-Ray Thread

hmm gotta link u could send me? that would be cool

 

I know this is more of a celebrity thread but can anyone please try to xray tease model kari sweets?I would be forever in your debt.

 

Unless they have an IMDB profile, they belong in the amateur x-ray thread.

 

which i might add is a dead thread

 

Helen Mirren - See-Thru Lingerie / Dress



(Original, Enhanced)

 

Maybe so, but they still don't belong here.

 

Could it be dead because the posters cannot be bothered to post references? I've been a member here since the early noughties and it appalls me that requests are posted that expect our artists to not only do a job that takes a minimum of 45 minutes time per picture for the artist but also that the artist go out and look for the originals. It's an insult to the artist and will lead to them getting upset and their departure from the forum!
I was here when this thread was really started and the artist got upset and left.
PS Don't look at my join date, I had an aneurism and forgot my username and pass, so I had to rejoin. When I first joined there were only four or five posts per week.

 

Rebecca Romijn - See-Thru Purple Dress





(Original, Enhanced)

 

Better version using higher res 2828x4272 original.



First attempt is here ... http://forum.phun.org/showthread.php?t=92874&p=6360606&viewfull=1#post6360606

 

Hey mate,

Nice work as usual. :thumbs:

What is your technique for getting through light-colored opaques? Those always give me a bit of trouble. I usually end up with bleed-thru colors and whatnot in trying to get any detail out of 'em.

Sometimes I'll do blended legacy passes of certain characteristics as layers to correct, but I'm sure there are better ways to go about it...

Thx...cheers!

 

For you Gemma Atkinson fans: http://forum.phun.org/showthread.php?t=92874&page=161

 

Good words, dude.

Ouch! You're lucky it didn't kill ya.

 

Doesn't that belong in the fakeray thread? Her nipples are not visible at all in the original picture, and you've drawn them on with the burn tool for this effect. I mean, it's nice work, but this isn't really an X-Ray.

 

Two ways of doing it ... iterative MULTIPLY or iterative CURVES (via PS).

Essentially, you MULTIPLY (or reapply CURVES mod) to the same picture until it gets really dark ... in the darkness you will see the desired 'detail' that is kept while everything else is isolated (as a layer) then recombined into the final pic. See the Megan Fox instructable I did a while back ...

http://forum.phun.com/showthread.php?t=92874&p=6334496&viewfull=1#post6334496

 

Louise 'Loo' Brealey (Molly Hooper in Sherlock) - See-Thru Blouse



(Original, Enhanced, Final/Color Correct)

Thanks mate, I was looking at those earlier myself. Seems like you multiply and then flatten layers as you go, not duplicate 3x and then flatten, correct? I've generally had more success/history with iterative curves and a few other things, though for images like the Fox pic, multiply seems to work fairly well also, from my 'experiments'. All depends on the source...

I think you've simply had more experience with these, too - mine never look quite like yours.


Cheers,


-TL

 

Sharon Tate - Nipples Thru Wet T-Shirt





(Original, Enhanced)

 

Create a region of interest (ROI) mask

Step-1 Multiply (1st pass, layer ROI w/ original)
Step-2 Multiply (2nd pass, iterative, layer ROI w/ original)
Step-3 Manually combine desired highlights from Step-1 image with midtones+shadows from Step-2 image
Step-4 Manually remap saturation plane only (individually adjust highlights, midtones, shadows)
Step-5 Selectively combine shadows from Step-3 image with Step-4 image
Step-6 Selectively combine highlights from Step-4 image with Step-5 image

Selective combinations are two images (layers); use the Eraser tool to erase to background. If one layer has more detail, you slowly erase to the layer with desired details. Similarly, if one layer has better colors, you 'erase' to that layer. Set the eraser tool Opacity and Flow between 5%-33% and experiment with results. Use the 'Blending' feature to get in-between results and save a copy. Many times you may want to go back to another version to recombine for better results.

 

Thanks iC,

That helps quite a bit. I was wondering how/if you gamma'd all the layers to return them to comparable brightness without washing 'em out or pixelating the parts you wanted to keep, but in this case you'd simplified your earlier explanation for brevity's sake, I take it...like most things in life, it's (far) more involved than that.

You're right, my better work has generally been through using iterative passes and combining certain layers also (i.e. when I'm not feeling lazy/pressed for time), with the exception of ones like the Helen Mirren post earlier, where a good two-point (actually, four point, if you count the entry/exit points, since two points is technically a straight line!) curve will get you ~60% of the way there already.

I did notice I tend to try and create a sharper amount of detail than you like to use (I like to see those nipples 'pop'!) on occasion, but that of course can create its own issues - namely, exposing more of the imperfections, artifacts, and the like that are present in the image, either pre- or post- processing. There is (almost) always a trade-off, and one has to decide which items take precedence over the other(s). Sometimes, subtler is better with these...

I'll dig into your great elucidation in more detail next week, most likely - cheers!


-TL


P.S. Once I upgrade this 7-year-old laptop, I'll most likely be replacing my 8-year-old image software, too - even if it's like a 'comfortable old shoe'. Probably wouldn't hurt.

(The greatest differences still come from skill, not software, though, I'm sure)

 

Joyce DeWitt (Three's Company) - Wet and Busting Through a One-Piece



(Original, Curves Edit, Multiply Edit)

Just a few different edits to compare techniques (I think the multiply pass looks better). I also enlarged the original 30% (yes, I know!), because you never want to have an image where the long side (at 100%) is shorter than an erect penis.


Love to see what iC (or c-t) could do with this one...need a better source, though.

 

Morgan Fairchild - Sheer Pantyhose/Nude



(Original, Lower Only, Lower & Upper)


Might take another (more involved) pass at that top later, time permitting.