The Celebrity X-Ray Thread

hey just found these new pics of JLH and was wondering if they were doable? thanks !

monss!

 

I tried them as soon as I saw them monss - nothing coming through. White is tough in a bright flash situation as it reflects most of the light unless it's very thin material. JLH usually doesn't go without undergarments or something covering her important parts up anyways.

 

thanks c-through for trying and as for JLH wearing undergarments we can always dream she starts to go without right!

 

There are certain celebs that you don't even have to ask for me to try, as I try them all when I see new pics - JLH is one of them, but I'm usually disappointed. Unfortunately by the time she starts going without, She'll be in her mid 60's they will probably be around her knees. I just keep hoping one of these douchebags she's boffing will get some videotape and leak it after she dumps him.

 

ya true to that! That would be a video indeed!

 

Great post

 

A slight artifact in the .jpg compression doens't make it a nipple. Even if it was, there's no evidence of the size of the areola, so how can you just make it up? Sorry, but I have to call shenanigans.

This is another reason why you want to work with the largest images you can find, as often as they are resized & re-saved, the degredation of the increased .jpg compression makes things appear to be there which are not. Here's the HQ version of that pic, with the brightness & contrast tweaked.



Do you see anything that looks like it's got potential? Nope, neither do I. Even if that is slight bump in the general area instead of just a .jpg compression artifact, it could be nipple tape, a seam in her dress or undergarments, or any other number of things, but certainly not enough to take it to the next step.

 

Now this one has to have potential....



And how bout a little Alicia Goranson (Becky from Rosanne)

 

Ray, you can't trust any of the color information once you have to really crank up/down the brightness & contrast as it distorts it too much. You're usually better off desaturating the layer first to get rid of all color data, so it doesn't affect your perception of what you're seeing with tweaked B & C. Whatever method you use to select an area has no bearing on correct color information.

I'm sorry you're not willing to listen to reason & logic on these matters and you prefer to bury your head in the sand. knowing female anatomy is very helpful in doing this job well. A nipple is only the tip - the areola is the large normally round pigmented section surrounding the nipple, and unless you've got some sort of transparency, impression/bulge, or shadow from the other small bumps that typically surround the areola's perimeter (known at glands of Montgomery), you have no way of determining approximate areola size. The glands of Montgomery can be quite obvious and raised above the surface of the areola, giving the appearance of "goose-flesh", and can often show through thin and/or tight clothing when the nipple tissue is erect. Also, nipples are usually fairly symmetrical on both breasts even when the breasts are slightly different size. By being able to determine a nipple's position on one breast, you can also "check your work" and see if you see anything on in the correct area on the other breast; if it's not approximately where it's supposed to be, then odds are that it's just an artifact or other non-nipple feature you're seeing. You can often use other pics from the same series to help make the determination whether what you're seeing is an artifact or a real feature as artifacts usually don't reproduce themselves in multiple pics especially at slightly different angles and lighting conditions.

I go by the adage of "if it doesn't look right, it probably isn't" when making my early determinations, and prefer not to post pics where I don't have a very high probability of what's being displayed is accurate.

 

If you two are not finished with this, mind moving it into private messages? This pissing contest is really annoying and destroying what is left of this thread.

 

Don't mean to be a whiner here but No one has x-rayed any of the pics i've posted and I think at least one of the last 2 has alot of potential. Your time is greatly appreciated.

 

tbrown5175, You're welcome to actually contribute pics (or hit the button at least once) instead of just complaining when I'm just trying to improve what gets posted here for everyone. PM's are for when it applies to one person - what I posted is general knowledge on the subject of X-raying and the science behind it.

----

X-RayAddict, we do what images we feel have potential, and not all images can be done. Just because you think it has potential doesn't mean it is a good pic, and it has to interest the artist. I don't see a lot of potential in either pic.

 

So it's good to let people on here say what they got to say. But it's all so good to let those people know if they've been misinformed or have something to add to the point! I think it's cool to have these talks here as long as everyone keeps it peaceful. When it turns into two people saying the other is wrong and starts to insult them. Thats when things have gone to far. Because at the end of the day everyones final goal, is to make the best x-rays we can make and to get to see the goods in those pics. So for the JLH pics I thought they looked like they could show something but I know that are better pics out there that are way easier to x-ray. So We should move on and post pics!

Thats my thoughts on that and all I'm going to do now is keep reading the post's and looking for the pics!

 

Let me try to say this in the most respectful way I can. By posting your version of "general knowledge" in the way you do, you upset a lot of people, and make them defensive. For example, you comment about "not willing to listen to reason & logic on these matters and you prefer to bury your head in the sand." How would you feel if someone said this to you?

It seems that this manner of relating to people does the opposite of helping you "improve what gets posted here." By coming across as an egotistical prick, which I really doubt you are, people can feel alienated and give up on their desire to participate in this thread. I understand the desire to improve what gets posted here, but I don't understand how the way you reply to people gets this done.

 

Is there a lasso on paint shop pro 9 or is it only on photoshop coz i cant find it ?

 

I don't want to upset anyone, but I do want to try to open some people's eyes as to what's what when it comes to image manipulation, and what's real-vs-what's not. Maybe my words are too harsh for some, but all I ask is prove me wrong and show me some real evidence for what you're calling an x-ray. Is asking how you arrived with your results on an image that insulting? I'm always happy to show someone where it comes from as I'm proud of my work, and take it seriously.

Just so this all doesn't get to be a back & forth, here's a pic

Kristen Davis

(original, BCS, enhanced)

 

CT
Again I'll state that I like the fact that you add the BCS in to show your work . . . its a great touch

Also you & XRay won't agree and while IMO your work is more advanced XRAY contributes as well and my 2cents says just avoid each others pix and convo's bc even though this last convo started out great it ended badly.

You can both do what you do & with XCalibur adding his (plus others) you can really keep this thread rocking

 

That's awesome. What a rockin' body. Shame her face is up for question.

 

Alicia Keys

 

From a recent Leelee Sobieski post!

(I even removed the d-bag's face! Maybe that can be a new thread at phun: Hot chicks with photoshopped new faces on their dates/bf's!? Maybe? Could be funny!...
I would start it, but my PS skillz are very basic.)