|
11/26 |
2009/12/10-2010/1/13 [Uncategorized] UID:53589 Activity:nil |
12/9 NSFW but.. http://www.sexuallycorrect.com/cxr-sample.htm so are they reversing the photoshopping of the original image? (indicating that there is data left there?) Or are they just drawing over? \_ I don't know but I bet Jackie Johnson has a bigger boob. And she's in Los Angeles, the greatest city in the world. \_ http://www.metacafe.com/watch/400249/photoshop_x_ray_trick_see_through_clothes \_ yes but *why* does it work, and can this be used on other types of images. \_ Your camera can see a much wider dynamic range than you. This is best on RAW images where it keeps spectrums that eyes don't capture well. I wonder if infrared cameras are better for this type of stuff. \_ It's basically just emphasizing colors in the image which are already there, but subtle. -tom |
www.sexuallycorrect.com/cxr-sample.htm About a year ago I came across a place called "Celebrity X-ray" which turned out to be a place where various imagining artists using a Photoshop program to manipulate a female celebrity image so that you can actually see through the cloths they are wearing. Of course, that's assuming there not wearing undergarments or strategic items to help cover up nipples or bush. And not every image can be manipulated because of low quality resolution or clothing that simply does not lend itself to manipulation. These guys do a very nice job and clearly these photos belong in the OOPS section because the celeb's never intended for you to see what you're seeing. There are some celebrity images that I don't bother with like Pam Anderson or a popular nude model because what would be the point since you can see them nude anytime on the net. Rather I concentrate on images of women who have never done anything nude or done so little that it's fun to see them or what they have under the clothing. I'm going to post these images as they become available and I will also do a directory so you can look up the women I've posted. |