xray

File: a02.png (728KB, 720x780px) Image search: [Google]

728KB, 720x780px

>>14149896

File: a03.png (407KB, 1100x720px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 1100x720px

>>14149898

File: a04.png (610KB, 1100x960px) Image search: [Google]

610KB, 1100x960px

>>14149899

File: a05.png (188KB, 500x482px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 500x482px

>>14149902

File: a06.png (572KB, 1000x654px) Image search: [Google]

572KB, 1000x654px

>>14149903

File: a07.png (2MB, 1310x1690px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1310x1690px

>>14149905

File: a08.png (455KB, 800x720px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 800x720px

>>14149906

File: a09.png (385KB, 900x531px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 900x531px

>>14149907

File: 2015-08-08 15.29.43.png (103KB, 192x255px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 192x255px

Boobs?

File: 1440441590324.jpg (297KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 640x960px

Ass?

File: a10.png (337KB, 775x647px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 775x647px

>>14149910

>>14149912

Terrible pattern

>>14149913

I don't do asses.

I'll check back later.

cancer of /r/...l2shop op

>>14149924

I will do these later.

I used to shop -- professional grade. I SWITCHED to xray because: (1) faster (no need to hunt for body match and (2) more interesting and accurate (the result is real -- with real nip size, location, etc.)

Granted -- the result doesn't necessarily look as good because the process involves massive removal of pixels resulting in a very degraded image, but I still prefer it.

It can also be used to produce truly accurate shoops. Xray first to determine real appearance and possibly real skintone (pink or brown, for instance) -- and then shoop to a matching image. That truly takes a long, long time, though.

>>14149936
>professional grade
>produce truly accurate shoops
>xray -> removal of pixels (wat?!)

crawl up from the rabbit hole alice, meanwhile post some professional grade stuff you have done

>>14149952
>>14149952

You obviously don't understand the xray processif you don't know that it involves removal of pixels. A digital image is organized in layers of pixels based on color levels or color channels. Due to optical physics and the characteristics of light, digital photo has often captured light that has penetrated clothes but not skin -- so light reflected from skin. In proper light conditions, this light can discretely cluster at a particular light level or channel. Legit xraying involves isolating that level or channel -- AND THEN REMOVING THE OTHER PIXELS so that channel is all that is left. The result is a low-res,l low-grade, often eroded, often noisy or pixelated image. This then needs to be smoothed and mutiplied (pixel repopulation). Also, the removal of color levels usually results in an inaccurate color because other colors have been edited out. Colors need to be adjusted and added back in -- but that is additional of colors, not pixels. The only addition of pixels should be by pixel multiplication -- so what is already there becomes more there.

When I shooped, I would try to work from a skinmatched, lightmatched, posematched, anglematched image. That took a ton of hunting. I would then blend and smooth the edges -- which is readily apparent at high magnification. It still took forever and I was never sure if I shopped large brown nips where there should be small pink nips ...

>>14149982
I hope you're still in school, if not go back

File: cancer.webm (1MB, 739x810px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 739x810px

>>14149982
loads of bs-talk for 5 sec level job...anyways still waiting for those proshops you have done

>>14150073

Yeah -- 1. You are not going to get my old shops. 2. My method does not start with, and often doesn't even use, levels unless I am working with white or very light clothes. None of the posts here started with levels -- and only two or three used levels at all. I was using channels.

File: 7dbdb990f72d7a19a1a90abd06653974eb4aec01ce42f2c83668a5f853f86091.jpg (39KB, 500x374px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x374px

>>14150088
>You are not going to get my old shops

>>14150088
>I was using channels
>and often doesn't even use, levels

wtf you think levels adjust pro-shopper?!

This thread is comedy gold

File: wtfimreading.jpg (25KB, 613x533px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 613x533px

>>14149982

File: 33.png (2MB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 750x1334px

just passing through

File: Untitled-1.png (839KB, 716x960px) Image search: [Google]

839KB, 716x960px

>>14150118

I mean I used the channels filter not the levels histogram you showed. I was describing tool, not metaprocess.

>>14149919

>>14150152

That already looks burned. Do you have original?

File: Untitled-1.png (997KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

997KB, 750x1334px

>>14149939

File: 8dc5953d-165f-45f5-abc7-3ed0e79856c4.jpg (22KB, 433x347px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 433x347px

>>14150153
psst....it's called channel mixer (not filter) and it does the same thing as levels/curves tool do (minus composition channel)

>>14150171

I'm using these color manipulation tools as filters -- so I call them filters.

Thanks for bumping.

File: red_bucket.jpg (45KB, 351x450px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 351x450px

>>14150193
yeah...and if you put this bucket on your head it becomes a hat, makes sense
>Thanks for bumping.
you wish...sage (giving you hide for free)

>>14150211

If you wore the bucket as a hat, it would be a hat.

File: 000000000000.jpg (2MB, 3000x2767px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2767px

xray request the girl in black blouse and white/black skirt

>>14150218

As a rule, I don't do celebrities. That's a reddit thing.

>>14150152
Thank

File: 555707_4051654622787_1254683506_n~2.jpg (137KB, 548x548px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 548x548px

Please