In June, I posted about a pinup calendar where the model was somewhat more naked than naked: in fact, the pictures were all X-rays!
I was fascinated by the implied raciness of the pictures, given that at best all you could see was a hint of curves. The poses themselves were provocative as well, and I wanted to spark a discussion of it.
One thing that should have occurred to me but didn’t was how the pictures themselves were made. Was a model exposed to X-rays? How much were the images enhanced? Were they real at all?
Well, now I know. An article at Radiology Daily gives the lowdown: no models were irradiated in the making of the calendar. The pictures were all CGI, though based on models in Playboy.
The interesting thing about the article, though, is that they do discuss the implied raciness, just as I did:
"Obviously, we didn’t want to expose models to dangerous radiation," [calendar art director] Schlichte said told Financial Times Deutschland. So the artists consulted a few issues of Playboy to determine "what poses look erotic if you’re not actually seeing anything," she said. Then they had a computer generate those poses in skeletal form.
As for "not actually seeing anything," that’s not quite accurate. Schlichte noted, "Anyone taking a close look at Miss April can see two silicon bags floating in front of her thorax."
Ha! I was thinking of using April in my original article, but decided the more obvious breasts (and the more suggestive pose, truth be told) made it a bit too adult for the blog. I chose February, where they’re a bit less ostentatious.
All in all, I think this was an interesting idea, and it certainly did get the conversation going in the comments!
Tip o’ the lead fedora to Babloggee Eric B.
August 16th, 2010 at 7:12 am
BUSTED!
I’ll go now…
August 16th, 2010 at 7:27 am
Still waiting for someone to do a Victoria’s Circuit catalog.
August 16th, 2010 at 7:46 am
Ha! I said it back then that they looked CGI. I even mentioned the commercially available female model, which has a skeleton available for it.
I love being right.
August 16th, 2010 at 7:49 am
Yet another image women can’t possibly hope to live up to!
August 16th, 2010 at 7:54 am
Any qualified radiologist would have seen right through this hoax in the beginning!
August 16th, 2010 at 9:21 am
Am I being too pedantic if I say that it should be “silicone”, not “silicon”?
August 16th, 2010 at 9:35 am
The last thing this country needs right now is an army of radiation-doused 200-foot tall mutant Playboy models roaming the land in search of massive amounts of silicone and botox, while leaving a path of destruction and traumatized teenage boys in their wakes. In the name of all that is holy, these experiments must be stopped and stopped now before it’s too late!
August 16th, 2010 at 9:37 am
All CGI and *not* real models being X-rayed after all? Well, that’s just bone idol!
I’m not surprised to read this, its what I suspected before. Still its a neat idea even if there were a few unstated “skeletons in the closet” with it.
I guess it proves there *is* such a thing as being too thin and bony & taking the skeletal look too far. Have a feed girls, we like you better that way!
(Just joking
ladieswomenwymyn, whatever you call yourselves that’s PC these days! You eat what you choose, I don’t tell you what to do its all your choice. I just say what floats my boat or not .. A-n-y-w-a-y ..)@6. Jim Seymour Says:
Not sure – but don’t let that stop you anyhow, it never stops me!
August 16th, 2010 at 9:44 am
I wondered the same thing when I first saw them, and thought the images were too good to be . . .
Hmmmm. Mmmmm.
Sorry, I drifted away for a minute there, pondering the horror of Mike from Tribeca’s post. The horror.
August 16th, 2010 at 10:24 am
Brian Fies — just imagine the horrible damage they could cause with those giant staples.
August 16th, 2010 at 10:25 am
The weirdest x-ray images I’ve seen were a couple of x-ray videos of myself. Due to radiation therapy for an oral cancer, I lost the ability to swallow for several months and retraining was a surprising long process. In order to determine what/when/how it was safe for me to swallow different substances, an ex-ray study was done, in which I had to swallow different things while the experts watched in real time. I was able to see the display. It’s really a strange to see your jaw, etc., in skeletal profile, moving while you’re doing it! Not an exercise I recommend, but it probably moved me along toward eating solid food. I really want to be rid of the stomach tube before Thanksgiving dinner.
August 16th, 2010 at 10:40 am
There should be at least one mention of X-ray artist Nick Veasey in this discussion…
http://www.nickveasey.com/
He uses a LOT of radiation in his works…so he works with a corpse instead of a living model…if you like the calendar you might like his work:
http://www.nickveasey.com/
August 16th, 2010 at 10:59 am
As engineer in the medical image area, when i saw those pictures i miss the disgusting shape of lungs, intestine, and others you can se in a real digital x-ray images.
The soft tissue is really visible and the bones are more strong than those traslucent girls.
Eizo is a recognized brand of medical monitors, so this advertisement is made thinking in a bunch of nasty phisycians, and engineers like me.
August 16th, 2010 at 10:59 am
Silicon bags? She has SAND IN HER B00BS?!
August 16th, 2010 at 11:17 am
It looks like they were exposed to X-rays to me but if they say CGI I guess I believe them. Interesting stuff.
August 16th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
It was pretty obvious (at least to the cg community where this also made the rounds) that these were cg.
But to point out a bigger mistake in the quoted article:
“…Then they had a computer generate those poses in skeletal form.”
Sorry, but no computer automagically generates specific poses of 3d modeled characters based on photos. Line should read “Then an artist used a computer to match the poses to the Playboy samples”, or something to that effect.
Once again, the computer does all the work.
August 16th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Called it in the last thread.
August 16th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
@14 Christopher Ambler
You know when they feel just like a bag of sand…? Ah, me-so-stupid!
August 16th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Wasn’t there an Onion News recently like this . . . I guess they aren’t so much comedians as profits these days.
August 16th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
@16 I think the author intended to imply “generate the image of the pose” when he wrote generate the pose. I’ve heard photographers talk about “snapping a pose” where as they are actually snapping a picture of the pose. Honestly, I can’t imagine being that pedantic about things.
August 16th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Not an X-Ray, and it’s so obvious. Some parts show up bright while other parts that should be brighter are darker while other parts that should be darker are indeed darker – a case of selective changes in the laws of physics. Not to mention I can’t imagine many X-rays on the planet being of the required size …
The inconsistency in the alleged X-ray absorption is also seen in the soft tissue. However, I love the art – I think it’s pretty neat.
(On another note: if it were real, you have some pretty serious deformities in your bones – freak!)
August 16th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
@20 Well, the difference there is you didn’t say “The camera snapped a pose.”
Pedantic, perhaps, but accurate. My point was it was a human doing it, not a machine. Big difference.
August 16th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
<>
The Deleks interrupt a Playboy shot, the model got it first just at the right moment. The photographer escapes via the quick action of the Doctor with his camera of course.
The photographer becomes famous for his new art form at the end of the episode.
<>
August 17th, 2010 at 3:22 am
@22 Pedantic, perhaps, but accurate. My point was it was a human doing it, not a machine. Big difference.
I agree with you here.
The way it comes across in the article is that the artists had a cracking time ‘researching’ reference material in Playboy, then hit the big ‘Scan Model and Generate Posed 3D Character in X-Ray Form’ button. That would take something away from the artists who will have meticulously matched the pose of the 3D model with that of the reference.
August 17th, 2010 at 4:22 am
IIRC, in the previous discussion, someone pointed out that if you click on the pic to follow the link, you can get to a list of credits that included “CGI artist”.
So it’s not rocket science to know that these were CG-ed.
August 17th, 2010 at 4:29 am
Jim Seymour (6) said:
Not at all. Some chemists are firmly of the opinion that coining the term “silicone” was one of the stupidest acts of nomenclature of the 20th century.
Apparently, the chemists were trying to create a type of functional group known as a ketone, but using silicon-oxygen chemistry instead of carbon-oxygen (the simplest ketone is acetone, CH3COCH3). Instead of small molecules, they found that the reaction mixture generated a polymer, and then someone else noticed that silicone polymers (there are several different chemistries) had properties that were useful in their own right.
Anyhow, the name “silicone” comes from the idea of a ketone made using silicon chemistry, because all simple ketones have names that end in “-one” (acetone, butanone, pentanone, quinone, pregnenolone, dihydro-isoepiandrosterone and many others).
August 17th, 2010 at 9:55 am
@14. Christopher Ambler Says:
No, they’re silicon chips .. Run, she’s an android! (Or run the android, whichever you prefer.)
@23. ggremlin Says:
Nice one. Except while I can see this happening once a dozen times is a bit hard to accept!
BTW. I believe Jo Grant (or rather the actress who played her – whose name I’ve forgotten) once posed with a Dalek for Playboy magazine. I kid you not.
August 17th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Jo Grant was played by Katy Manning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katy_Manning
Apparently she returned for a spot in The Sara Jane Adventures, a show which I believe is now concluded.
http://jontrouten.blogspot.com/2010/04/jo-grant-returns-to-doctor-who.html
The Wikipedia article on Daleks says Katy Manning appeared nude with one in a Playboy photo shoot but Playboy never used the images. It says they were later published in Girl Illustrated.
I did not search any further.
August 17th, 2010 at 11:54 am
The brightness changes are a dead giveaway if you look close. The bones of her right foot look brighter when they are behind her left leg than otherwise.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
I thought that those were articulated skeletons a-la-Nick Veasey plus photoshopped “flesh”… but probably all-CGI was faster & cheaper.
(Nick Veasey uses industrial X-ray machinery, BTW, and so these images are quite doable with only a few exposures)
August 18th, 2010 at 7:06 am
As I recall, a huge number of people knew those were fake from the get-go. never thought, and still don’t think they’re racy though.