Halfway There (NSFW Picture)

Quite some time ago I made a ranty post about the upcoming - at the time - appearance of Kelly Brook in a Playboy pictorial.
My concerns were that she would be merely topless, and that while this wasn't exactly something to complain about, I was hoping to see more, and that the photographers would attempt to be "artistic" by covering her from head to toe in whale's blood or used transmission fluid, or something equally idiotic. Why would they do something like that? I have no idea, but they do it all of the time.
When the magazine hit the stands I was annoyed to discover that my first concern was confirmed, but I was at least pleased that the second hadn't come to pass. Overall, they were decent shots, despite not providing the fully-nude shots I was hoping for, and there was no indication that they'd even considered tarring and feathering her or anything similar.
The other day while I was surfing one of the sites I cull reference photos of people like Kelly from, I found that she had recently posed nude for some other publication, and had, happily, decided to be considerably less modest than she had been when posing for Playboy.
So that was good.
Unfortunately, the photographer decided that we couldn't be allowed to simply enjoy fully-nude photos of Kelly Brook, and so it was decided that she would be slathered with an ever-increasing amount of red paint.
The end result is that she looks like the victim of a PETA protest - "Skin is murder!" - in most of the photos. (Except for the ones in which it looks like she slit her wrists. Sexy!)
But, on the plus side, she's totally naked.
If we could somehow combine the full nudity of those photos with the paint-free* photos of Playboy, we'd have some amazing shots.
An example of what we might have can be seen in this extremely NSFW picture I did using one of the relatively paint-free photos as a reference. (There was some smeared on her face and shoulder, but it didn't obscure the details too much to prevent me from drawing her without the paint).
It's worth noting that the answer to one of the questions I've had about Kelly that has gone unanswered due to her topless-only history is that yes, she does keep things neatly-groomed, but no, she doesn't go for the full Lex Luthor.
However, as with the paint, I was able to eliminate that from my picture, if for no other reason than the less hair that I have to draw the better...
It's also worth noting that the photo I worked from was tiny and low-resolution.

Edit: Apparently the magazine in which the photos ran has "theme" issues, and this particular "theme" was "lipstick." So that's what was smeared all over her, not paint.

Edit 2: I've been seeing a lot of traffic - hello, UK! - from people looking for the actual photos. Here you go.

*I get that everyone is different, and responds to things in ways that are often completely the opposite of how I respond to them, but I really, really don't get the appeal of covering beautiful women in dirt, grime, or viscous substances. Water? Sure. Sweat? Yeah, I'm down with that. And if you're going to go with some kind of oil, then, sure, baby oil, or something at least translucent can be great. But paint? Zero appeal. Especially when it looks like blood...though I realize that there are people who are turned on by the sight of women covered in blood, too.