No, just pretty or novel.Does it have to be the original?
Does it have to be the original? Also, this thread's title is humorously misleading. For a moment, thought this would be a repeat of that thread that started with Jolene Blalock in a wet shirt or somesuch.
I really hate that image. Isn't that the ART OF STAR TREK cover Knoll did? A zillion nice large format pics of starship models to choose from and THAT is what they put on the cover. Probably the same crowd that decided computer paintings made for better calendars than images of physical objects.
I really hate that image. Isn't that the ART OF STAR TREK cover Knoll did? A zillion nice large format pics of starship models to choose from and THAT is what they put on the cover. Probably the same crowd that decided computer paintings made for better calendars than images of physical objects.
Jesus Christ. So you have it out for hand-painted images too, huh? What, is it not small and plastic enough for you?
*THIS POST IS USELESS WITHOUT PICTURES*why settle for something like this when you can have some beautiful and detailed image of a physical object?
*THIS POST IS USELESS WITHOUT PICTURES*why settle for something like this when you can have some beautiful and detailed image of a physical object?![]()
Easiest way I know is to go to Photobucket & grab images for your "album." It's free & easy, AND not a site violation here.I never know which pictures to [hot]link to without causing violations
That was a good thread, too. It's unfortunate people here seem to have issues with female nipples.For a moment, thought this would be a repeat of that thread that started with Jolene Blalock in a wet shirt or somesuch.
That's classic. Prolly my favourite.I've always liked this one![]()
As far as I know, the Knoll stuff wasn't handpainted.
But even if it was, why settle for something like this when you can have some beautiful and detailed image of a physical object? If this were getting painted on the side of a plane, I guess it'd be okay. But for a book cover, I'd want a photo of Marilyn, not an artist's conception of her (not even Warhol.)
I'd argue a photo is an artist's conception.But for a book cover, I'd want a photo of Marilyn, not an artist's conception of her (not even Warhol.)
As far as I know, the Knoll stuff wasn't handpainted.
There's little thumbnails under the main cover image on the book that look like under sketches and first color washes for a painting. It sure looks like a painting.
But even if it was, why settle for something like this when you can have some beautiful and detailed image of a physical object? If this were getting painted on the side of a plane, I guess it'd be okay. But for a book cover, I'd want a photo of Marilyn, not an artist's conception of her (not even Warhol.)
It's an art book. About art. Full of concept drawings and paintings. It kind of fits the theme.
Seriously, I don't understand what this is with you, where only photographs of plastic/resin/metal/whatever miniatures are perceived as having any artistic value. What is that?
I'd argue a photo is an artist's conception.But for a book cover, I'd want a photo of Marilyn, not an artist's conception of her (not even Warhol.)
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.