• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Enterprise pron: post your pretty finds here!

Chrisisall

Commodore
Commodore
StarTrek_starship_Enterprise_NCC170.jpg
 
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.
 
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.

Personally, I thought it was going to be a link to two versions of the Enterprise having sex, you know, something like the humping AT-ATs. Rule 34 says it exists somewhere...
 

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?
 
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?

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.)
 
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*:lol:

I never know which pictures to [hot]link to without causing violations / infringments, so should I just direct you to websites you've already been to, or back issues of STARLOG and CFQ that have full or two page pics that capture what I mention? PM me and I'll provide you a list.
 
I never know which pictures to [hot]link to without causing violations
Easiest way I know is to go to Photobucket & grab images for your "album." It's free & easy, AND not a site violation here.;)
And there are other places too. But I'm lazy.:devil:
 
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?
 
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?

Not the only ones, but the selling images, the ones that are writ lare and matter.

Christ, I've still got the mockup of MY proposal for ART OF STAR TREK in storage here, done back in 1992. It has more art -- photographic AND other -- in it than the published version they coughed up a few years later, and it even has layouts for pages, where you have a thumbnail sketch, a larger piece of concept art, then a frame blow up, to trace evolution on a design. Part of my proposal was that you could do something with a disk insert or supplement (sort of like what they did years later with that INVISIBLE ART matte painting book) so you'd have motion studies available as well.

I guess that was too high-end for their tastes, since they loved the pitch and solicited the material and then would never even acknowledge receipt. But regardless, they WERE smart enough to realize really nice photos of props and such were terrific things to focus on ... then again, they also wasted pages with TMP storyboards that shouldn't have been repro'd so large, and diluted it further by covering way too much instead of focusing on one aspect.

To get a better idea of what I'm talking about, I'd suggest you look at the last 30 odd years of SW illustrated volumes, to see how much of it is derived from photographic or physical reference, and then see how highly esteemed those volumes are, esp relative to other makingof stuff.
 
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.

And on one level, I'd concede that. But when you're talking about a frame blowup, or a still depicting the principal element of a frame from the film, then you're talking about the director's conception, and therefore it is representative of the movie itself and is a thing apart from just being a conception.
 
The Romulan Star Empire will not stand idly by and allow the Federation to freely dominate this thread.

R_Small.png


We. Are back.
 
^^ Love the color, much more foreboding then the old green. Wish they'd do every Romulan ship like that.

Technically, this is an enterprise, so for my contribution:

 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top