There are several here that are both a massive improvement AND still belong on LBC.
“Keeper” is a weird one, because while I think it’s probably objectively better (though still pretty bad), it no longer has the WTF? factor that caused me to click on the link back when it first appeared on the site. It’s gone from “So Bad I Have to Know What This Is About” to just lousy.
That’s gotta be deliberate, right? You couldn’t possibly create that…look…by accident, couldja?
I mean, I keep thinking of all the cakes I see, over on Cakewrecks, that are unintentionally, hilariously wrong and lewd, and nobody “saw” it until the damage was done. (For example, there are a number of “Rapunzel trapped in the tower, with her hair cascading down the outside of the tower) that look like…well, you’d have to see them. I can’t do them justice describing them.) Is it possible that they just don’t SEE this? (for an example: https://www.cakewrecks.com/home/2020/1/23/part-of-my-world and view the image of the little girl blowing out a candle on her “pony” cake and whilst there, look ever-so-slightly to the left, to the, er, tower-with-rapunzel-cake to her right. Uh.oh….)
If you look at it full size, where you can immediately see that it’s a picture of a woman, the *ahem* other connotation doesn’t spring out at you. That’s the problem with never looking at your cover in thumbnail when you’re designing…
Dude…okay, I believe you. However, may I say, when I clicked “updated cover,” I was taken to the Amazon Sales page and even on my rather large desktop monitors–bigger than the average bear–the immediate image is even worse. There, it looks like not only..well, “front-bottom” as the Brits say, but the ENTIRE hoo-hah, from front to back, (including all the “bits,” y’know) from a very, very unfortunate angle.
I do not see how ANYONE with two eyes could miss it, even without viewing it in thumbnail, simply by glancing at the Amazon Sales page. I know that it’s not just me and Myk here. I’ll bet all her friends giggle their asses off every time they think about that cover!
It’s just..bad-bad-bad-bad-bad. (Perhaps we can get this cover together with Cakewreck’s, er, Rapunzel cake!)
Note the watermark on the new “Into the Ether” cover. The fact that it appears over the title text suggests to me that this cover doesn’t contain a stolen image; it is a stolen image.
Did the author commission someone to design a cover for them and then use it without paying them? Because that would be a special kind of scumbaggery…
There are several here that are both a massive improvement AND still belong on LBC.
“Keeper” is a weird one, because while I think it’s probably objectively better (though still pretty bad), it no longer has the WTF? factor that caused me to click on the link back when it first appeared on the site. It’s gone from “So Bad I Have to Know What This Is About” to just lousy.
On the new cover for “All’s Well that Ends,” is anybody else seein’ what I’m seein’?????? Or…am I hallucinating that, er, effect?
I was! My comment didnt post for some reason! I’m glad it wasn’t just me!
That’s gotta be deliberate, right? You couldn’t possibly create that…look…by accident, couldja?
I mean, I keep thinking of all the cakes I see, over on Cakewrecks, that are unintentionally, hilariously wrong and lewd, and nobody “saw” it until the damage was done. (For example, there are a number of “Rapunzel trapped in the tower, with her hair cascading down the outside of the tower) that look like…well, you’d have to see them. I can’t do them justice describing them.) Is it possible that they just don’t SEE this? (for an example: https://www.cakewrecks.com/home/2020/1/23/part-of-my-world and view the image of the little girl blowing out a candle on her “pony” cake and whilst there, look ever-so-slightly to the left, to the, er, tower-with-rapunzel-cake to her right. Uh.oh….)
Could this cover be THAT cake?
If you look at it full size, where you can immediately see that it’s a picture of a woman, the *ahem* other connotation doesn’t spring out at you. That’s the problem with never looking at your cover in thumbnail when you’re designing…
Dude…okay, I believe you. However, may I say, when I clicked “updated cover,” I was taken to the Amazon Sales page and even on my rather large desktop monitors–bigger than the average bear–the immediate image is even worse. There, it looks like not only..well, “front-bottom” as the Brits say, but the ENTIRE hoo-hah, from front to back, (including all the “bits,” y’know) from a very, very unfortunate angle.
I do not see how ANYONE with two eyes could miss it, even without viewing it in thumbnail, simply by glancing at the Amazon Sales page. I know that it’s not just me and Myk here. I’ll bet all her friends giggle their asses off every time they think about that cover!
It’s just..bad-bad-bad-bad-bad. (Perhaps we can get this cover together with Cakewreck’s, er, Rapunzel cake!)
I must be blind because I didn’t see any of that. I just saw a girl wearing a shawl.
Ja, but vhat does ZIS ink blot remind you uff?
Note the watermark on the new “Into the Ether” cover. The fact that it appears over the title text suggests to me that this cover doesn’t contain a stolen image; it is a stolen image.
Did the author commission someone to design a cover for them and then use it without paying them? Because that would be a special kind of scumbaggery…