>>4113681They do not look like a nat geo cover. The framing is wrong and there is zero context to give that impression. Nat geo has never plopped a picture down on crude yellow frame without the context of a magazine cover. You only come up with the silly correlation to nat geo because there is a thread with a nat geo cover op in the catalog right now. Observed on their own these pictures look like pictures glued to yellow construction paper by a kindergartner. The yellow border of these images distracts from the images because it is crude and ugly, not because it resembles a nat geo cover.
