It’s a mashup, and not actually a children’s book from 1971.
Petre and Janovic.
Are you sure? That design work and the color pallette look pretty 70’s to me.
That fire looks pretty photo realistic. I don’t think most people have the skills to alter such things.
Quoting the image’s creator, Flamenco Sun, from Flickr:
Another digital mash up by me
Next you’ll be telling me this isn’t real.
Here’s the original page from “Things We Like 3A”, part of the Key Words reading series. The linked post doesn’t date it, but I’d say it’s from the 1960s not 1970s.
On edit: Wow. Little girls’ dresses were really short then.
I am dunno. I am pretty sure you photoshopped out the fire and guns. I can tell by the pixels.
It is from the 60s. The illustration is by J.H. Wingfield.
The books were redrawn in the 70s by Martin Aitchison.
Disclaimer: I collect Ladybird books.
ETA
Some side by side comparisons of the 60s and 70s versions.
Why do they call it ladybirds.
It’s a BUG - not a BIRD.
Isn’t it a beetle?
They’re not all ladies, either. Funny thing, language.
Good question, but it’s not a bug either.
Good point. Still, lady bug makes 2x more since that lady bird.
Must be a British thing, like when they add extra vowels to words like colour for no reason.
Those vowels were already there, it’s you lot that thought it’d be a good idea to drop them for no reason.
Ladybird Johnson was British?
Lady Bird? She was aristocracy.
In certain US print runs, they were Ladybug books - at the local British expat/Anglophile store, they had both, depending on the book and where they sourced that particular shipment from.
