If you make a derivative work of a GPL work, then the one downstream licensing requirement that the GPLv3 makes of you is in 5(c):
You must license the entire [modified] work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.
This means that -- regardless of whatever else you do -- you must make your derivative work available under the GPL. You may also, separately, license your own contributions to the derivative work under some other GPL-compatible license(s), so that if the GPL components are completely and cleanly removed (such that the work is no longer a derivative of the GPL components) then the GPL no longer has any effect on the work, and only your license remains.
Note that section 5 of the GPL requires you to include the "preferred form for making modifications" (i.e., the "source code"). If you used image-editing software like Photoshop or the GIMP (or even PowerPoint), this requirement probably compels you to include a copy of the original file when distributing the finished product. This can get a bit awkward if you're distributing actual physical prints of the image, but in that case your distribution appears to be "in, or embodied in, a physical product" under section 5, and you can accompany the work with either the source files or a written offer for the source (but note that this compels you to honor requests for the source code for at least three years).
As for whether a book that included such an image would need to be licensed under the GPL, this comes down to whether the use creates a derivative work or a collective work, and whether copyright law allows the license of the smaller work to place any restrictions on the larger work in this particular context. Unfortunately, the GPL has limited case law, so there are quite a few unknowns about what boundaries its copyleft provisions can and cannot cross. If I wanted to do this, I would certainly consult an experienced attorney.
To address MadHatter's answer, section 5(c) of the GPL says "This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way" which seems to suggest that if your work has a GPL component, you must license it exclusively under the GPL -- to do otherwise appears to be operating outside of the license. The license says that "it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it," but this almost certainly refers to case where you receive the original work under more than one license: if you receive a work under the GPL and then later under the BSD license, this clause merely clarifies that your more permissive BSD-granted rights are in no way affected by having previously received a separate GPL license grant.
If I am wrong, and you can in fact license the modified work under another more permissive license concurrently with the GPL, then the fact remains that a downstream recipient of your work who wants to redistribute it further must also include the GPL in the list of licenses she distributes it under.
For example: Alice downloads a GPL-licensed work Foo and uses it to create a derivative work Bar. GPLv3 5(c) (or GPLv2 2(b)) requires that she license the entire work under the GPL and include the source code (the "preferred from for making modifications", which may or may not be the normal work itself, for an image) when distributing the work, per section 5 of the GPLv3.
MatHatter's argument here is that Alice could also license the work under a more permissive license like the MIT license. I suppose that's true, based on my reading of the license text. However, there is a substantial catch; read on.
Bob receives Alice's modified work Bar and wants to distribute it further. Normally, under a dual-licensing scheme, Bob can choose to receive Bar under either the MIT license or the GPL. However, because Bar is a work derived from Foo, the GPL on Foo requires him to license the modified work Bar under the GPL (in addition to, I suppose, whatever other GPL-compatible licenses he likes).
As you can see, licensing a work derived from a GPL-licensed work under anything other than the GPL is not much different from licensing your component contributions under a GPL-compatible license and letting the entire work be under the GPL only.