TULIP

I will not have a cable for my laptop until next weekend, so in the meantime all images this week will be from older stock. You may notice my real name appears on them as these are my copyrighted images from my sales site. I will answer emails and comments as and when I can. Basically when I can get access via the and only internet cafe or my partners laptop, when it's free, which isn't that often.

Hopefully the laptop situation will soon be sorted in the meantime it's given me the opportunity to peruse my old stock images and here's one I found, long forgotten about that was taken in my own home in Ramsey earlier this ths year.

Even I can name the flower here. Obviously it's a tulip, but a tulip with a twist a study in black and white. This is me playing around with composition, textures, light and monochrome using a macro lens. I nickname this my "Ikea" image. It's the kind of image multi chain stores charge a fortune for, even though they are mass produced, therefore paying for the name of the store rather than the photographer or an idividual image. I disagree with this philosophy. I sell this image en mass, therefore the price is reflected as such, and the image is priced as per my other images, a lot cheaper than Ikea and the like. If this photo were for a sole client, a unique piece of artwork, then the price would reflect that and obviously retail at a higher premium. Does anyone else agree with me on this, or am I a lone voice tilting at modern day corporate windmills?