I've often thought about starting a photog agency along the lines of the big names, but having each member have a share in the agency and retain 50% of income from the sale of their images rather than giving up copyright, the remaining % is pooled to pay for setup and ongoing costs the balance distributed at the end of each year to each member.
How would it be less spectacular if it was a dolphin.
It got a reaction out of you, didn't it?
It is a dolphin though. Sorry to disapoint.... ;-)
kj
DP,
There are a few agency's like that already.
They have online libraries and you keep your copyright and they take a 50% split.
I shoot for one like that and I had another approach me last week.....
I was tempted by the other because it was more world wide, but I'll stay where I am for the moment...
I'm afraid I can'tcompete with the fantastic pictures in this thread, so I'm feeling somewhat outclassed here.. but let's just say that they definately inspire you to get out and attempt to emulate the quality in some small way next year.
The ONLY way I'd consider this photo MORE spectacular would be to have Cameron Diaz riding naked on its back.
This shot is SPECTACULAR. No ifs and buts about it!
I didn't say it wasn't spectacular like this, just that it's more spectacular if it would have been a shark Well anyway most people wouldn't see the the difference so in that respect it doesn't really matter.
It's just the fact that a shark is more likely to bite off your leg than a dolphin, right?
Been away from my computer for several days, and just now seeing this thread. Some awesome photos. I keep coming back to this photo. Double play in progress between SF Giants and SD Padres. Night game, taken at ISO 1250. http://image.pbase.com/u37/wingspar/upload/23835024.giants15sm_1264.jpg
?
Well anyway most people wouldn't see the the difference so in that respect it doesn't really matter.