The basketball shot- post processed looks great. Nice and sharp. The baseball shots look pretty good. Hard to tell at this size though.
I think you're right on your lens BFing. If it were me, and you're thinking of a 300/4 I would sell the 80-200 or send it in for service and get a Sigma 100-300/4. You can sometimes find used copies for $600 or so. As much as I currently hate Sigma, I've never read anything bad about this particular Sigma lens.
It would make a nice daylight sports lens and will take a 1.4tc if needed.
Never give up You're getting so close.
Gene
Thanks! So you think from the soccer examples it looks like it's BF, correct? I think in the first soccer shot the kid behind him looks sharp but he doesn't. That happened in a LOT of my soccer pics (more than 1/2) but in baseball I didn't seem to have that problem at all (????). I thought it was maybe my issue not being on point with my focusing in soccer since it moves so fast and the lens wasn't long enough? I did a focus test on the 80-200 (several) and it definitely BF at 200, but at 80 it looks fine, no BF at all. Is that normal with the lens I wonder and not worth the service or should I send it in? Hate to part with it, I've become very attached.....:cry
Thanks! So you think from the soccer examples it looks like it's BF, correct? I think in the first soccer shot the kid behind him looks sharp but he doesn't. That happened in a LOT of my soccer pics (more than 1/2) but in baseball I didn't seem to have that problem at all (????). I thought it was maybe my issue not being on point with my focusing in soccer since it moves so fast and the lens wasn't long enough? I did a focus test on the 80-200 (several) and it definitely BF at 200, but at 80 it looks fine, no BF at all. Is that normal with the lens I wonder and not worth the service or should I send it in? Hate to part with it, I've become very attached.....:cry
If/when you get your Sigma 100-300 you should send it in to be looked at. If it is out of adjustment and Nikon is able to bring it up to spec then you can keep it or sell it in good conscience knowing it has no problems.
Thanks! So you think from the soccer examples it looks like it's BF, correct? I think in the first soccer shot the kid behind him looks sharp but he doesn't. That happened in a LOT of my soccer pics (more than 1/2) but in baseball I didn't seem to have that problem at all (????). I thought it was maybe my issue not being on point with my focusing in soccer since it moves so fast and the lens wasn't long enough? I did a focus test on the 80-200 (several) and it definitely BF at 200, but at 80 it looks fine, no BF at all. Is that normal with the lens I wonder and not worth the service or should I send it in? Hate to part with it, I've become very attached.....:cry
On my 80-200 f2.8, I used to get a lot of back focus as well. It drove me crazy until I finally determined it not to be the lens but the way I was using it.
First, my 80-200 f2.8 is about 20 years old so the motor isn't the fastest so I had to compensate for that.
Second, when zoomed all the way to 200, it was mostly because the subject was far away and opened up the chance for me to be behind or ahead of the action. Looking at the BF pics, I would find I was a few (relative) inches ahead or behind. You have to go back to your math for that one: the inch or so you are off at the camera translates into feet the further you go out.
For this, I started to learn to anticipate the action and try to be there as quickly as I could. On the downside of f2.8, depending on where the action is, focusing on the trunk of the person could cause the face to be slightly out of focus.
Because of the nature of soccer vs. basketball (where basketball is a tighter space and the out-of-focus pictures are more likely going to be due to aim), you are almost guaranteed to get some BF pictures. It's just easy to slip to the wrong location.
Finally, focus mode makes a difference. I tend to single focus as opposed to continuous. Although it makes me rely on my thumb, it does mean that the camera isn't suddenly going to change focus to another kid, the net, the grass behind them, etc. all on it's own.
It's interesting that your test showed BF at 200. I've never seen that mentioned before. Do you have a reputable camera store in your area you can take it to be checked out or another lens that you can compare against?
"I'm just very selective about the reality I accept" - Calvin
On my 80-200 f2.8, I used to get a lot of back focus as well. It drove me crazy until I finally determined it not to be the lens but the way I was using it.
It's interesting that your test showed BF at 200. I've never seen that mentioned before. Do you have a reputable camera store in your area you can take it to be checked out or another lens that you can compare against?
Thanks for the focus tips! I agree, the way you are using the camera does affect the focus (i.e. not so many BF issues with baseball as soccer). I didn't use that lens for basketball, but my 85 1.8 tested fine for no bf, so any focus issues were purely my problem, but I didn't have many.
Yes, there is a Nikon authorized service center near me so I took both the lens and the camera (they wanted both) in for them to check them out. I figured better that I know if there is a focus issue and it's not me so I don't drive myself crazy. So my baby's in the hospital :cry
Update! It was a focus issue--with the camera, not the lens! They caught it in the evaluation program and fixed it for $35. Some days are good days!
Thanks for the focus tips! I agree, the way you are using the camera does affect the focus (i.e. not so many BF issues with baseball as soccer). I didn't use that lens for basketball, but my 85 1.8 tested fine for no bf, so any focus issues were purely my problem, but I didn't have many.
Yes, there is a Nikon authorized service center near me so I took both the lens and the camera (they wanted both) in for them to check them out. I figured better that I know if there is a focus issue and it's not me so I don't drive myself crazy. So my baby's in the hospital :cry
Update! It was a focus issue--with the camera, not the lens! They caught it in the evaluation program and fixed it for $35. Some days are good days!
Congrats on discovering "it's you and not me " IMO it would be a good idea to give it a test before this weekend's shooting.
Find a willing or even unwilling participant to run at you starting from about 30 yards or so and fire away a full speed for 20-25 shots and check them. You likely won't have them all in focus but you should have a pretty high rate. This is a tough test for any camera and lens, especially as they get closer.
Make sure your test subject wears something nice and contrasty. I have my daughter wear her soccer jersey backwards so that the white numbers with black outline are prominent and make an easy AF target.
If you're shooting Nikon, the 80-400 is the king of zooms. With a price to match. A second option is the Sigma 100-300 f4.
I've rented the Nikon 80-400. I assume you're referring to the VR f4.5-5.6 version. It's a good lens but it's a bit slow for some of the speed for soccer.
I also rented the Sigma 120-400 OS lens. That one was enough to make me stay away from Sigma for a while. I don't know what it was about that lens, and I don't have a ready example, but the backgrounds of all my shots looked digitized. It was very odd. It also gave me quite a bit of 'halo-ing' around the brighter colors.
So, I can't really tell you what to do. But I can only warn you that in today's world with every other parent owning a DSLR now it's tougher and tougher to be able to sell photos. And when you get a parent that is also giving away those photos to every other parent on the team and you get 1/3 of the teams with a parent like that you'll find your profits approach zero quickly. So, you have to get out in front of those parents and establish a reputation of your photos being SO much better. You want a parent who has bought your stuff or seen your stuff to turn their nose up at what the team Mom/dad is producing. But if they get used to the free version FIRST and get used to 'good enough', it's going to be very difficult for them to dig into their wallets and pay you for more than a photo. And you need parents buying more than 1 photo to make action shooting worth your while from a business standpoint.
Now, I'm one of those parents who owns a DSLR, takes pictures and then offers them up for people. EXCEPT when there's a contracted Pro around. I don't like to mess with anybody's business. Amusingly, though, for some reason our town soccer club hasn't contracted with anyone. Go figure.
Amusingly, though, there's now another parent who has a camera (a D80 and a 70-300 zoom) that took a bunch of pictures and threw them up for parents to view. He was snapping shots like crazy! He'd barely lift the camera up and he'd be rapping off 25 to 30 shots. Not sure why, but I was actually a little annoyed! I guess I always figured myself to be the team photographer!
The coach of the team did tell me that she likes my pictures better though but I put a lot into them with cropping, PP, etc. I may not be charging but I like to put out a good product!
"I'm just very selective about the reality I accept" - Calvin
I've rented the Nikon 80-400. I assume you're referring to the VR f4.5-5.6 version. It's a good lens but it's a bit slow for some of the speed for soccer.
Sorry, was thinking of 200-400 not the 80-400.
Amusingly, though, for some reason our town soccer club hasn't contracted with anyone. Go figure.
Why would they? People are getting stuff for free. Which is exactly my point to the OP - let's say she wants to do business with that league - "why should our parents pay you, we've got people giving the images away for free. Yeah your photos look a little better but come on, the other lady's are free". It's tough to compete with that. That's just the reality.
He was snapping shots like crazy! He'd barely lift the camera up and he'd be rapping off 25 to 30 shots. Not sure why, but I was actually a little annoyed! I guess I always figured myself to be the team photographer!
Careful, you sound just like the pro snobs that might make comments about you and your shooting. But, I appreciate the honesty of the post - it really speaks to why people give away the photos - it's as much about ego as anything else. And I don't say that in a mean way at all. I include myself in that statement. There's a tremendous satisfaction that others value something you can create. To those that pretend it's all about the kids/parents I always like to throw out: Would you consider just buying them photos from a pro instead of spending the money on gear? Not one has said yes - because in reality, what's important to most 'team photographers' isn't that the team get good photos - deep down, what's important is they get team photos produced by them. And there's NOTHING wrong with that. I just find it amusing when most try to deny that ego boost is the payment they get.
Now, I'm one of those parents who owns a DSLR, takes pictures and then offers them up for people. EXCEPT when there's a contracted Pro around. I don't like to mess with anybody's business. Amusingly, though, for some reason our town soccer club hasn't contracted with anyone. Go figure.
What makes you think that you are not messing with anybody's business when there is not a pro around. A pro might have shot the team the week before at another field that maybe you were not at. The pro sometimes waits weeks for the parents to get to there site and go thru the photos from a game. If the next week a person gives away free photos it is very unlikely that the parents will buy from the pro.
Yes I do this to make a living.
Okay so if I'm understanding you, had I set my exposure more correctly, then both of these boys would have come out looking more like the PP picture next to it the FIRST time around, and would not have been so blown out on the bottom? Could I have avoided the PP in this picture (maybe by adjusting the AP to underexpose a bit more?) or was overexposing and PP the only way I would have gotten their skin tone right (I adjusted the exposure, contrast and highlights/shadows to get more depth in the color)?
Thank for for spending so much time tutoring me on this, I truly appreciate it!
Check your histogram when you set up at a new location. Take a few test shots, then adjust your exposure, and hopefully you nailed it. Just make sure the "bell" curve is in the middle..."just" touching both ends of the "y" axis. Anything greater than that, you're likely over or under exposing your shot. Also, shooting in manual mode...place your hand in front of your camera, take a test shot of your hand, and adjust exposure...quick & dirty if your shooting fast moving sports. Just my nickles worth.
What makes you think that you are not messing with anybody's business when there is not a pro around. A pro might have shot the team the week before at another field that maybe you were not at. The pro sometimes waits weeks for the parents to get to there site and go thru the photos from a game. If the next week a person gives away free photos it is very unlikely that the parents will buy from the pro.
Yes I do this to make a living.
Well, for one, observation. I attend my kids games weekly and there is never a contracted photographer present at any of the games.
Two, I happen to know several people on the soccer board in town and they have told me they don't have an official or contracted photographer.
In all the research I've done, clubs will either contract or give permission to a company or professional to shoot at games. However, for some reason, the town soccer club has not chosen to contract or invite a pro to the annual tournament (200+ teams) let alone be there for regular season games.
In my opinion, if there is no official or contracted photographer, it's an open field to whoever wants to shoot.
Now, the club team my kids pay for do have an official photographer and he's been the same one for several years. However, there are dozens of teams and, in the past three years, I've seen him once at my sons games and once at my daughters games. When he came to my daughters game, he was asked to take a picture of her and two of her friends. He complained and didn't want to do it but relented and took it. Amusingly, it wound up on the front page of the club team website and we chose not to buy it due to the attitude.
I understand people do this for a living and I am not trying to cut into anyone's livelihood. Parents want pictures of their kids, though and if the photographer isn't going to show then that's his fault and his loss.
"I'm just very selective about the reality I accept" - Calvin
Why would they? People are getting stuff for free. Which is exactly my point to the OP - let's say she wants to do business with that league - "why should our parents pay you, we've got people giving the images away for free. Yeah your photos look a little better but come on, the other lady's are free". It's tough to compete with that. That's just the reality.
Hmm....well, maybe it's because I don't do this for a living or haven't researched it, but I'm not fully aware of the contracts pros have with clubs. I would imagine that either:
- The club is taking a cut of what the pro makes
- The pro is paying a fee to be the 'official' photographer
- The club is paying the photographer to be the official photographer
The last seems the least likely? If that's the case, then the club really isn't getting anything out of it unless they are combining the first and the last.
As for why would the parents want to pay when people are giving images for free, isn't that really up to the parents and not the club if the club is getting a fee or a cut? I can see the argument if the club is hiring the photographer.
Careful, you sound just like the pro snobs that might make comments about you and your shooting. But, I appreciate the honesty of the post - it really speaks to why people give away the photos - it's as much about ego as anything else. And I don't say that in a mean way at all. I include myself in that statement. There's a tremendous satisfaction that others value something you can create. To those that pretend it's all about the kids/parents I always like to throw out: Would you consider just buying them photos from a pro instead of spending the money on gear? Not one has said yes - because in reality, what's important to most 'team photographers' isn't that the team get good photos - deep down, what's important is they get team photos produced by them. And there's NOTHING wrong with that. I just find it amusing when most try to deny that ego boost is the payment they get.
Ego is absolutely part of it. As I mentioned in another post, there hasn't been an official photographer for our town club in years. Of the pictures I've taken in the past few years, I think only one or two parents has actually taken advantage of them being available for use. In three cases, I've used one of my pictures to make a 16x20 and give it to their child as a gift from my son or daughter which they've loved.
However, there is a great deal of pride in hearing that parents love your pictures or enjoyed watching the slide show from the game the previous week.
There is also personal pride - as Fogcity demonstrates - in learning and trying to do better and actually succeeding at doing better.
I absolutely understand the argument that pro sports photographers have about taking away business. The same argument can be made about weddings. If someone shows up with decent equipment and talent, it can cut into the wedding photographers bottom line. It'd be interesting to see a contract that prohibited others from bringing cameras to weddings....
However, if the club doesn't have an official photographer or, if they do and he never shows....it's fair game.
"I'm just very selective about the reality I accept" - Calvin
Guys we are a little off topic here...D300 remember! But while I'm here, my camera is ready 24/7. If the the so called contracted guy is going to be late or a no show I'm there! It's a dog eat dog world now folks.
Hmm....well, maybe it's because I don't do this for a living or haven't researched it, but I'm not fully aware of the contracts pros have with clubs. I would imagine that either:
- The club is taking a cut of what the pro makes
- The pro is paying a fee to be the 'official' photographer
- The club is paying the photographer to be the official photographer
The last seems the least likely? If that's the case, then the club really isn't getting anything out of it unless they are combining the first and the last.
As for why would the parents want to pay when people are giving images for free, isn't that really up to the parents and not the club if the club is getting a fee or a cut? I can see the argument if the club is hiring the photographer.
Ego is absolutely part of it. As I mentioned in another post, there hasn't been an official photographer for our town club in years. Of the pictures I've taken in the past few years, I think only one or two parents has actually taken advantage of them being available for use. In three cases, I've used one of my pictures to make a 16x20 and give it to their child as a gift from my son or daughter which they've loved.
However, there is a great deal of pride in hearing that parents love your pictures or enjoyed watching the slide show from the game the previous week.
There is also personal pride - as Fogcity demonstrates - in learning and trying to do better and actually succeeding at doing better.
I absolutely understand the argument that pro sports photographers have about taking away business. The same argument can be made about weddings. If someone shows up with decent equipment and talent, it can cut into the wedding photographers bottom line. It'd be interesting to see a contract that prohibited others from bringing cameras to weddings....
However, if the club doesn't have an official photographer or, if they do and he never shows....it's fair game.
Comments
Thanks! So you think from the soccer examples it looks like it's BF, correct? I think in the first soccer shot the kid behind him looks sharp but he doesn't. That happened in a LOT of my soccer pics (more than 1/2) but in baseball I didn't seem to have that problem at all (????). I thought it was maybe my issue not being on point with my focusing in soccer since it moves so fast and the lens wasn't long enough? I did a focus test on the 80-200 (several) and it definitely BF at 200, but at 80 it looks fine, no BF at all. Is that normal with the lens I wonder and not worth the service or should I send it in? Hate to part with it, I've become very attached.....:cry
If/when you get your Sigma 100-300 you should send it in to be looked at. If it is out of adjustment and Nikon is able to bring it up to spec then you can keep it or sell it in good conscience knowing it has no problems.
Gene
On my 80-200 f2.8, I used to get a lot of back focus as well. It drove me crazy until I finally determined it not to be the lens but the way I was using it.
First, my 80-200 f2.8 is about 20 years old so the motor isn't the fastest so I had to compensate for that.
Second, when zoomed all the way to 200, it was mostly because the subject was far away and opened up the chance for me to be behind or ahead of the action. Looking at the BF pics, I would find I was a few (relative) inches ahead or behind. You have to go back to your math for that one: the inch or so you are off at the camera translates into feet the further you go out.
For this, I started to learn to anticipate the action and try to be there as quickly as I could. On the downside of f2.8, depending on where the action is, focusing on the trunk of the person could cause the face to be slightly out of focus.
Because of the nature of soccer vs. basketball (where basketball is a tighter space and the out-of-focus pictures are more likely going to be due to aim), you are almost guaranteed to get some BF pictures. It's just easy to slip to the wrong location.
Finally, focus mode makes a difference. I tend to single focus as opposed to continuous. Although it makes me rely on my thumb, it does mean that the camera isn't suddenly going to change focus to another kid, the net, the grass behind them, etc. all on it's own.
It's interesting that your test showed BF at 200. I've never seen that mentioned before. Do you have a reputable camera store in your area you can take it to be checked out or another lens that you can compare against?
http://zone99.smugmug.com
Nikon D300
Nikkor 18-70 DX
Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 ED
Nikon SB-600 Speedlight
Couple o' other lenses I never use!
Thanks for the focus tips! I agree, the way you are using the camera does affect the focus (i.e. not so many BF issues with baseball as soccer). I didn't use that lens for basketball, but my 85 1.8 tested fine for no bf, so any focus issues were purely my problem, but I didn't have many.
Yes, there is a Nikon authorized service center near me so I took both the lens and the camera (they wanted both) in for them to check them out. I figured better that I know if there is a focus issue and it's not me so I don't drive myself crazy. So my baby's in the hospital :cry
Update! It was a focus issue--with the camera, not the lens! They caught it in the evaluation program and fixed it for $35. Some days are good days!
Congrats on discovering "it's you and not me
Find a willing or even unwilling participant to run at you starting from about 30 yards or so and fire away a full speed for 20-25 shots and check them. You likely won't have them all in focus but you should have a pretty high rate. This is a tough test for any camera and lens, especially as they get closer.
Make sure your test subject wears something nice and contrasty. I have my daughter wear her soccer jersey backwards so that the white numbers with black outline are prominent and make an easy AF target.
You just might have saved yourself $1000
Gene
I've rented the Nikon 80-400. I assume you're referring to the VR f4.5-5.6 version. It's a good lens but it's a bit slow for some of the speed for soccer.
I also rented the Sigma 120-400 OS lens. That one was enough to make me stay away from Sigma for a while. I don't know what it was about that lens, and I don't have a ready example, but the backgrounds of all my shots looked digitized. It was very odd. It also gave me quite a bit of 'halo-ing' around the brighter colors.
Now, I'm one of those parents who owns a DSLR, takes pictures and then offers them up for people. EXCEPT when there's a contracted Pro around. I don't like to mess with anybody's business. Amusingly, though, for some reason our town soccer club hasn't contracted with anyone. Go figure.
Amusingly, though, there's now another parent who has a camera (a D80 and a 70-300 zoom) that took a bunch of pictures and threw them up for parents to view. He was snapping shots like crazy! He'd barely lift the camera up and he'd be rapping off 25 to 30 shots. Not sure why, but I was actually a little annoyed! I guess I always figured myself to be the team photographer!
The coach of the team did tell me that she likes my pictures better though but I put a lot into them with cropping, PP, etc. I may not be charging but I like to put out a good product!
http://zone99.smugmug.com
Nikon D300
Nikkor 18-70 DX
Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 ED
Nikon SB-600 Speedlight
Couple o' other lenses I never use!
Sorry, was thinking of 200-400 not the 80-400.
Why would they? People are getting stuff for free. Which is exactly my point to the OP - let's say she wants to do business with that league - "why should our parents pay you, we've got people giving the images away for free. Yeah your photos look a little better but come on, the other lady's are free". It's tough to compete with that. That's just the reality. Careful, you sound just like the pro snobs that might make comments about you and your shooting. But, I appreciate the honesty of the post - it really speaks to why people give away the photos - it's as much about ego as anything else. And I don't say that in a mean way at all. I include myself in that statement. There's a tremendous satisfaction that others value something you can create. To those that pretend it's all about the kids/parents I always like to throw out: Would you consider just buying them photos from a pro instead of spending the money on gear? Not one has said yes - because in reality, what's important to most 'team photographers' isn't that the team get good photos - deep down, what's important is they get team photos produced by them. And there's NOTHING wrong with that. I just find it amusing when most try to deny that ego boost is the payment they get.
Yes I do this to make a living.
Nikon D4, Nikon D3, Nikon D3
Nikon 14-24 f2.8, Nikon 24-70 f2.8, Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR II, Nikon 50 f1.8, Nikon 85 f1.4
Nikon 300 f2.8 VR, Nikon 200-400 f4.0 VR II, Nikon 600 f4.0 II, TC-1.4, TC 1.7, TC 2.0
(1) SB-800, (2) SB-900, (4) Multi Max Pocket Wizards
Check your histogram when you set up at a new location. Take a few test shots, then adjust your exposure, and hopefully you nailed it. Just make sure the "bell" curve is in the middle..."just" touching both ends of the "y" axis. Anything greater than that, you're likely over or under exposing your shot. Also, shooting in manual mode...place your hand in front of your camera, take a test shot of your hand, and adjust exposure...quick & dirty if your shooting fast moving sports. Just my nickles worth.
Portfolio: dejansmaic.com
Stock: sportifimages.com
Well, for one, observation. I attend my kids games weekly and there is never a contracted photographer present at any of the games.
Two, I happen to know several people on the soccer board in town and they have told me they don't have an official or contracted photographer.
In all the research I've done, clubs will either contract or give permission to a company or professional to shoot at games. However, for some reason, the town soccer club has not chosen to contract or invite a pro to the annual tournament (200+ teams) let alone be there for regular season games.
In my opinion, if there is no official or contracted photographer, it's an open field to whoever wants to shoot.
Now, the club team my kids pay for do have an official photographer and he's been the same one for several years. However, there are dozens of teams and, in the past three years, I've seen him once at my sons games and once at my daughters games. When he came to my daughters game, he was asked to take a picture of her and two of her friends. He complained and didn't want to do it but relented and took it. Amusingly, it wound up on the front page of the club team website and we chose not to buy it due to the attitude.
I understand people do this for a living and I am not trying to cut into anyone's livelihood. Parents want pictures of their kids, though and if the photographer isn't going to show then that's his fault and his loss.
http://zone99.smugmug.com
Nikon D300
Nikkor 18-70 DX
Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 ED
Nikon SB-600 Speedlight
Couple o' other lenses I never use!
Hmm....well, maybe it's because I don't do this for a living or haven't researched it, but I'm not fully aware of the contracts pros have with clubs. I would imagine that either:
- The club is taking a cut of what the pro makes
- The pro is paying a fee to be the 'official' photographer
- The club is paying the photographer to be the official photographer
The last seems the least likely? If that's the case, then the club really isn't getting anything out of it unless they are combining the first and the last.
As for why would the parents want to pay when people are giving images for free, isn't that really up to the parents and not the club if the club is getting a fee or a cut? I can see the argument if the club is hiring the photographer.
Ego is absolutely part of it. As I mentioned in another post, there hasn't been an official photographer for our town club in years. Of the pictures I've taken in the past few years, I think only one or two parents has actually taken advantage of them being available for use. In three cases, I've used one of my pictures to make a 16x20 and give it to their child as a gift from my son or daughter which they've loved.
However, there is a great deal of pride in hearing that parents love your pictures or enjoyed watching the slide show from the game the previous week.
There is also personal pride - as Fogcity demonstrates - in learning and trying to do better and actually succeeding at doing better.
I absolutely understand the argument that pro sports photographers have about taking away business. The same argument can be made about weddings. If someone shows up with decent equipment and talent, it can cut into the wedding photographers bottom line. It'd be interesting to see a contract that prohibited others from bringing cameras to weddings....
However, if the club doesn't have an official photographer or, if they do and he never shows....it's fair game.
http://zone99.smugmug.com
Nikon D300
Nikkor 18-70 DX
Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 ED
Nikon SB-600 Speedlight
Couple o' other lenses I never use!
Cheers
Scott