Hewwo from Balmy Sheffy,
Now then,,,,,the following is a look at my recent photo activites,,,,Few weeks ago a 3 day boxing tournament,great experience,technicly its a right bloody(geddit) test,lighting is always crap and the action very fast,anyway,enough of the Pugilists bought pics of themselves being battered to make it worth my while.Strangely,the boxers themselves were not what i expected,quite reserved and shy,,,,,until they entered the ring !Boxing doesnt have any of the "up itself" mentality of some sports and it was a pleasure to cover it.One thing i picked up here,,i deffo require a full frame high ISO performing unit,,,,,
Last week i was lucky enough to cover a show by the Australian Pink Floyd,,,,,,something i,ll NEVER forget,,there i was,chin resting on the stage watching these master musicians at work,,,,,AWESOME,thing with this was the extreme changes in lighting from one second to the next,,,actualy more challenging than the Boxing,,,,,maybe i can get them to perform under a boxing light rig next time ????
The scale of this show was massive compared to anything i,d done before,the 3 songs i was allowed went by far too quickly,,,,everyone at the venue went the extra mile to help me,,as usual with such things the promoters hadnt notified the venue i was coming and the obligatory messing about at the box office followed,,,,,,then the head of security stuck his oar in,,,,,,then the pit manager had to do his bit,,,,,if you ever intend to do concert work be prepared for this sort of carry on,,it happens EVERY time !But,once it was sorted everything went great,,,,up to now my pics have sold in USA,Canada,Poland,France,all over the UK and ive more than bettered what i expected to do.
This week its an American Football game,be nice not to have to worry about lighting and stuff,,,,,,plus the current bun will be out,,,,,anyone wandering about photography becoming more than a hobby,,,,DO IT but expect lots of foot slog and toil,,,,,event staff really do think that the togs are there to be "bossed" but once you get through to them its a very satisfying feeling to see people who are willing to pay for your stuff !!
Shine On
www.gigstills.co.uk
Glad to see things are working for you Bill.
Well, they will be once you have yourself a nice D700 or 2. Nice full frame high iso capable camera indeed...
If in doubt - speak to those who have them. I haven't heard a bad word abut them yet!
A simple thought - are you allowed to use flash when photographing the musical events?
Heyyaz Piccy Baby,,,,,,
Flash,,,depends really,,,,at the APF show it was a deffo no no,,,,,they warned me that if i used flash i would have to sit through the Rihanna gig the next night,,,,,NO WAY !!!!
Other shows ive asked and they havent batted an eye lid,,,,,,funny story,,at the boxing ,on the 1st day i used flash all day and no one was bothered,,,,2nd day an ABA official objected,,i asked him why he never objected the day before and he said "i didnt notice you using it" !!!!!!! how STUPID an answer is that ???
Ok,,,may i pick the collective Borg type mind here,,,,,,bear in mind i use only Nikon stuff,,,,,which(strictly based on ISO performance) is the best unit to purchase ????
Shine On
www.gigstills.co.uk
Hi Bill. Glad loads of money is coming your way. :tup:
The highest ISO camera is the Nikon D3s at 102,400 but will set you back about £3,500 or you could go for secondhand D3 at about £2,300. A new D700 would set you back about £1,779 or a secondhand one about £1,400. On a D3 the ISO can be increased upto 25,600 but it will show noise so I limit mine to 6,400. Hope that helps. ;D
Great to hear everything's on the up Bill and more importantly you're enjoying it and making a living.
Cheers....Alan :tup:
Glad to hear things are going well for you Bill. :tup:
Quote from: Bigbill on May 21, 2010, 08:36:20 PM
Heyyaz Piccy Baby,,,,,,
bear in mind i use only Nikon stuff,,,,,which(strictly based on ISO performance) is the best unit to purchase ????
I'm a Canon man but looked at moving to Nikon because of the iso issue at one point and your options really are the D700 and D3.
From your point of view it depends on budget...
Without a doubt your D3's are the most robust body and certainly are weatherproofed to the nth level - but then you can get 2 D700's for the price of 1 D3(s).
Image quality every bit as good at high iso (6400) and under the right conditions can stretch to 12800 and even 25600.
With the D700 you can add a battery grip to up the frame rate (as well as extend the battery life during the shoot) - if you need the extra fps.
Quote from: picsfor on May 22, 2010, 06:40:37 AM
Without a doubt your D3's are the most robust body and certainly are weatherproofed to the nth level
You see everybody says that......in my entire life I've only had issues with kit and rain on 3 occasions. 2 of those were when the inside of my D3 fogged to the extent that I couldn't see what I was shooting. Both times it had been subjected to heavy rain but so had the D2 on my other shoulder. The other was when my 24-70 fogged inside (i.e. through the weather seals) and was useless for an hour or more.
So either
1. I've been unlucky
2. I'm harder on my kit than I used to be (certainly true - it's amazing the D3 keeps going...)
3. The weather seals ain't as good as they used to be.
Anyway, there's a very easy answer to your question.
On ISO alone the best Nikon ever made is the D3S. At least a stop and possibly 2 better than the D3/D700 (they have identical sensors) which are at least a stop better than anything else.
So.....one boxing match and a gig give enough profit to fund a new D3S? I'm in the wrong game..... :)
Quote from: Jonathan on May 22, 2010, 08:20:31 AM
So either
1. I've been unlucky
2. I'm harder on my kit than I used to be (certainly true - it's amazing the D3 keeps going...)
3. The weather seals ain't as good as they used to be.
I'd go with 2 - purely because as you become familiar with your work tools you tend to 'push them' more than you would when they a fresh out of the box.
As for the justification issue - that's why i suggested 2 x D700 to 1 x D3s.
I assume that as a pro you need 2 bodies - and the cost of a second D700 could be funded as much be the disposal of Bills current 2 bodies.
Like you i do not think the boxing match and APF concert bring in sufficient revenue to justify the D3s - but over the longer course i suspect that the business case could justify the trade up to 2 x D700's.
And they are not to be sneezed at.
Now for Bill to comment :tup:
At the risk of stating the obvious you also have to factor in the cost of a new lens (or two) if you move to full frame Bill. There isn't nearly as much choice as there is for smaller sensors, and the really good lenses are dear. By really good in your context I mean fast zooms with good autofocus motors. In the sort of conditions you're working in decent lenses will help greatly increase your hit rate. you can correct a slightly imperfect picture in post-processing in many ways but if it's out of focus then it's lost.
There's a lot of talk that Nikon will bring out a consumer version of the D3s at Photokina in the autumn, and they have started to bring out slightly cheaper FX lenses. If you hung on until then you might have more choice (and the D700 should fall in price when a newer model comes out). Good luck, whatever you decide! :)
Hewwo from hotter than Rome Sheffy !!!
Now then,,,,not sure where this assumption that i,m raking it in has come from,i just posted my stuff to let people know what sort of stuff goes on even when youve ticked all the boxes at events !
As it is,ive not grossed the total cost of all my gear yet,though i am now heading in the right direction.Some of you may recall ive often berated the music scene around here,and my view has not changed,i get emails eveyweek to go and snap unsigned bands,,,you can probably guess the bit nobody mentions,,,,,and,,you can also probably guess the bit which i wont print here !!!But,without the help of the £3-40 a pint venue owners i,m getting there anyway,which is the real lesson here(i think).
D3s,,,gotta admit,i,d LOVE one and it may well happen soon,,,,,would make life much easier for me,my personal preference has always been to work in low light,,,God knows why !! And as such the gear i,m using just dont cut it by comparison,,,,,but thats life innit,,you work with what you have got,and dont waste time on what you havent got.
All this weather seal talk baffles me a bit,,,,they never mention weather seals on lenses do they ??Look at all the top class work JR does in all sorts of weather and he,s had hardly any problems,,,,and when your lugging gear about all over the place it takes a right battering.At the Boxing one of the refs accidently kicked my D80 about 10 feet along the floor,,,,he was proper worried,,no problem though,,its fine.
Now then,,heres a good one for everybody,,why the hell does my D300 perform so poorly in low light,,its SUPPOSED to be quite bloody good ??? heres where you all begin to doubt my sanity(if you dont already),,i,m sure theres something specific about D300 hundred noise which Noise Ninja cant hack,....... i cannot for the life of me understand why the D80 shots look better then the D300.....or is my mental illness again ????????
Shine On
D80 better in low light than a D300?
Take D300 back to shop and ask for a replacement!
MY mate swapped his D80 for a D300s because of low light performance of said D80 and is markedly impressed by the improved low light performance.
The s only has video over the non s version i believe so something is clearly wrong with your camera!
Quote from: Jonathan on May 22, 2010, 08:20:31 AM
Quote from: picsfor on May 22, 2010, 06:40:37 AM
Without a doubt your D3's are the most robust body and certainly are weatherproofed to the nth level
You see everybody says that......in my entire life I've only had issues with kit and rain on 3 occasions. 2 of those were when the inside of my D3 fogged to the extent that I couldn't see what I was shooting. Both times it had been subjected to heavy rain but so had the D2 on my other shoulder. The other was when my 24-70 fogged inside (i.e. through the weather seals) and was useless for an hour or more.
So either
1. I've been unlucky
2. I'm harder on my kit than I used to be (certainly true - it's amazing the D3 keeps going...)
3. The weather seals ain't as good as they used to be.
Anyway, there's a very easy answer to your question. On ISO alone the best Nikon ever made is the D3S. At least a stop and possibly 2 better than the D3/D700 (they have identical sensors) which are at least a stop better than anything else.
So.....one boxing match and a gig give enough profit to fund a new D3S? I'm in the wrong game..... :)
No you haven't been unlucky JR. My D3 fogged up as well but the D200 never did and I've posted the proof below. ???
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4063/4370599442_42e3c1786b.jpg) (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4063/4370599442_42e3c1786b_b.jpg)
Click for bigger size.
I must add the D3 worked fine after a evening on the radiator to dry it out. :tup:
The D300 was a good two stops better than earlier Nikon enthusiast cameras for noise control: although the 300s uses the same sensor I've heard that the internal processor has improved and noise is better controlled again. In any event, as Andrew has said, if you're finding your 300 worse than the 80 then something's wrong.
It might be a problem with the camera but I wondered if maybe the difference you see is affected by exposure or other settings in any way? Noise is always more visible in shadow areas, and if, for example, the D300 was more inclined to underexposure in some situations and the D80 to overexpose then that might lead to the shots from the D300 looking more noisy. Speaking from my own experience my D300 is much, much better than my previous camera (D70s) at any ISO above 200. Maybe worth some test shots with the cameras Bill, to see if you can work out what's happening?
Heyyaz Eileen and thanks to all for the replies,,,,
Yahh twill be my error somewhere,,,,,,the actual noise from the 300 seems so different than the 80,,i,ll keep plodding away at it,i actuay now quite appreciate Noise Ninja,,,,its very good at what it does,,,,
i just keep struggling with the shots from the 300,,i,ll get there eventualy.
American Football for me tomorrow,,,,,nice bright sunny day,,,,all that light !! Yeahhhhhhh
So,,who in CC is harbouring plans to try and earn form their hobby ??
Shine On
I'm hoping to at least start to pay back some of my costs. I am currently working towards some craft fairs that a friend is organising. Im producing prints and cards, some mounted and framed and some not so there's a range of prices and options. I'll see what works there (or doesn't!) and then take stock. I also produce prints of my artist friend's work when her clients ask for them and get a little back from that. Currently with a busy job and my degree course I don't have enough time to take on paid work but I'm inching slowly in that direction.
At this time, no.
However, in the future i see it as a pension job. But that's 8 years away! A lot could happen between now and then.
I'm using the current time, whilst i still have the full time job driving trains, to build up and learn how to use my kit seamlessly.
Like Eileen, i'm also doing stuff with OCA and might even have a pop at the LRSP later in this year once i've had a go at understanding the requirements.
I have, in days of film, earned money from photography but have never really seen it as a day job.
Now though - i'm not so sure. You hang around Jonathan and all that positive energy rubs off. You start to think - why not?
I`m currently earnig a little from it with 2.3 companues using me once each every 6 weeks or so for events / promotional stuff, done couple of trade for stay hotels (would love to do more of that but don`t know a "way in" ) and worked on a few weddings. Just about got my web forwarding sorted out now (luxipics logged on as me and sorted it in 15 minutes after the domain suppliers failed to for a month!!! - great support at luxipics). Just put out my first solo wedding quote and waiting to see if it hits any buttons but pretty sure the bride is too tight to pay the rate - another of those £15k weddings where they have only allocated a ccouple of hundred for the shots I am guessing and I will not go so low for the work that I`ll regret it.
Done all the research / tax stuff and sure I`ll be earning less than my outgoings in year 1 so no real bills to pay and just wondering how much I want to do. I don`t want my photography to be a grind ever - I enjoy it as a passion and am lucky noy to need it as a promaty income so my thinking is do what I want to do to fund gear and a few perks offering prompt turnarounds amd best quality I can. It would be nice to turn work away and enjoy my early retirement some more but would I turn it away? How mcu promotional work do I do? Constantly stalling and stopping which is a "business plan" doomed to failure. ???
Me and my big mouth.....yesterday it looked like my 24-70 had stopped focusing properly. 35-70 was mysteriously left behind (I'd deliberately taken 1 fewer body but emergency body usually has old school zoom on it. I hadn't thought the backup lens through). We got the 50 out and found it wouldn't focus past 10 feet even in manual. Which left me with nothing covering the standard range.
It was hilarious thinking up reasons to shoot groups of 8 people from way down the road on the 70-200.... Oh and first dance was kind of exciting.
Fortunately tests today suggest it was a combination of flare, bright sun and a couple of dodgy test shots. But that's still my worst kit failure so far.
BTW I'd bet the difference between the D300 and D80 for noise is exposure bias.....
Hello Jonathan,,,,me thinks for once Sheffy is hotter then Folkestone !!!!!(79 here today),,when is Folkestone Cliff Lift going to re open ??
I really have been stumped by what seems to be the D300s unique noise properties,,,,,,could you elaborate please ??
Shine On
Quote from: picsfor on May 22, 2010, 06:40:37 AM
Quote from: Bigbill on May 21, 2010, 08:36:20 PM
Heyyaz Piccy Baby,,,,,,
bear in mind i use only Nikon stuff,,,,,which(strictly based on ISO performance) is the best unit to purchase ????
I'm a Canon man but looked at moving to Nikon because of the iso issue at one point and your options really are the D700 and D3.
From your point of view it depends on budget...
Without a doubt your D3's are the most robust body and certainly are weatherproofed to the nth level - but then you can get 2 D700's for the price of 1 D3(s).
Image quality every bit as good at high iso (6400) and under the right conditions can stretch to 12800 and even 25600.
With the D700 you can add a battery grip to up the frame rate (as well as extend the battery life during the shoot) - if you need the extra fps.
Slightly off topic, but Picfor, Unless you are looking at the D3, D3s or D700 - then Canon still have better ISO performance than Nikon. And even then, if you are going for that range, then the MkIII (Yes true) and the MkIV are up there with the Nikons.
I use ISO 6400 with my MKIII when needed and its ok. I've used a MkIV and its fantastic.
ISO102400 on any camera at the moment is crap. Last resort. :)
Quote from: anglefire on May 24, 2010, 06:59:49 AM
Slightly off topic, but Picfor, Unless you are looking at the D3, D3s or D700 - then Canon still have better ISO performance than Nikon. And even then, if you are going for that range, then the MkIII (Yes true) and the MkIV are up there with the Nikons.
PR did a test on the D3s and MkIV for high ISO, and according to them the D3s came out on top. ;D
Hello to my home town of Sheffield!
Just read through this thread - I went from a D80 to a D700 missing out the d300 step and I've not regretted a single second. I took some pics in a church yesterday at ISO 3200, the photos are just fine, not a grizzle to be seen. OK, as ISOs go, that's not very high, but compared to the performance of my D80 ... well there is no comparison.
I started up my own business this year. Nothing to lose really, as I would never earn enough to pay tax, and I was at home anyway. More and more people wanted their dogs photographing or portraits taking, and were prepared to actually pay, so I thought, why not ? If you're interested have a quick look at my website www.sarasocke.com - it's actually (mostly) translated into english now too :)
Any road up - I wish you all the best with your endeavours Bill!
Quote from: Bigbill on May 23, 2010, 08:26:05 PM
I really have been stumped by what seems to be the D300s unique noise properties,,,,,,could you elaborate please ??
Well....you need to remember I don't think I've used a D300 or D80 for more than a couple of hours but....
Imagine the noise levels are the same on each....
IF the prosumer D300 were set to protect highlight detail ("underexpose") because Nikon believe that prosumers want to retain maximum detail and then edit the pictures
AND the consumer D80 were set to produce a punchy picture that needed no further editing ("overexpose") because Nikon know that most novices tend to underexpose their subject (or rather shoot subjects where the area of interest is darker than the surroundings) but want a picture they can print without editing
THEN the D300 will tend to look noisier than the D80.....
BTW you've checked the settings, right? What's default NR on each?
Quote from: Oldboy on May 24, 2010, 08:07:45 AM
Quote from: anglefire on May 24, 2010, 06:59:49 AM
Slightly off topic, but Picfor, Unless you are looking at the D3, D3s or D700 - then Canon still have better ISO performance than Nikon. And even then, if you are going for that range, then the MkIII (Yes true) and the MkIV are up there with the Nikons.
PR did a test on the D3s and MkIV for high ISO, and according to them the D3s came out on top. ;D
Doesn't surprise me - and I would expect it to be honest - Nikon have got high noise sorted (Some say the NR is a bit too strong - but TBH I don't care one way or the other).
One reason is that the D3s is full frame and 12.1mp and the MkIV is 16mp and 1.3 crop - so the fact that the MKIV is so close is testament to Canon getting back in the ball park.
Canon appears to be on top of its game when it comes to video though. At the moment. :)
http://www.altair4.force9.co.uk/NEF (http://www.altair4.force9.co.uk/NEF)
Above is a link to a RAW file from the Floyd thingy,,,,and,thanks to all those who contributed to the above,,,would you like to give the file a go,,i use NN and am generaly quite happy with it,
however,the d300 does seem to throw up some puzzles.So,please see how you get along !
To download file right click the file name and select "save link as" or "save target as"
Shine On
Bill,
I've just downloaded it (Came down as a Tiff!) and used CS5 and ACR6.1 - I used the new noise reduction features and added a bit of capture sharpening, before going into CS5 and adding the boarder etc (Only cos the action I use has the boarder!)
(http://www.general.colston-online.co.uk/20100513_0181%20web.jpg)
The full size jpg is Here (http://www.general.colston-online.co.uk/20100513_0181.jpg)
Seriously, if that's as noisy as it gets I don't think you have a huge problem. 3 mins editing took all the noise out of the blue area then I masked it back on the skin. Leaves a little noise in eye sockets etc but really who is going to look there...?
Couple of edits here - http://www.dropbox.com/gallery/3951246/1/big_bill?h=3a9dd0 - including one where I added some grain back in ;)
I didn't have much time to think about what you said Bill, what puzzles?
As JR says, there wasn't a lot of noise - looks like it was exposed to the right as a fair amount of recovery slider was needed, but the NR in ACR6.1 was at about 25 from memory - out of 100.
Hewwo from Tropical Sheffy.
Many thanks to Mark and Jonathan,,,,seems i,m closer than i thought,must be my overly critical eye,to me most of those shots just weren,t as good as i thought they should be.
The noise from the D300 does seem very different to the noise from the D80,,,or maybe i,m losing it(again),The promoters etc etc are all quite pleased with them though :)
Anyway,the shots you guys have expertly done are similar to mine,,,,i,ll go lay in a dark corner for a few years !
Thanks again guys.
Shine On
You know what I just realised this afternoon? The better you get at photography the easier it is.
And I don't mean the easier it seems. I mean the easier it actually is.
I've done some pretty tough shoots but mainly the challenges were to do with budget or because the clients weren't that into photography. As I get better I get better jobs - and they are easier.
This afternoon I've been editing a fashion show for a magazine. They sent me along to a catwalk show. Really all I had to do was stand in roughly the right place, point the camera and try not to hit any of the other photographers. "Editing" consists of untilting the ones that I messed up and changing the exposure slightly on a couple where I shot too early and the spotlight hadn't hit them. Then burn to disk and mail to the mag.
I did a fashion catalogue shoot a few weeks ago where there were a total of 7 people all making sure that the stunning model looked perfect. Really all I had to do was make sure the lights were pointing at her (actually I had somebody to handle that...) and press the button at the right time. Weddings with a budget of £50K are considerably easier than those with a budget of £5K.
I'll bet shooting top level boxing at Maddison Square Gardens would be a doddle compared to the stuff you did. And shooting Real Pink Floyd would make Australian Pink Floyd look very tough indeed.
If only you could run your career backwards. Then you'd start on the easy stuff and only get to the hard stuff when you're ready.
Jonathan, I think that is just life isn't it?
Reminds me of an interview with the Spice Girls that I heard years ago. I recall them saying that before they were famous they had to work hard for everything they got: nothing came free. Once they were famous (and rich enough to buy what they wanted) people were falling over themselves to give them freebies, just so they'd be seen wearing or using them.
Bill: I think the noise from a D300 is quite grainy, like in films, and generally not the type of noise where you get false colours and blotching (though of course it depends on haw far you push the camera). I recall a lot of discussion on this characteristic when it first came out.
Hewwo from sultry Sheffy,,
Again thanks everyone,,i,m very reassured by all of the above,,,fact remains though i find the D80 noise easier to deal with,
maybe some of the eggheads at Adobe could invent a noise reduction algorithm that doesnt remove detail !!
Wise words Jonathan,,,wish i was working at MSG !!
Shine On
I'm giving serious consideration to doing my LRPS next year (won't have the membership fee until then) but purely for my own pleasure and satisfaction. When it comes to being a pro tog nope not for me 1/ I don't think I am good enough 2/ I enjoy it as a hobby too much. If I could do a similar thing to Eileen and get a few prints into craft fairs and things and flog those with any profit going towards new kit I would be a happy chappy.
As I said once before I am not the best photographer in the world (and never will be) My shots sometimes may not be "technically" correct, but if I've taken a shot and I like it, then surely that is all that really matters (of course it's nice if others like your work as well and compliment you on it.)
But to all you pro's and budding pro's out there I wish you every success having watched my father work as a pro all his life I know what hard work it really is....maybe that's why it's not for me I watched him struggle at times to make enough to live on...
Quote from: Oldboy on May 21, 2010, 09:00:24 PM
The highest ISO camera is the Nikon D3s at 102,400 but will set you back about £3,500 or you could go for secondhand D3 at about £2,300. A new D700 would set you back about £1,779 or a secondhand one about £1,400. On a D3 the ISO can be increased upto 25,600 but it will show noise so I limit mine to 6,400. Hope that helps. ;D
That's something I never really understood, and still don't; what's with most peoples (everyones?) fixation with speed? Everything has a noticeable limit... after that there's very few beneficial gains to be had.
I often use ISO1600 on my (apparently ancient) Canon 350D, due to my dislike of tripods. Thankfully, there's very little digital noise, which was a major criteria when I was in the market for buying a DSLR. That's really the only time I use any point of my cameras extremities though... the other 'default' settings are an aperture of f/4 to f/8. The camera chooses 1/4000th at times, as I rarely venture from aperture priority, and that's about it.
The industry needs to remember that there's such a thing as "happy medium". Cameras with ISO settings of 25,600... shutter speeds of 1/6400... "drive" speeds of 8fps... 16+MP sensors... for the average "Joe Public" photographer... nah... pointless.
I'll admit I'm thinking about shifting 'allegiances' though, and it's either to Epson (RD-1s), or Panasonic (DMC-Gwhatever). I'm hoping to land an RD-1s, and it's purely about handling. :)
Quote from: Hybridphotog on June 06, 2010, 02:37:47 PM
That's something I never really understood, and still don't; what's with most peoples (everyones?) fixation with speed? Everything has a noticeable limit... after that there's very few beneficial gains to be had.
[/quote]
The fixation is not with speed - but with the ability to get the picture they can see.
No one is disputing your camera does a fine job (all of your cameras in fact) - but the fact is, it does not do the job that i (or others) require of a camera.
An awful lot of my shots are taken at low light, and whilst i have no issue using a tripod, the circumstances in which i take the pictures do not always make a tripod practical - so like you i'm hand holding.
The high iso options give me many more chances of getting that shot, and as good as your 1600 iso may be on your 350D, i can assure you the 6400 iso on my 5DmkII will match it and then some - no question about it.
Then, just to make me smile even more, it will give me a faster shutter speed meaning less likelihood of camera shake.
You may say i'm comparing a pro spec camera with an entry level camera - but this thread is about the challenges faced by professional photographers - people whose livings depend on 'getting that picture'.
They don't have a choice - they have to have what ever will do the job in the same way as you have to have transport to get you from Clacton to Brighton or Bolton or where to do your job...