[Browser Mike]

Since there does not appear to be much action at the moment I have posted this to check that there is still life out there.
Shot taken at same time as one in previous post. Exif data is the same, but more headroom and a little more contrast. ( imo )

[attachment=6862]

Greetings to all,
Mike.

[snaphappy]

Hello Mike. I was thinking the same thing, where has everyone gone?

A much better photo imo. I prefer photos to look as they were taken, without too much processing. How did you add the headroom. I haven't got into processing very heavily so am a novice, but that would be handy to know.

Keep posting, I'm here

Regards Jane

[MrB]

Hello Mike. I agree with Jane - the image quality is much better than in the previous image. Two things came to mind straight away. First, with your camera could you have made the background (i.e. the far river banks) somewhat out-of-focus? Second, do you have a shot with the artist facing towards you, to see the effort and concentration in his face?

Cheers.
Philip

[Jocko]

Much better but, as Philip says, I am sure you took other interesting shots at the time.

[EdMak]

Much better Mike. Here is one i edited of the original when it was posted.

Jane look closely, they are not the same pic. Cheers. Ed. still alive!.

[Browser Mike]

Thanks so much for the replies. I will attempt to answer your queries.
Jane, good to hear from you. You will see from the work of the maestro, Ed, in #5 what can be done to add height to a shot.

Philip, I am not sure if it is possible to get a shorter depth of field with such a small sensor compared to a DSLR. I do tend to shoot at f/4, which is the sweet spot, to get reasonable sharpness. I will have to experiment more and shoot at f/2.8. The alternative is to learn how to ' Blur ' in photoshop. Sadly Dave, the artist, worked with his back towards me for the few minutes that he was there before he left for a break. I only had time to take the two shots that I have posted.

John T, Think I have answered your query in the reply above. Trust that you are not being overworked.

Ed, You have done it again.

Still have a lot to learn about the FZ200. Better weather should be on the way. Happy shooting to all and, once again, thanks for taking the time to reply.
Cheers,
Mike.

[Jocko]

Not working at all, Mike. I am laid up after another bout of surgery. Only excitement I get just now is Fallout 3, on the Xbox 260.

[Browser Mike]

Sorry to read that, John T. Wishing you a rapid recovery.
Mike.

[EdMak]

Likewise John. Cheers. Ed.

[MrB]

...I am not sure if it is possible to get a shorter depth of field with such a small sensor compared to a DSLR. I do tend to shoot at f/4, which is the sweet spot, to get reasonable sharpness...
Mike.

Hello again, Mike. I've just been looking at some reviews of the FZ200 - quite some camera. They give the impression that the lens is excellent, so it should be good enough to try shooting more often at f/2.8 - the aperture that sets it apart from other bridge cameras. The sharpness should be OK for screen images and for prints up to A3. I've also had a play with a depth of field calculator, which indicates that the lens should give a short enough depth-of-field at f/2.8 to give some blur to the background, in images of similar distances as in this one. So, as you have suggested, it will be interesting to experiment.

Cheers.
Philip

[Browser Mike]

Thanks so much for that Philip. I should be out and about before too long. With any luck the weather should start to improve. Then the experiments will begin.
I will post at f/2.8 so that you and others can offer comments.
Cheers,
Mike.