New to HS Hockey

[Paul S]

New To HS Hockey C&C PLEASE

[nc-grayson]

this was with the 70-200 2.8 i'd assume? for some reason they look a bit noisy to me. good compositon though.

[showguy]

what settings were you using?

[folville]

1/400 is about as absolutely low as I find I can go for HS hockey, but even then a little bit of motion is creeping into my shots. You have the tools, and you're going to have to demand a lot of them, probably ISO 1600 or even 3200 at f/2.8 to be able to get the accurate exposures you need; these are a little dark. Number 1 shows good action in the player falling, but the second skater who's really just standing around, looking the other way is a bit detrimental to the capture. It's also just a bit too dark. Try lightening the players' faces under their masks; this will be a big help for an important part of the frame.

[Paul S]

1/400 is about as absolutely low as I find I can go for HS hockey, but even then a little bit of motion is creeping into my shots. You have the tools, and you're going to have to demand a lot of them, probably ISO 1600 or even 3200 at f/2.8 to be able to get the accurate exposures you need; these are a little dark. Number 1 shows good action in the player falling, but the second skater who's really just standing around, looking the other way is a bit detrimental to the capture. It's also just a bit too dark. Try lightening the players' faces under their masks; this will be a big help for an important part of the frame.

I was shooting M 400 @ 800 ISO f2.8
They all seem to be a little on the dark side.

And yes I'm using a 70-200 2.8 lens

BTW i still have the noise reduction on. Does it mater at the lower ISO's

[Paul S]

this was with the 70-200 2.8 i'd assume? for some reason they look a bit noisy to me. good compositon though.


Buy the way when I view #2 photo I can see the water droplets on the goal before uploading this photo. Not now

[folville]

I have long exposure noise reduction off for my shots, as I do all of my NR is post processing, usually better than the camera does it by itself. You really will probably have to go to ISO 1600 or maybe even 3200 to get the proper exposure; like most arenas, this place is probably a real cave.

[Paul S]

I have long exposure noise reduction off for my shots, as I do all of my NR is post processing, usually better than the camera does it by itself. You really will probably have to go to ISO 1600 or maybe even 3200 to get the proper exposure; like most arenas, this place is probably a real cave.

Ok I'm a novice - The Rink seems pretty well lite. If I'm at 400 @ 800 ISO 2.8 my meter is around 0. it moves a little as I pan the rink. When I move the ISO up to 1600 the meter nails the indicator to over +2. Would it be better to shot at a higher ISO and shutter speed. I was under the impression that the low the ISO the better???? Thoughts ?

[waynedsargent]

Keep in mind if you are metering anything white your meter will read right. you should overexpose hockey shots whenever possible to get the ice to go white.
http://sargentphotography.smugmug.com/photos/242957984-L-1.jpg

http://sargentphotography.smugmug.com/photos/242959794-L-1.jpg

[Lacks_focus]

I have long exposure noise reduction off for my shots, as I do all of my NR is post processing, usually better than the camera does it by itself.

I thought long exposure NR only had an effect during, well, long exposures...

For hockey... I think this tip is in the sticky at the top of the page. Worth a read.

Set your camera to AV mode, wide open, ISO1600 (to start). Shoot a clear spot of the ice (no lines, no people). No need to be in focus. Look at the shutter speed the camera sets. Set the camera to Manual mode and back the shutter off 2 stops. You may get something like 1/1600 shooting the ice. You'd leave ISO and aperture as is and set the shutter to 1/400. Sets a nice exposure for the players and gives you white ice.

[folville]

Yeah, I have no idea at what point the camera decides a shot qualifies as a long exposure, so I don't know when that kicks in, but I see no need to turn it on.

Back on topic:
The ice throws off the metering of the camera quite a bit. Because the camera meters the light reflecting off the ice (and attempts to meter for a neutral, 18% gray tone), it assumes you need less exposure than you actually do (because white is lighter and reflects more light than does gray). You, of course, know better than the camera and can overcome this by using a gray card or incident light meter to measure the proper exposure form the light that strikes the ice surface, not how much reflects off it. You can get a proper WB with the same gray card or by using the ice as mentioned above.

The histogram for well-metered hockey shots is very deceiving, notice how lopsided it is in the photo of NHL goalie Dominik Hasek below.

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/2330/hitogramou3.th.jpg (http://img82.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hitogramou3.jpg)

It will be difficult for you to get similar exposures and vibrance, even with the appropriate high ISO, but getting the right exposure is the first step towards creating great captures in difficult situations as many photographers - professional and amateur - here do.

[dmwierz]

Yeah, I have no idea at what point the camera decides a shot qualifies as a long exposure, so I don't know when that kicks in, but I see no need to turn it on.

Back on topic:
The ice throws off the metering of the camera quite a bit......

The histogram for well-metered hockey shots is very deceiving, notice how lopsided it is in the photo of NHL goalie Dominik Hasek below.

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/2330/hitogramou3.th.jpg (http://img82.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hitogramou3.jpg)


This is why hockey should be shot manual (not Av or Tv). The camera's meter WILL be fooled by the brightness of the ice and boards and will result in underexposed shots.

Yes, a histogram of a properly exposed hockey shot will have a decidedly right-side bias due to the boards and ice, and that's OK.

Folville is correct that a good way to set exposure (and CWB) is using an 18% gray card, but said gray card needs to be in the scene, placed in the orientation of the players (vertical) to ensure you account for the light reflected off the ice and boards as well as the incident light coming from above.

No need to "over expose" to get the ice to go white. Set your exposure properly - no tricks. If you want to set a custom white balance, take a shot of the dirty ice (ice that has been nice and skated on), not the clean ice, and use this as your CWB frame.

I might add that it's more important to get the whites of the uniforms correct rather than the ice, as the ice and boards are rarely really white. Our eyes, viewing the bright hockey scenes from the darkness of the stands, interprets them as white, but they're not.

I was shooting M 400 @ 800 ISO f2.8

Open up a stop on your ISO to 1600 and bump your shutter speed to 1/640 and see what happens. If you're still under exposed, come down to 1/500s. Actually, the light at this rink looks pretty good. Get a good noise program and use it.

Or...learn to use artificial light, and all these challenges will go away.

[Paul S]

Thanks So much Guys !!!!

I have two games to shoot this weekend :D