Sportshooters: flash or strobe for hockey

[perfectpixel]

Hi All,
quick question for those of you who shoot hockey.
When you get to shoot from the open areas, what flash or strobe do you use. A friend of mine mentioned a "potato masher" :)
but I need a little more detail than that.
Thanks!
PP

[Torcidas]

Here in Croatia there is forbidden to use flashes on sprt matches no matter what sport you shoot...

[perfectpixel]

sorry to hear that.
Anyone in the US?

[DaveG]

Hi All,
quick question for those of you who shoot hockey.
When you get to shoot from the open areas, what flash or strobe do you use. A friend of mine mentioned a "potato masher" :)
but I need a little more detail than that.
Thanks!
PP

Shooting hockey with a camera mounted flash is a very bad idea. You may well illuminate the subject but will get flash fall off behind the subject and this is unacceptable in good sports photography.

The pro's will mount radio slaved strobes in the rafters of the buiding and use this indirect and very powerfull flash light to illuminate the subject. They get no fall off and that's the kind of lighting that is used in Sports Illustrated for hockey and basketball photographs.

Other than that, you'll have to use available light and a high ISO setting on your camera. I wouldn't waste my time trying to shoot hockey (without strobes of course) with a shutterspeed under 1/500 of a second, so there's a place to start. On a 1.6 camera a 70-200 f2.8 would be the lens of choice. But you will need an aperture of at least 2.8.

I made my living shooting for a daily newspaper in Canada for about eight years (150+ games per year), used Tri-X film rated at ei 1600 and with a manual focus Nikkor 180mm f2.8 for most of it. You don't mention which camera you use but with ei 3200 available on the 10 and 20D's and the effective 320mm f2.8 focal length you'd have a wonderful setup for hockey photographs in all but the darkest buildings.

If you have a slow lens or it's a low light level rink then hockey action shots might just be impossible.

[perfectpixel]

Hi Dave,
I'm using a 200 2.8 and a 10D set to 1600 in a very dark rink.
The results are barely passable.
The idea for the flash wasn't so much to be the main source of light, but to help fill in the shadows a little when the action is close.
That, and I am trying to find out what the "potato masher" reference meant exactly.
I'll post a couple of examples when I have them uploaded.
1600 for the 10D is very noisy as you know. I try to avoid 800 even!
cheers!

[DaveG]

Hi Dave,
I'm using a 200 2.8 and a 10D set to 1600 in a very dark rink.
The results are barely passable.
The idea for the flash wasn't so much to be the main source of light, but to help fill in the shadows a little when the action is close.
That, and I am trying to find out what the "potato masher" reference meant exactly.
I'll post a couple of examples when I have them uploaded.
1600 for the 10D is very noisy as you know. I try to avoid 800 even!
cheers!

A flash to "fill in the shadows" won't be very satisfactory to you. First off you are basicly trying to use a fill flash technique by matching the ambient light to the flash output. So you set the ambient light first with 1/200 as your fastest shutterspeed. For argument sake lets say that the exposure is 1/200 @ f4. With that exposure - and you are limited to 1/200 of a second by the 10D's synch speed - you WILL get ghosting.

To avoid ghosting you'd have to use a much smaller aperture to cut the ambient light out of the exposure and that's when you get flash fall off.

The first thing I'd try to do is to increase the ISO to 3200 (H) and work from there. If you can't get 1/500 @ f2.8 with ISO 3200 then I'm afraid that you are going to be out of luck in that building. Any slower shutterspeed won't freeze the action.

[drisley]

If you have a look here (http://www.fotop.net/sharpnsmart/hockey), I have pictures taken in an amateur rink, and in a pro rink.
I used a 20D, Iso1600, 85F1.8 and 135F2L. No flash required. I was getting pretty decent shutter speeds too.

[phili1]

NIce pictures Drisley.

[dphoto]

Wow, those are some great shots! Did you do any noise reduction on those images? Also, did you take the shots a little underexposed, or at the proper exposure? I've been doing some events myself (not hockey) and I'm try to get my technique down. But once again, great shots!

Thanks,
-Deva

[drisley]

Thankyou phili1 and dphoto.
I used no noise reduction. I have Noise Ninja, but I never need it.
Never, NEVER underexpose to get a shot! I always try to get proper exposure, or even slightly overexpose. If you underexpose you will get alot of noise. I think this is the main reason people still complain about the amount of noise they get with their 10D and 20D (both of which have very low noise profiles at Iso800 and 1600).
Because the ice is bright white, auto exposure will tend to underexpose, so I adjust the Exposure Compensation about +1. Take a few test shots, then check your histogram.
Also, I am lucky because the 135F2L is tack sharp wide open. So all my shots are at F2. I was getting on average 1/500s shots at ISO1600 in the amateur rink in the first 2 galleries.
In the last gallery, the pro rink was VERY well lit. With the 135F2L and 1.4x extender, I was getting around 1/640s at ISO800 at F2.8! With pro hockey you need more speed, so I could easily be getting over 1/1000s if I switched to ISO1600.
Btw, all the pictures were shot thru the plexi-glass which isn't ideal, but it didnt degrade the image too much.
Oh, I also shoot Raw so I dont have to worry about white balance. However, Auto WB seemed to work nicely in the end. Most new rinks use very white zenon lights, much like on the headlights of new cars. This is wonderful for digicams.
BTw, I'm new to hockey photography too, so I'm still learning. But if you have any questions, feel free to ask :)

[Vegas Poboy]

I have not had a chance to shoot hockey yet but I've shot a great deal of other sports & most semi & major sports flash is forbidden. Fast lense is the best way to get the shots.

[dphoto]

Hey drisley,

Thanks for responding. Wow, correct exposure with 1/640 at f/2.8 ISO 800 is a well lit arena! At this last event, I was at 1/320 f/2.8 ISO 800, and like I said, underexposed by about 2 stops. At my previous event, I used 1/250 f/1.8 ISO 400. When the shots came out, they were great, but I had 2 problems: (1) Some high action shots were a little blurred, and (2) the DOF was too narrow. When the subjects weren't standing in the same plane, it was all over. Did you have any DOF problems at f/2?

So you suggest never underexposing? I recall getting advice that I could underexpose a little if I needed, although maybe I'm just pushing it too far. Maybe at my next event I'll try to get closer to proper exposure and I'll use ISO 1600, f/2.5 or f/2.2, and I'll have to decide between 1/250 and 1/320. I'm really afriad of using ISO 1600, but I suppose I should give it a try. <gulp>

I just looked at your shot MG_2563 again, and I just can't believe that's at ISO 1600 with no noise reduction. Is it possible for a Digital Rebel to do that with the 50mm f/1.8 lens at f/2? Drisley, would it be possible for you to post part of that image not size reduced so that I can look at the noise more closely? You know what I mean, just crop the face or a leg or something, but at 100% size. If not, that's cool too. I'd just love to take a shot with my camera and lens at ISO 1600 and compare.

Thanks again!
-Deva

[drisley]

Dp, yes, the Rebel really does have low noise too.
Have a look at THIS (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/iso1600crop2.jpg) full size picture which was taken at ISO800 with the 300D with no noise reduction.
It was with the 85F1.8 and F2.2 I believe.

I just took some pictures at a Team Canada JR game today. I will post them in a moment.

[drisley]

Ok, here are the pictures I posted in two threads.

Here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=50383) and Here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=50381)

[dphoto]

Hey drisley,

Wow, once again, great hockey shots! Thanks for posting that ISO 800 crop. BTW, the image name is "iso1600crop2.jpg", but that was taken at ISO 800, right? Please tell me it was. :) I'm getting much more noise than that at ISO 800. From everything we've talked about, it looks like it's probably the fact that I underexposed. I took a proper exposure yesterday of my watch at ISO 800, and it looked really good. That's difficult to compare with skin tones, so I'll try again on a person.

Here is a crop at 100% of one of the underexposed shots I took. (http://capitalcityphoto.com/tmp/ISO800-2835.jpg) I used the 50mm f/1.8 lens at 1/320sec f/2.8 ISO 800. Even at ISO 1600 I wouldn't have had proper exposure, so I'm going to have to reduce my DOF I think. In your opinion, is this noise coming from underexposure?

Thanks again for all your help!
-Deva

[drisley]

Thanks DP.
Yes, that Rebel shot was actually ISO800. THe thing is, the ISO1600 shots were so clean, I wasn't sure which it was until I looked at the EXIF.
Your picture is normal for an underexposed shot. Once you try to compensate in software, it will definately be noisy.
Try your best to get that histogram as far "to the right" as possible without clipping the highlights.

[dphoto]

Very cool, this has all been very informative. Thanks again for all your help. It definitely gives me some new things to try for next time. Keep up the good work with the hockey shots, and I'll see you around the board!

-Deva