first time hockey CC

[Holster]

this was my first time shooting a hockey game or a sporting event for the matter. i had fun. it was tough with my 70-200 F4L because its not very good for indoors but i managed with iso800. im suprised there wasnt more noise but im not sad about it hah.

here they are.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4037/4389252078_24c8f306c9.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4018/4389254422_cccfff1457.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4003/4388481033_17f6a4168d.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4389249012_bbf4a9e707.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4388482499_37febde305.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2789/4388483405_5e4fcf6e8d.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2736/4388487521_4064b58845.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4050/4389253610_6dce9035a2.jpg

[DHMN]

Other than crooked horizons...there isn't a puck in any of the pictures...

[Holster]

its not that easy when your using a slow lens and the puck is only in the REALLY OOF shots but i get what you mean. i tried getting creative with the shots since i didnt really have a good view. i had to stand at the back of the bleachers on the far end of the rink. it was a packed game because it was the first game of sections play. i kinda like the tilt on some of them.

[drisley]

I'm really liking #6.
Go easy on the tilted effect. It can look great, but should be used minimally for best effect.

[BenJohnson]

Shoot manual!

[dedsen]

Nice exposure and color but the tilt is not working for me.

[folville]

I agree, they're not bad photos, but you do need to get a better white balance. If you can't get a gray card out there, you could easily take a pretty accurate reading off the ice (with a little tweaking).

I would try to get more faces and fronts of bodies in the frame. I'm also in agreement with others that a tilt effect can be useful at times, but only when used sparingly.

Otherwise, I'd be interested to see just what sort of action you were able to capture with the f/4.

[Holster]

Manual would have been a pain! the lighting was REALLY inconsistant. some shots where REALLY dark and others were ok. i would have loved to been able to shoot manual but as someone who has never shot a team sports event i was just trying it out. i feel like i would have had a harder time jumping into manual for this. my whitebalance was off i know. im used to shooting raw and changing it after. burst mode doesnt work as long raw so i switched back and forth.

the other issue of shooting faces was that i was standing at the top back of the bleachers in a corner because there wasnt any room. the glass was throwing off my images so i got above it the best i could.

thanks for all of the help!

here are some more. no tilts! lol.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4003/4390075417_ef754cde36.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2799/4390076041_d3cb9105a3.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2802/4390076685_68f4ee1a97.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4010/4390844508_7f2c500d0a.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4064/4390074867_93e5bfcde1.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4027/4389252932_62f8946bfb.jpg

[folville]

I think those show a good improvement in composition over most of the first set you posted, so good work (but the last image could use a bump in exposure; it would also be nice to have consistent exposure and PP across the board).

Lighting can be inconsistent, especially in corners, but I'd be surprised if it were really more than a 1/2-stop difference, so I still think manual would be the best option. Once you get that metered, you can shoot away knowing that every shot should be exposed correctly. You did pretty well from that location, but I'm a big fan of shooting from the corners through the glass.

The photographers at the Star Tribune often shoot from center ice at the concourse level using a 300mm. It's a safe play because you can see action on both ends, but I'd rather have the in-the-game perspective of a corner-ice shot.

[Holster]

I think those show a good improvement in composition over most of the first set you posted, so good work (but the last image could use a bump in exposure; it would also be nice to have consistent exposure and PP across the board).

Lighting can be inconsistent, especially in corners, but I'd be surprised if it were really more than a 1/2-stop difference, so I still think manual would be the best option. Once you get that metered, you can shoot away knowing that every shot should be exposed correctly. You did pretty well from that location, but I'm a big fan of shooting from the corners through the glass.

The photographers at the Star Tribune often shoot from center ice at the concourse level using a 300mm. It's a safe play because you can see action on both ends, but I'd rather have the in-the-game perspective of a corner-ice shot.

im not sure if i would have called it half a stop. the lighting was REALLY and i mean REALLY different all over the place. one shot would be really well exposed and the next would be VERY dark. to the point where if i tried to lighten it up it would just be over the top with noise. ill try it again and use your tips though since you know more about it than i do. i think i was pretty lucky because EP community center has a well lit rink in comparison to most others.

I think the best part about the game was that a couple parents started talking to me about the shots. i Emailed them some photos because they asked if id be willing to share. so far ive gotten returns with GREAT feedback. i think i might have a job next season shooting their games. ill have a 7D by then i think :)

thanks for the help!

[BenJohnson]

Were the shots varying when you actually were using manual exposure? No EXIF, so I can't tell how much the exposure was actually changing. If you were just shooting Av the whole time, then I'd strongly suspect that the variation in lighting that you were seeing in the photos was from the camera being "fooled" by the color of the ice. The ones that are properly exposed have more players and less ice, and they also appear to be more "static" shots. The camera had a better chance to get the metering right.

I'd probably bump the ISO to 1600 to get the shutter speed up, and just try shooting manual. See how bad it really is. Every the corners are extremely dark you can try to adjust on the fly, shoot them underexposed and see how much you can process them, or even just stick to action in front of the net or in more well lit areas.

I've had good luck shooting from around center ice with a 300mm as well. 200mm from the top of the stands is going to be a little short for a player to fill the frame, but the perspectives that you caught look pretty good. EDIT: Here are mine shot from approx center ice with a 300mm: HERE (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=830030)

Nice to see some MN photographers around here :)

[Holster]

Were the shots varying when you actually were using manual exposure? No EXIF, so I can't tell how much the exposure was actually changing. If you were just shooting Av the whole time, then I'd strongly suspect that the variation in lighting that you were seeing in the photos was from the camera being "fooled" by the color of the ice. The ones that are properly exposed have more players and less ice, and they also appear to be more "static" shots. The camera had a better chance to get the metering right.

I'd probably bump the ISO to 1600 to get the shutter speed up, and just try shooting manual. See how bad it really is. Every the corners are extremely dark you can try to adjust on the fly, shoot them underexposed and see how much you can process them, or even just stick to action in front of the net or in more well lit areas.

I've had good luck shooting from around center ice with a 300mm as well. 200mm from the top of the stands is going to be a little short for a player to fill the frame, but the perspectives that you caught look pretty good. EDIT: Here are mine shot from approx center ice with a 300mm: HERE (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=830030)

Nice to see some MN photographers around here :)

thanks for the info on Av. ill try Manual next time i get a chance to shoot another hockey game. ill have a season of girls rugby coming up soon. should i consider the same?

i dont go above iso800 ever. im using an XTi and it cannot handle 1600 without loads of noise. ive tried it and i think its gross. your using a 7D in those photos. im jealous. thats my next camera so i hope to be shooting well in low light conditions soon. it will make F4 a lot easier to deal with haha. your able to shoot at MUCH higher iso ranges and not deal with nearly as much noise and softness as i am. i was already shooting high iso for my XTi and your WAY higher and getting less noise! how does it feel? haha. those are nice shots. i really cant wait to upgrade.

[BenJohnson]

I owned an XTI for over a year and every indoor event I shot with it, the ISO was pegged at 1600 the entire time. I even used it at ISO3200 with the firmware hack (HERE (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=747030)). I guess it all just comes down to your preference.

But first off, I'd work on shooting manual mode and get the exposure nailed. The better your exposure is out of camera, the less noise there will be. If the rugby is indoors, it should be pretty easy to shoot in manual. If it's outdoors it will depend on the conditions. Av will most likely be easier.

EDIT: I just checked out your Flickr page and looked at the EXIF data. They are all ISO800 and f/4. The "bench" shots are are at 1/125 and 1/160th of a second. I think the exposure looks "right" on the 1/125th of a second exposure. Most of the action shots are at 1/250th or 1/320th of a second. That's over a stop too quick, just because the camera was "fooled" by the ice.

With your gear (at that arena) I would shoot at f/4, ISO1600, and 1/250th of a second. Even that shutter speed isn't really enough to stop action, but 1/125th is way too slow. I'd rather have a little bit of noise than a ton of motion blur. And especially if these are going to be mostly for web viewing. The noise from ISO1600 is going to be barely noticeable.