High School Hockey-- thoughts?

some shots I took tonight of some of the players I know at the local high school game. First game with my new sigma 70-200 f2.8. shot on an xti. some were shot through the glass some weren't.. constructive criticism welcome.

Some CC:

- you need a puck, there isn't one in the whole series

- keep the horizon level (shot 2& 4)

- you can still do some more in the PP on the ttg shots; like #18 skater coming at you - you can remove that haze a bit more yet. I couldn't see in the exif what you're using, but usually some contrast adjustment can clear it up.

- rethink keeping shots like the one of #19. It's the back/side of his head, no action, stick cut off; a "non-shot" for most

- on shots like 1, 2, 6, 7 you do not need iso 1600 and a 1/400 shutter speed. There is next to no movement to stop, so reduce your iso and ss to improve your image quality.

- number your shots when posting on here - easier for us to make reference to them


cheers !

thanks for the comments.

I just kind of grabbed a few random ones, there are shots with the puck I just didn't realize I didn't post any of them.

these are all right out of the camera with the exception of cropping 1 or 2 of them... I don't have photoshop yet so right now all I have to go with is iPhoto.

Ill have to remember to think about that on the pictures like 1,2,6,7... I had the camera on manual mode the whole game so I didn't really think about it much once I set it... ill have to make sure I think about that more

thanks for the input

I think Darcy hit the nail on the head with all those comments except for the puck one, some of my best shots have been without the puck and it's not always needed IMHO. I do agree with the face comment though. In sports photography you need to have the face, it's the biggest part of the photo.

But keep trying and don't get discouraged!

Drew

Drewc2010 wrote in post #13493128
some of my best shots have been without the puck and it's not always needed IMHO.

Agree there are great shots to be had without the puck. I didn't say it was always needed, just this whole series on hockey without a puck is a bit much.

I've always said the hockey trifecta is face-puck-net. Usually 2 of those 3 (as long as one is face) will do it.


cheers !

Darsk47 wrote in post #13493248
Agree there are great shots to be had without the puck. I didn't say it was always needed, just this whole series on hockey without a puck is a bit much.

I've always said the hockey trifecta is face-puck-net. Usually 2 of those 3 (as long as one is face) will do it.


cheers !

Thats a good trifecta, never heard or seen it like that but I like it. And I agree a whole set without the puck does make me wonder what action was being followed.OP, Stick to the puck and follow the action, anticipate where the play is moving (this will come in time) and be ready before the action actually happens so you can catch that perfect shot.

Darcy, I went to my most recent hockey action and looked to find an example without the puck...it took me a while to find one but OP the one with #18 is a good shot that just needs some PP...reminded me of this one I had

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …erphotography/6​310851904/

I like the idea of seeing the puck, also. Here is a little ditty from a couple weeks back, the puck is an important part in a lot of the photos. http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=JPQjmO8o_8c Hockey is a fast paced but for some reason I like the action stopped.

thanks for all the input guys.

also just info for those who were wondering why the odd number of no puck photos... for this particular game I was following not always the play of the puck but more so taking pictures of the specific people I knew, so some of the time I was following them whether they were in the direct play at the moment or not, so thats why theres more pictures without the puck than usual, and i didn't even really think about it when posting here, just kind of grabbed a few quick to put up for some input.