Hockey: a flying shot at the goal ;)

first shot I did for the paper I work at right now...Canon XTi with kit lens...ISO 1600, 1/125 sec, f5.6

Some initial advice...crop tighter...way too much white space...hockey needs to be shot with shutter speed of 1/400 or 1/500 or higher. While you can't boost ISO more than 1600 on Xti, you could have dropped your fstop to f2.8 with result of faster shutter or a brighter image. If going for the faster shutter, you can always bump up exposure in post processing. Check out multitudes of other hockey threads here for more advice.

that shot was taken with the kit lens so f2.8 was not an option...(believe me, I would have liked nothing better than to have been able to do that...sadly, I had to work with a max ISO of 1600 and a 5.6 aperture).

I don't have any post-processing software and I've (so far) hated them and have refused to use them...but, I think I'm gonna give them a shot. And yeah, it's in need of some serious cropping...again, I didn't bother to PP and this was just shot with the kit, so this was as close as I could get.

LowriderS10 wrote in post #5235751
I don't have any post-processing software and I've (so far) hated them and have refused to use them...but, I think I'm gonna give them a shot. And yeah, it's in need of some serious cropping...again, I didn't bother to PP and this was just shot with the kit, so this was as close as I could get.

Sometimes its hard to jump into that ring, but really, post-processing is the modern darkroom. With film, someone else did the developing work. With digital, its up to you. Even if you don't shoot RAW, most JPEGs can benefit from at least a little work.

Great timing and you have balls to post pics taken inside with a kit lens...

When you say your working for a "paper". Are you saying a newspaper is paying you for this?

If as Brad asks you ARE working for a newspaper and they are expecting you to cover a lot of hockey or other indoor sports (thinking of your curling thread too), you may want to build a case for them to spring for a new lens that will get you at least f2.8 or even better and maybe even a camera that can bump to 3200ISO. I know this can be tough on many newspaper budgets, but if they expect decent photos to go in the paper, they have to be prepared to give the photogs decent tools to do this with. At a minimum, get the lens. You can then do some post processing to save the day, but if the initial images are not suitable, you will find it tough.

Cheers!

Chris

thepepperman: yeah, for sure, I need to get into pp...I've just always seen it as somewhat cheating and I've been a firm believer of showing what comes off the CF card. But, I'm most certainly going to take a stab at it

Brad/Chris: haha thanks...I'm not too worried about ppl giving me a hard time due to the equipment that was used. Like you said, the timing was good, and if the only thing limiting the pic is the equipment, then that's nothing to be ashamed of.

Yes, a paper's paying me to do this. I'm a reporter/photographer by trade But, I was just at that arena to check it out (first day at the paper), and there was a game so I snapped some pics. I'm not the dedicated full-time photographer for the paper (sadly), but thankfully I still get to do quite a bit.

As you can see from my pics I've since updated my equipment to be more suitable for low-light shots such as this I'm also thinking of picking up a 50 1.8 for hockey/basketball/conc​ert/theatre photography....I just hate primes.

Do the paper have any "pool" equipment that you can use? How larger is the paper (circulation)? As far as you hating primes, you might need to change that attitude. For the stuff that you mentioned, some if it is going to be so horrifically lit that primes are going to be your only option. But just as a suggestion. I Would recommend going with a 85mm 1.8 over the 50. I know it cost more money, but the 50mm is basically useless for sports because the subjects are so far away (usually).

LowriderS10 wrote in post #5238123
Brad/Chris: haha thanks...I'm not too worried about ppl giving me a hard time due to the equipment that was used. Like you said, the timing was good, and if the only thing limiting the pic is the equipment, then that's nothing to be ashamed of.

While that may be true to you, it certainly will not help you keep a photography-related job. Editors expect correct photos, and rarely care what you use to take them or why you did not get the shot.

bigjon0107 wrote in post #5239668
While that may be true to you, it certainly will not help you keep a photography-related job. Editors expect correct photos, and rarely care what you use to take them or why you did not get the shot.

True story.

well, like I said (may have been another thread) I'm not THE photographer at the paper (I think our circulation is around 12,000/day and something like 15,000 on Fridays...at least that's what I heard).

Sadly, all of our "pool" equipment is Nikon.

I know editors expect correct photos, which is what they get from me. Our sports dep't takes care of sports photos. If they're not available then our photog takes over. I just did a few shots 'cuz I was already there. And, like I said, I've already replaced ALL of my equipment since that shot was taken. (I bought the 30D body in July and my lenses a few weeks ago).

And yes, I have to get into PP...but with my debt load, etc, it's hard to justify shelling out the money most of them cost...but...I gotta do it.

LowriderS10 wrote in post #5241069
And yes, I have to get into PP...but with my debt load, etc, it's hard to justify shelling out the money most of them cost...but...I gotta do it.

Why Shell out for a PP Program? Picasa2 and Noiseware Community are free.

Just Google them and download.

Here's an example of your photo using both. (Not the greatest, but it's a start...)

BTW, I Use both of these and you can see the results in my galleries.

Good Luck!

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

GIMP is free as well. its about 3/4 of a CS2. And it kills Elements. It is my main editor, till i can afford to just drop the kind of money CS3 costs.For paper work the free editors are perfect resources.

There is no excuse really to not use them. It is no different than printing. When printing you decide the crop, and re-decide the exposure, can change the vividness of the colors. etc...etc... In short it is Post processing. PPing or useing any other program is just finishing the process. While "straight off the card" is a noble theory.... it is like a saying about perfection.... its a a journey not a destination. We all want to be able to hand in a shot off the card, but in truth getting that perfect shot is very rare. Sure many are 'good enuf' but the vast majority need at least a bit of help. if you half-tone the image you posted it turns all muddy. But if you can bring it up (like the edit shown) it is not too bad. Yes I know half-tone is the death of all photos. but you got to help it all you can.

wow...that's a huge difference thanks a lot I got some PP program with my camera, I'm gonna load that up and see what I can do with it I'll also see if I can get my hands on the freeware you mentioned, Mark.

Thanks for your efforts Alan, I appreciate it

sigh...looks like I'm gonna have to somewhat stray from my "straight off the card or nothing" theory lol

You need the GTK runtime environment to run gimp. You can get it and GIMP in one .exe from soundforge... http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/st​able.html
But I get my GIMP updates at filehippo. http://filehippo.com/d​ownload_the_gimp/

In many cases you can get away with little or no editing. However, to do that you have to have the gear to produce high quality images with little or no editing. As an example, this gallery (while not sports it's still a good example, I think) is straight off the card with only some cropping.