jfisanick wrote in post #9531700
Dave I too took a look at a handful of your hockey pics, I think a portion of them are decent lighting while some are underexposed, It's possible your moving at different areas of the rink and it could be casting some shadow or your opening up the lens all the way to capture something further, Also noticed a handful of shots are of the players back I do get a handful of those myself but usually weed them out since I like to see the players expressions.
I shoot roughly about 1000 pictures for a Wings game and get it down to about 150 and and than about 75 ever make it online.
Hope that helps
Dave I too took a look at a handful of your hockey pics, I think a portion of them are decent lighting while some are underexposed, It's possible your moving at different areas of the rink and it could be casting some shadow or your opening up the lens all the way to capture something further, Also noticed a handful of shots are of the players back I do get a handful of those myself but usually weed them out since I like to see the players expressions.
I shoot roughly about 1000 pictures for a Wings game and get it down to about 150 and and than about 75 ever make it online.
Hope that helps
Helps a lot - I was shooting from the players bench, which is under a running track so almost like a dugout. It is the only place in the rink I don't need to shoot through the glass, which is horribly dirty. I think you may have nailed my frustration. Good point about the backs. I think I gravitate toward them because the little tikes' names are on the backs.
Can I ask what size lens you are using?
