Any photographers out there?

[Dante2004 0]

I don't know about you guys, but I am tired of taking "bad" pictures at the rink because of low lighting and the limited capabilities of a consumer grade "point and shoot" camera. My pictures are dark, grainy or the players are blurry (camera shake - slow shutter speeds)

This week I ordered a Sony Alpha (a100) DSLR camera. Not just for hockey...but family photos and the wife wants to take up photography as a hobby...

Anyway, I would be interested to hear some of the tips/tricks you guys might have taking photos in "poorly lit" rinks. I am not a photo expert, but there is certainly a difference in the lighting quality of, for example an NHL game vs a typical youth league rink.

Do you guys zoom in our your subject with the camera? Or do you wait to do that digitally with software? What have your experiences been with using a flash vs slower shuttter speed or changing the apperature? How feasible is it to use a tri-pod if you are standing in the penalty box taking pictures?

Thanks.

[kovalchuk71 212]

I made a topic about this about a month ago.

NHL pics are good because there are flashes in the rafters of the stadium

[rogue 0]

In regards to flash vs. shutter speed vs. aperture (vs. ISO).

I would think slowing down the shutter speed would be the last thing you want to do. Unless a player is standing still there will be more motion blur the slower the shutter speed. I would say first bump up the ISO. ISO is the digital equivalent of film speed. A higher ISO will take in more light (though it adds grain to the pictures). The appearance of grain can be reduced digitally and is many times undetectable in the printed image. A flash would help alot too but you don't want to be interfering with the game which is a definite possibility if you are taking pictures from the box. Using the flash behind the glass may also cause some problems.

[number21 3]

High ISO (will make things more grainy, but will help with low light and zooming)

Use at least 1/125 shutter speed

Buy a more powerful flash

Wait for your subject to be with in range of the flash

A mono-pod might be better for the box and to keep things steady. Unless you want to blur the action a low shutter speed won't do any good. I am not familiar with your DSLR (or mine yet for that matter :lol:) but read up on the aperture to flash relationship. It will probably be in your manual or if you get a big flash in that manual.

I haven't taken sports photos since high school (about 10 years) and I have never been great at explaining photography, I just kind of learned from my dad w/out a lot of technical stuff brought into it. So maybe that other thread will help you too.

Also DPreview.com has a forum that might help you out on your specific camera.

[golfpuck 0]

the wife is a professional photographer..

so i can only tell you the few things i have learned...

if you want to zoom in, zoom in as you can only zoom in soo much digitally.

for poor lighting you can use photo editing software to compensate...

adobe photoshop etc.. microsoft digial something... your sony may come with some software..

you could still get "grainy" photos with the sony alpha camera, you really have to know your equipment.

typically you get those "grainy" photos with the default settings especially in auto... you will have to research and do some trial and error..

all the photos i take in auto = grainy.

her's are well professional...

don't assume you can get those picture perfect photos without spending a lot of time and effort...

pros have spent years perfecting their craft...

might want to try a light meter.. it will tell you what shutter speed, and aperature setting to use.. ( i end up running around.. holding it for her a lot )

but with motion.. you will have to compensate and compromise. ie. light meter could tell you to use long shutter speed with larger fstop(aperature).

on camera flashes are not very powerful, so you would have to consider an off camera flash.. however, you dont want to blind some kid on a break away either.

[number21 3]

i didn't even think of flash interference!

try to keep the subjects far enough away to keep from blinding them. be sure to check with the refs and coaches too.

[Jason 65]

Some recommendations...get as close to your subject as possible so as to eliminate the need to zoom in so much. The more zoomed in you are the more likely you are to have blurred images and also I believe that the lens cannot take in as much light when zoomed. Bump up your ISO setting as high as you can without having significant grain issues. This may be around 800 for the Alpha. If you can use your flash do so, but make sure it is sync'd correctly and make sure that you are not behind that glass as that will cause problems. If you can, shoot from the benches or through one of those lens cutouts in the glass. Number 21 is right about shutter speed. Anything below 1/125 is too slow for hockey. You may find that you need to go up to 1/250 if the players are reasonably quick or if your lens does not allow for lower aperature settings, but of course that opens up other problems. Having a nice big fat pro lens helps alot.

[biff44 0]

That looks like a nice camera. But, as you can tell it is hard to take pix in a hockey rink because it is dark, and the players do not cooperate by skating around really fast!

So, I would recommend the following:

1: Set your camera to have its higest effective ISO rating (I think it is 1600 for the Sony, which is good but not fantastic)

2: Go out an buy the nicest lens you can afford that has a fixed f2.8. F2.8 is a measure of how big the hole is in the lens (ie how much light it captures). A typical cheap zoom lens might have f3.5 to 5.6 as you change the zoom. An expensive one may have f2.8 over the full zoom range. Bring your checkbook! And do not waste your money on cheap zooms with a poor f aperature--they simply do not work in hockey rinks.

3: Set you camera to shoot in "aperture mode". Tell it to stay at f2.8 (or the largest aperture that you have on that lens), and let it automatically vary the "shutter" speed for the light conditions. That will get you the fastest speed possible for the limited light in the arena.

4) There is a lot of technique involved. If a player is moving fast, learn how to pan smoothly to keep him centered in the picture as you push the button. That way he is not "streaking" across the picture, and it will appear to be more in focus.

5) When you are not panning, learn how to hold your camera with minimum movement--since that movement will look like the picture was out of focus.

6) learn how to do the focusing best. Some cameras can focus on more than one object, such as the center and with a lower weight other objects around the center. Read you manual. The problem is that when you are not pointing right at the player, you are instead pointing at the white ice where the camera has trouble focusing (and can flip out momentarily). If you can not tame the autofocus, then switch to manual focus and work on your technique.

If you get the big aperture lens, and learn how to hold and pan your camera, you can take pix that are almost as good or equal to the pro ones.

[G60 0]

do some research about lenses and filters. the lens that came with your camera is a basic 'all-around' lens.

you'll want to get a tripod or bipod, very helpful for indoor low light conditions etc.

and remember, flashes are useless after about 10 feet.

go out and get to know your camera, take pictures of anything! you don't have to worry about wasting film with a DSLR.

[biff44 0]

Sorry, tripods do not work at all. Play is too fast. You can not even use a monopod, as you need to pan around too fast.

[Maka 0]

As a kid who's done some freelance photography for some magazines, had experience in an internship under a professional, and was raised with a semi-pro photographer for a father, I can tell you that yes, while having a nice camera is important, having a good, nay, fantastic lens is just as important.

From a quick look at some sample pictures of the camera itself, it looks like it comes with a f3.5-5.6 18-70, which is pretty much the industry standard for freebie lenses. Even if you blast your ISO to 1600 and keep your zoom down to 18mm, you're not going to be sucking in enough light with just a 3.5. I would highly suggest saving up for a faster lens.

You have a couple of options. If you're strapped for cash, you may want to look into something along the lines of a fixed 85mm at f2.8 or f.1.8. Hell, I think Minolta used to make a fixed 80mm f1.4 or something along those lines. Your other option is to buy something with the ability to change how much you zoom. Warning: These will be pricy! My dad recently picked up a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 with VR (vibration reduction) for around $1500 US. Given, it may be a ridiculously sexy piece of glass, but expensive nonetheless.

So that's just my two cents. If you take anything away from this post, it's to invest in a great lens. And while it will be frustrating taking pictures of hockey (which I've heard is one of the most difficult sports to photograph), don't give up and just keep trying! Hell, just be fortunate that you're shooting with a D-SLR and don't have to pay for film :P

[AnthonyJTa 0]

Hell, just be fortunate that you're shooting with a D-SLR and don't have to pay for film :P

thats exactly what I was going to say... I just got a Pentax DSLR myself, and I've just been playing around with all of my options... seeing I don't have to take the time/waste the money developing. It's as simple as cleaning it all off of my card.

I spent a day at the rink, just sitting around shooting last week. It's best to just kick around the rink, and find what works best.

[number21 3]

I took my new Pentax K110D to the rink last night for my roommate's game. It worked pretty well I think. I have yet to look at them on a computer yet so I don't know how sharp they are.

My fixed lens with an f2.8 at 1000 got enough light in general. My cheap-o zoom did ok but i had to slow down the shutter a little bit, and i am not sure how sharp this lens is in general.

This is my first DSLR and i am pretty happy with it. Someday maybe i'll save up for a quality lens, unless i want new skates or something first! :P

If i got anything worth sharing maybe i'll post it.

[biff44 0]

Here are some pix I took noodling around the rink last night.

Nikon D200 with a AF-S VR 70-200 mm f2.8 lens. Iso was around 2600 (H0.7)

Maybe half of the pix I took that night were this good in image quality. The others were darker, pinkish, blured, etc. One problem is that rinks are really not uniformly lit!

http://s90.photobucket.com/albums/k254/thr...p;addtype=local

[trox_355 0]

I'm gonna back up biff44 and make another shout for good glass. 90% of the time, my camera is married to my favorite piece of glass, the Nikon 17-55/2.8. I shoot sports and journalistic assignments for my school's newspaper. My main sport to shoot is baseball, but I'm pretty well-versed in football, volleyball and soccer, too. Our school only has a club hockey team, and since the paper really only runs one article on each club sport throughout the year, there's never really any need for images from them. Reading this thread makes me want to shoot a few games for the hell of it, though...

However, volleyball would probably be the closest to shooting hockey, as far as light and movement go. Our home volleyball matches are held in Reynolds Coliseum, which even though the arena recently got new lights, it's still a cave to shoot in. I use a Sigma 120-300/2.8 on a Nikon D200 for most shooting, and even with the lens wide open, still need to crank up the ISO to prevent blur. I don't really know what sort of glass is available for the Sony alpha, but would imagine it's comparable to what you can get for the Canon or Nikon bodies.

Try not to use an on-camera flash if at all possible. If you're behind the glass it will cause lens flare. Also, like golfpuck said, no player is going to be impressed with any picture you take of him (or her) if they whiff on a shot because of your portable lightning. Kovalchuk71 is right about the rafter-mounted strobes. I work for the school's newspaper, and none of our staffers even get to use those things.

As far as grain goes, I'll say the same thing I told my staff--who were freakishly cautious about setting the ISO anything above 400--when I was photo editor: "What good is a blurry photo if it has no grain?"

Above all, get comfortable with your gear, learn to make it work for you, and just keep shooting. Chimping is no longer taboo as it once was. You paid for the LCD on the back--use it!

Also, if you're wanting for inspiration, check out SportsShooter. This place has interns, students, local paper shooters, and national (Peter Read Miller and the like) people. Read through, check out the portfolios.

[Dante2004 0]

Thank you for the advice. I took ~200 shots this weekend with various settings and objects. I think I have pretty much figured out the best settings for stationary shots in our rink but I still have some work to do with the motion shots. I have read about half of the manual so far to familiarize myself with all the settings. One thing is for sure, you really do have a lot of control with this camera. I don't know how the others compare...just comparing this to the basic point and shoot camera.

I will have to post some of the pics I have taken once they uploaded...

Thanks again!

[biff44 0]

Stationary shots are easy! If your kid is a goalie, you can just set it up on a tripod, lock it down, and shoot at will.

[chrisg19 5]

There is a lot of good advice in this thread, so I will just back up what everyone has said. Start with at least ISO 800, many recomend 1600, but with a fast lens, I haven't found it necessary. For hockey, or any indoor sports the faster the lens the better. (ie f-2.8). Also setting your camera to aperature mode to hold the lens open at that 2.8 seems to work the best for me, short of going full manual.

One piece of addvice I haven't seen mentioned here is to experiment with your white balance settings. Unless you are shooting Raw, which you can adjust later, Try different settings to compensate for the white of the ice. I have found the "tungsten" setting on my Canon is pretty good for hockey. Changing the white balance will take away or minimize the yellow, or blue casts you get when left in auto white balance mode. Lastly learn to use a good photo editing program, like photoshop, you can "save" a lot of marginal pictures, but that is a whole different art...

Below is a shot of Jim Dowd with the New Jersey Devils at practice in November. This was shot at ISO 800, f-2.8, 1/500th, on a monopod.It's small because I use it as an avatar on some other sites (I'll post a bigger one later)...

Good Luck,

Chris

[biff44 0]

Good idea on the white balance. I have been using it set to auto, but I get some funky coloring on some shots! Time to experiment some more.

[trox_355 0]

As far as white balance, depending on the arena and lighting, you can usually get pretty close to an estimate just by looking at the type of lights. YMMV, but fluorescent tubes usually work well with the (surprise) fluorescent setting on the camera. Most metal-halide lamps (the big pendant-type ones) are balanced for daylight, so the open sun setting should get you close.

Because it's really hard and usually not accurate anyway, trying to correct your white balance setting on the camera's LCD isn't a great idea. If you use a laptop, try bringing that with you and check some test images. Like chrisg19 said, you can also try shooting RAW and play with the white balance in software once you get the images home. Your camera might also have a white balance preset feature where you can balance off a white sheet of paper to get a true neutral point.

[chrisg19 5]

Personally I am not a big fan of Raw for hockey. I shoot a ton of photos when I am at the rink with the hopes of getting a handful of keepers. the additional size of a Raw file, and the effects it can have with buffer under run in burst mode makes me weary, though I have never bounced off the buffer in actual practice.

I like to read books on photography, though I realize many are beyond what the "average" person is looking for. One book I would highly reccomend however is this book by Scott Kelby. It covers the gamut of photography, and offers alot of good tips. It is an easy read, and not super technical, and is a pretty good place to start for the hobbyist.

The Digital Photography Book

Here is a recent shot of Sergei Brylin. A good lens is essential for good photos, and a good knowledge of the game you are shooting is extremely helpful. Good Luck with the new camera purchase...

Chris

[trox_355 0]

Chris, did you strobe that, or is the shadow just from the arena lights?

[chrisg19 5]

Just the lighting in the arena, I don't use any sort of flash. The lighting at the practice rink is very good however.

Chris

[kovalchuk71 212]

Hey trox, I hve a d50, wht lens would you reccomend for hockey?

[trox_355 0]

Hey trox, I hve a d50, wht lens would you reccomend for hockey?

Because I tend to ramble, the answer to your question is in the first paragraph. If you have time, continue reading and see what I say as I put off homework...

More or less, The best lens falls into the recommendation of the same things people have said before. You really can't get around shooting action sports with a fast (meaning low f/number) lens. A good all-around lens to have is a 70-200mm (or 80-200) f/2.8. If you're going this route for your D50, make sure to get one with an internal focusing motor, because trying to use the camera's focus engine will make you want to pull your hair out.

I see you're in Cary. Peace Street Camera is close to downtown Raleigh and sells a lot of good used gear. If you can find a used Nikkor 80-200 AFS or a Sigma (a third-party lens manufacturer) 70-200 HSM lens for a good price, you'd be in business. AFS is Nikon's notation for their "Silent Wave Motor" focus system. HSM or "Hypersonic Motor" is Sigma's notation for essentially the same technology. Both of these lenses have focus motors in the lens and don't use the one inside the camera. You can probably find the Sigma model in good used condition for $600 or so and the Nikon one for less than $1k.

Between our Canon and Nikon gear, the paper has about half a dozen of these lenses to play with and only two 300/2.8 lenses, so that should give you some indication on their usefulness.

As an example, this picture came from the NCSU v. Duke women's basketball game this past Thursday in Reynolds Coliseum.

Khadijah Whittington moves to recover the ball against Duke's Abby Waner in the second half of the game January 18, 2007.

I shot it at 220mm at f/2.8. To freeze the motion, I used a 1/400 sec shutter and 1250 ISO. Like I've mentioned before, I haven't shot hockey so can't comment on the amount of light, but would imagine that most rinks in the area have lighting similar to Reynolds. TV cameras need gobs of light to suck up, so you'll usually find good light wherever games are broadcast (i.e. RBC Center). The Cary IceHouse is dim, the one in Garner is a little better. If you're lucky and get to the IcePlex when they actually have *all* the lights on, there should be good light. The lights in the RecZone are good. One of the guys on the newspaper has shot some of the NC State team out there and brought back some good stuff.