New 40D Hockey Px along with questions
cmkultradome
Registered Users Posts: 516 Major grins
I got my new Canon 40D last week along with my new, "Used", Canon 70-200mm lens. I was able to give it a whirl this weekend at three hockey games. The coach of a local university club hockey team always sees me taking pictures at my 13 yr old son's games and asked me if I wanted to take any pictures at the university's games. It was awesome practice for me and I think my pictures (for a hobbyist hockey mom) are definitely improving. I've now finally graduated to shooting in manual mode with a custom white balance each game (manual mode was a big step for me). A few questions...
1) If I shoot at ISO 800 I can't get a fast enough shutter speed. Therefore I had been shooting at 1600 but getting a ton of noise. Now that I have the 40D I shot some of the game at ISO 1000 and some at ISO 1250. I thought that worked better, but I also thought I read somewhere that you shouldn't shoot at these inbetween ISOs?
2) Once I get my manual settings down during the game I wasn't really changing them. Exposure on the action shots seemed pretty good but then when I would take a closeup of a player's face on the faceoffs, the picture came out pretty dark. I'm assuming its because I'm filling the frame with color instead of all that white ice and boards. Do you keep switching back and forth between settings when shooting between these two types of shots?
3) I have to shoot at 2.8 in order to get enough light into the camera, therefore my DOF is shallow. Any way around this? Do others shoot at 2.8. I'm afraid if I shoot at any other aperature my shutter speeds will get to slow.
Thanks for the help, much appreciated.
Stephanie
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
1) If I shoot at ISO 800 I can't get a fast enough shutter speed. Therefore I had been shooting at 1600 but getting a ton of noise. Now that I have the 40D I shot some of the game at ISO 1000 and some at ISO 1250. I thought that worked better, but I also thought I read somewhere that you shouldn't shoot at these inbetween ISOs?
2) Once I get my manual settings down during the game I wasn't really changing them. Exposure on the action shots seemed pretty good but then when I would take a closeup of a player's face on the faceoffs, the picture came out pretty dark. I'm assuming its because I'm filling the frame with color instead of all that white ice and boards. Do you keep switching back and forth between settings when shooting between these two types of shots?
3) I have to shoot at 2.8 in order to get enough light into the camera, therefore my DOF is shallow. Any way around this? Do others shoot at 2.8. I'm afraid if I shoot at any other aperature my shutter speeds will get to slow.
Thanks for the help, much appreciated.
Stephanie
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
0
Comments
Some answers and some questions.
1) Shooting in between ISO won't kill you and it doesn't hurt, but just read that it's not optimal. Have I done it? Yes. Have a noticed a difference? No, but for me, i'm more focus on getting capturing the moment than nitpicking about the exposure. When I'm doing a landscape or a portrait -- that might be different. I don't have time to think during the hockey shoot itself and I tend to figure things out before/after the game/between periods. For more info on the iso, ask Ziggy. He knows all
2) In general, your photos have motion blur (unless you're trying to pan) and it seems that you're trying to crop from a wide shot. What shutter speeds are you using? From looking at the age of the kids, sticks and the skates, I would guess that you're slower than 1/250 and maybe even 1/125. At first, I was thinking #6 was DOF issue, or a possible focus lock problem. I only have DOF issues when I get someone skating directly at me and gets really close to the glass, but it doesn't quite look like what your examples. The focus lock did find the skater with the puck, but I then realize that the grey helmet guy is in a middle of a full power stride v-push (well, my name for it) in a bent knee tuck and his gliding foot/pant leg is sharper than the rest of him while the kid orange is trying to puck handle and is not bending his knees. translations -- kid with puck is moving much slower than kid in grey helmet. well, i could be wrong too about this theory too... maybe other people have better ideas.
Are you shooting through glass? What are you using to white balance? What post steps are you doing? I sometimes use the custom functions to change shutter speeds for frames in which people don't move (faceofff, between periods, in a moment of sadness), but I only do this because I dont' need the higher shutter speed and dont' have to force teh shot to come out in post. Could it be shadow from the lights? Examples?
3) It's all relative -- ISO, shutter speed, aperture. For me, it all depends on the composition that I want to create. I will close up at times, drop the SS, and increase the ISO when I do a wide shot and don't care about stopping action. It really depends on the shot that you want to take, but in general, sports is shot wide-open because need the light, the tight shot, and the shallow DOF to isolate the action.
1) I've read this as well and heck it might even be true. However, how big are you printing this images or are you submitting these to Sports Illustrated? If you answer 8 x 10 or less and no. I'm willing to bet it doesn't matter one bit. Shoot at the lowest ISO you can get away with without sacraficing on the other must haves (Shuter speed).
2)Yes and no. I used to do quite a bit of second shooting for a high school sports shooter. We did a bunch of basketball. In warm-ups pick a kid on a team with brightest uniform, set the lens wide open, SS at 1/500 and adjust the ISO until it was properly exposed. Put it manual and use these settings the whole game. Why would you change them? The light isn't changing, right?
However, you've already notice that when shooting shoots of the ice and players your histogram is correctly exposing based on all that white ice. When you zoom in tight to get a face, because the camera is in manual it won't auto adjust anything and it will now under expose the tightly cropped face because all that white is gone. What you need to practice doing is moving the EC. dial (on the 40D I think is the large thumb wheel when in manual) so you dial in +2/3 (two clicks) of EC. The first time you do that check the histo to make sure you dialed in the correct amount. You can leave a bit of wiggle room on the right side. If the histo looks good, you all set. Any time in tight on face, 2 clicks (or however many clicks works once you get a good histo), back to the action, 2 clicks in the other direction. You can get very fast at this and never have to remove the camera from your eye with very little practice. Just remember that you are now sacraficing SS when you dial in this +EC.
Some shooters, if they found it is was +1.5 EC or less wouldn't change a thing and they will shoot in RAW and then correct the exposure in post. The choice is yours.
As you get more experienced you'll experiment more and more, but for now, if you're indoors and doing sports, I'd dial it in, leave it and forget it.
3) Welcome to sports. I you had 2.0 on that lens you'd use it! Shooting wide open is just the way it is. Even in tons o light like a daytime football game, your going to shoot wide open to blur the BG and isolate your subject.
Also, if anyone approached me to take photos, the next words out of my mouth would have been...."Can you get me on the bench?". Wether you'll do it on the bench or not is something they don't need to know but at least you asked.
Comments on your photos:
Frankly, I don't see that much motion blur. I mean sure it's there in a few but the only shots that might be a TAD soft are #2 and #5.
All that being said, if I found myself in your situation, I would have shot at ISO 1600. Why?
1) The 40D can handle it.
2) It would have gained me Shutter Speed. The faster the shutter speed you can get the better.
Were you getting too much noise at ISO 1600 on the 40D? If yes, do you use any form of noise reduction? Look for a photoshop plug-in called Noise Ninja. It's great stuff!
In noise reduction software neat image and Nik Define get mentioned a lot.
C & C
Overall I would try boosting the colors a bit and some more contrast, they appear a bit flat.
#1) Fine.
#2) Looks maybe a tad under. The stick ruins it, would have been much better if we can see the goalies face.
#3) Prefer more face. If I had more face, I would look at a much tighter crop.
#4) Might try a portrait crop.
#5) No puck, no one getting their head smashed, no nothing?
#6) Great! Try a much tighter crop just below the lowest glove.
Visit our [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Kalamazoo Wedding Photographers[/FONT] website!
View my Facebook Fan Page!
Visit our Kalamazoo Photography blog!
Most of these were taken at either 1/180 or 1/250. I do realize that it is too slow but when I push the shutter speed faster with a higher ISO I really do see a lot of noise.
Yes, I am shooting thru glass (and not very clean glass at that!). I am using a custom white balance, taking a shot of the clean ice from where I am shooting from. I do take another custom balance if I move during the game (I've been doing that since someone on this forum mentioned it - may even have been you). I am not doing a lot of post processing. Just using Canon DPP, converting from RAW to Jpeg, bumping up exposure in some cases, adding some saturations, noise reduction, and then sharpening. I find that the noise reduction makes the photos rather soft especially if I shoot at 1600 and have to use maximum noise reduction. I also have Neat Image but lately I've just been using the DPP for noise reduction. I also have the custom function on the camera set for noise reduction with increased ISOs.
Stephanie
Stephanie
When I shot film, I used to use an exposure technique that worked great...I haven't shot hockey in a while, so I'm not sure if it works with digital, though I don't see why it wouldn't.
Since the camera tries to make everything 18% gray when it meters exposure, you take a meter reading of the ice...which is 'pure' white. The reading the camera gives you is what the meter thinks will turn this pure white gray...so it will let in too little light to expose properly...so you force your exposure compensation to open the lens up 2 stops and shoot manually.
The 2 stops is a function of the 7 stop range of the film and meter...and that's where I'm not sure if the same technique will work...but suffice it to say, if you experiment and find that for your camera's meter 2 stop, 2.5 stops works, or 1.5 stops works, you know it will always be the same. Expose for something white, open up the lens that number of stops and then shoot manually all game long without having to think about the exposure.
This works great for hockey or skiing or anything where the subjects are illuminated in a consistant way as the ice.
- Gary.
1) WB . Buy real white balance tool. The ice is fine in a pinch, but according to this thread there is value in a value in an engineered white-balance filter rather than something home brew version like using the ice, a cup, a jersey, coffee filter, etc. I've bought about six different types and will use all of them. However, the one that I'll recommend is the Phoxle one made by a dgrinner for these reasons.
2. The 40D is pretty good for noise, especially at higher ISOs. If you're having noise issues, Noise Ninja, etc. might be your friend. And for most sports, you need to shoot 1/500 or faster. For ice hockey, I try not to go below 1/320 (for newbie kids) and need to hit about 1/1000 or faster if I'm shooting the pros or really good high school kids.
3. Bring glass clear and paper towels. If the light is that horrible, every little bit helps. You might even get the ref to do a few swipes for on the ice side. It doesn't hurt to ask. And the light might change depending on where you stand because at one of my rinks, they selectively turn off lights to save energy.
4. Post process: When I'm shooting at the local rinks, I know that I'll be slowly underexposed, and the levels/curves will be off due to the grey glass. Hockey photos through glass need some PP in order to make them "pop".
I hope you don't mind -- just played with curves.
When I'm shooting at the local rinks, I generally find myself underexposed when shooting f/2.8 and will change to f/2.0 lens if it's really that dark. The color and scratches in the glass don't help either, but they can be saved.
1. SOC. (20D, f/2.8, IS0 1600, 1/400, through glass, wanted a faster SS, but couldn't do it.)
2. With a bit of post though a bulk process. I would probably bring it up a tad more.
3. Cropped.
And I find that GJMPhoto photo's comments are still valid in the dSLR world. Snow/ice tends to throw off the metering and there are some posts about that in dgrin giving the same advice.
Good luck and have fun. Keep posting.