Hockey: Behind the Bench

northcoast

In the spirit of trying to learn more about photography I have been experimenting with trying new things (for me). New settings, subjects and techniques are all possibilities that I am open to playing with when the opportunities do arise. I think I got to try all of them last night...

Optional Background Reading: I have the opportunity to see a lot of NHL hockey. I have season tickets; however, I don’t take a camera to game often (or ever). I was into hockey long before I started taking pics. With that said, it wasn’t until my kids started sports that I wanted to become better… Also, as a hockey fan first, photographer (guy with a camera) second, I usually enjoy watching the NHL games more than shooting. Add the fact that “professional like” gear is up to the discretion of the security personnel; I just didn’t want to deal with the potential hassles. So, I would leave the “big” camera at home and my wife would carry a compact (now her iPhone) just in case…

Last night we had the opportunity to sit behind the players’ bench. It’s not the greatest of seats to watch the game; however, you do get to see a lot of player activity. It’s not our usual seats so I decided to take my camera and a 50mm f/1.8 manual focus prime… I figured that this was an opportunity to do something that I otherwise wouldn’t have tried. We were so close to the players that I assumed that the 50mm would be all I needed. I also left ALL the other lenses at home. I have only used this lens twice before and felt it would be a challenge – in the spirit of learning and experimenting.

Here are a few shots from the game with a legacy OM 50mm f/1.8 on an E-5:

1)


2)


3)


4) View from seats


5) View from seats with activity


Thanks for looking!

johng

OK, time for my standard line: this is a sports photography forum. It's about the photos. No bonus points for the subject being pro or div I or 6 years old.

Given that, there's nothing compelling about the first 3 photos. Even as a "stock" image of a player. There's no action, no interesting facial expressions and the angles are bad.

shot 5 represents what I call a "fan snapshot". Nice remembrance for a fan but as a sports photo there's nothing compelling - you've got another fan in the one corner and the action is muddled and too far away.

Think of it this way - if the subjects of the photos were 8 year old kids, would you consider these good sports photos?

Again, if this was a fan site for your favorite team my critique would be very different.

aktse

johng wrote: »

OK, time for my standard line: this is a sports photography forum. It's about the photos. No bonus points for the subject being pro or div I or 6 years old..

bingo.

I also think in the end, the gear itself doesn't really matter; it should be all about the image.

In your situation (seats behind the bench, hockey game, camera), I would focus on interesting compositions. I would experiment with DOF frames of some action on the ice framed between two helmets. I might even focus on the coaches to see if they have any interesting coaching tools (like using an ipad). In your photos, it appears the arena is pretty empty; perhaps doing something to show the magnitude of that...

northcoast

John and April,

Thanks again for the honest feedback. I do appreciate the perspective and comments. I'll be sure to post back when I have something more interesting. I know John has encouraged me to step up my game recently in another post.

I'll keep shooting...

Best regards,
-Mark

aktse

northcoast wrote: »

Thanks again for the honest feedback. I do appreciate the perspective and comments. I'll be sure to post back when I have something more interesting. I know John has encouraged me to step up my game recently in another post.

I'll keep shooting...

These photos are good snapshots and record a moment in your life! Remember, there is nothing wrong with that and there is no one else that can capture that for you! In the end, it really just depends on what you wanted those images to be and what you wanted them to mean to you and others.....

Remember --- photographers tend to focus on the details and sometimes, will forget everything else --> xkcd

johng

Mark - lots of us attend professional sporting events. Rarely do you see sports photogs post shots they took from the stands. Why? Simple: a huge part of shooting quality sports shots is dependent upon the location of the shooter. The reality is: it's exceedingly difficult to capture a lot of quality shots from the stands. Much less from the stands with a 50mm lens. We all take a ton of photos that are great memories. I've got dozens of albums of family and vacation photos I enjoy looking at - but most of them are enjoyable because they're great memories, not because they're great photos. Pro arenas /fields have great lighting but without proper access/lens allowance you can still make much more compelling photos at a youth arena/field OF THE ACTION.

zSCOTTz

I have a question about where you shoot from. I hear it alot about not shooting from the stands and how it dosent make a great sports photo. Is this the industry standard of photo journalism and what your boss wants? Ive seen photos taking from the stands that I thought looked great, where i went wow man, thats a cool photo. It just seems, well we have to be on the field thats where you gonna get all the great shots at. Yeah, your gonna get great shots, but sometimes you might want to think outside the box, do something nobody else is doing go to the stands, get up high, give someone something different to look at it. Im not meaning to ruffle any feathers on here. But to me it seems like, these are the rules of the sports shooting world, this is how it must be done. Kind of reminds me of that apple commercial in 1984, with all the IBM guys in black and white listening to that guy on the screen, and then the chick in color comes and throws the hammer at it. Sometimes it might be better to get creative and do something nobody else is doing. Just my .02 cents.

johng

Scott - OK, never say never. Of course people have made compelling images from all over. As long as the distance/angle works for the shot. For example: shot #2 - is that shot really enhanced by the fact it is taken from behind the player? Or for that specific type of shot, is it better to have the subject more facing the camera? Sometimes I like to shoot from above - for example:


That's a creative choice though. Perhaps I should not say: never shoot from the stands. The better answer is: Location matters in sports shooting. And there is generally a reason why credentialed photographers have the positions they do for shooting. Or let me put it to you this way. You and I are shooting a game - i am credentialed and can shoot from wherever and you have to shoot from your seat. Assume we're of equal skill. Chances are, by and large, I'm going to consistently deliver better shots. Because location matters. Case in point - the OPs photos. His photos of youth hockey are much more compelling as sports images than these shots are. A big reason for that is his ability to get closer and his ability to use longer lenses for the youth hockey. If you're in the stands you cannot take the same types of shots you can from proper locations and get the same level of quality. And, it's especially more difficult to make compelling sports images.

zSCOTTz

Great shot John, I understand what your saying. I just hear it all the time on all these sports shooter threads. I know, for myself personally, I'm on here more to learn how to use the camera, its settings, deal with noise, blur, which is better and all that, and when I have all that down, I'm gonna be on the field, in the stands, wherever I think I can make a creative shot. Im going to experiment alot. Im not aiming to shoot for a newspaper or magazine, I am going to do it to try and make a little bit of money doing something I love to do, and I'm going to try and be as creative I can be. We have a lady in my town, she uses a point and shoot camera, she has an artistic side. Personally I dont think her pictures look all that great, she manipulates them big time, they are blurry, out of focus, but her stuff sells like crazy here, shes making some decent cash, all with a point and shoot, and no buisness knowledge or schooling at all. I know I have only been shooting for a year, but I got into the HDR big time at first as I seen it on line. Ive seen forums where Ive read, man HDR is horrible, its not photography, it looks like velvet elvis paintings, is it really a picture at all. I like some of it, some of it I hate. But I can tell you, I have made over 3,000 dollars in 6 months selling it. I havent sold any picture that was just a regular single image not merged even though I thought it looked good, or I won a photography contest with it. The only pictures for me that arent sports that sell are the HDR. People love that stuff.

jhefti

zSCOTTz wrote: »

I'm gonna be on the field, in the stands, wherever I think I can make a creative shot. Im going to experiment alot. Im not aiming to shoot for a newspaper or magazine, I am going to do it to try and make a little bit of money doing something I love to do, and I'm going to try and be as creative I can be.

Scott, you bring up several good points. Unique and interesting angles can certainly give a shot novelty; it can even make a really great shot. Some of my favorite sport shots were made from non-standard locations, and some of my favorite sports shooters do their best work outside the photographer wells. However, in order for that to happen, both you and your subject need to be in the right place at the right time. Shooting by the field just increases the probability that you'll be in the right place when your subject is doing something interesting. IOW, it increases your yield of good shots.

Most newspapers and magazines have a formula of sorts, and it shows in the monotony of shots you see in the media. If you want to sell your work to the media, you need to follow their formula; if you want to produce a smaller number of unique and interesting shots, you're on the right track with your thinking.

zSCOTTz

Good post jhefti, I didnt think of it that way, Im gonna be on the floor under thring the basket Friday night shooting. Ive had reservations about doing it, before I did it last time, due to the 5 armed guards around the court during the game, but they didnt say anything last time. I just need to get my quality in line and knowledge of the camera nailed before I start getting creative. Learn how to do it right, then get creative. I worry about noise alot, so I am going to work with higher ISO and not worry about it so much, and let it determine how I shoot. One thing with noise though, I have noticed in papers like the Detroit Free Press, shots of a Michigan game, it says AP photo, that the noise was horrible, the picture just looked like crap, I could tell the ISO was way up, and it looked overexposed. I see it alot in the print papers here, is that the norm anywhere else? I just wondered about if quality dosent matter so much for print papers? Just wondering.

jhefti

zSCOTTz wrote: »

One thing with noise though, I have noticed in papers like the Detroit Free Press, shots of a Michigan game, it says AP photo, that the noise was horrible, the picture just looked like crap, I could tell the ISO was way up, and it looked overexposed. I see it alot in the print papers here, is that the norm anywhere else? I just wondered about if quality dosent matter so much for print papers? Just wondering.

My experience with the media--with both my own shots and others--is that photo editors have their own agendas, which often place technical and compositional quality lower than other aspects such as newsworthiness. Sometimes I see these really bad shots in major newspapers, and I go to the shooter's website. Almost invariably they do really nice work; it's just that for some reason the photo editor chose a mediocre or crappy shot. Go figure...

zSCOTTz

johng wrote: »

Scott - OK, never say never. Of course people have made compelling images from all over. As long as the distance/angle works for the shot. For example: shot #2 - is that shot really enhanced by the fact it is taken from behind the player? Or for that specific type of shot, is it better to have the subject more facing the camera? Sometimes I like to shoot from above - for example:


That's a creative choice though. Perhaps I should not say: never shoot from the stands. The better answer is: Location matters in sports shooting. And there is generally a reason why credentialed photographers have the positions they do for shooting. Or let me put it to you this way. You and I are shooting a game - i am credentialed and can shoot from wherever and you have to shoot from your seat. Assume we're of equal skill. Chances are, by and large, I'm going to consistently deliver better shots. Because location matters. Case in point - the OPs photos. His photos of youth hockey are much more compelling as sports images than these shots are. A big reason for that is his ability to get closer and his ability to use longer lenses for the youth hockey. If you're in the stands you cannot take the same types of shots you can from proper locations and get the same level of quality. And, it's especially more difficult to make compelling sports images.

John, I was wondering if you ever posted this picture for critique, and if you received any that said, yeah, nice shot, but the background is distracting. If I were to critique this in my amature state, I would say, yeah great shot but more to the point the girl in the green low cut shirt, in the background, is very distracting lol, sorry, my attempt at humor, couldnt resist

johng

I would say that is a valid critique of my shot. I have to say I never noticed that. As to backgrounds in HS gyms - there's only so much you can do though. But I also get your humor as well. I would be VERY careful though - sounds like you want to photography HS sports - be very careful about your humor - we all know it's in good fun, but you're better off not even making comments on the web. You do not want someone taking comments about 16 year old girls the wrong way.

zSCOTTz

Yep, didnt know it was High School, thought it was college, never seen high school volleyball with people in the stands, only parents. I have a daughter in high school, no way would I let her out of the house with a shirt like that.

bigblue1ca

zSCOTTz wrote: »

Yep, didnt know it was High School, thought it was college, never seen high school volleyball with people in the stands, only parents. I have a daughter in high school, no way would I let her out of the house with a shirt like that.

I noticed the female in the green shirt as well, so you are not alone there; and I also thought these were college shots. Lastly, I concur that when my daughters are in high school they will not be wearing plunging form fitting tops like that, instead I will ensure they are dressed in potato sacks.

Moving Pictures

zSCOTTz wrote: »

One thing with noise though, I have noticed in papers like the Detroit Free Press, shots of a Michigan game, it says AP photo, that the noise was horrible, the picture just looked like crap, I could tell the ISO was way up, and it looked overexposed. I see it alot in the print papers here, is that the norm anywhere else? I just wondered about if quality dosent matter so much for print papers? Just wondering.

Couple things to note - and this is from a former ME of a daily, here.
a) With budget cutbacks, a lot of small, even medium newspapers no longer use dedicated photographers. The images are being captured by reporters.
b) Most desk editors, who are likewise not the experienced folks of old, know little about photographic quality.
c) Might be due to press-related dot gain. It's a pain to explain, but it's a factor in all newsprint.

jhefti wrote: »

My experience with the media--with both my own shots and others--is that photo editors have their own agendas, which often place technical and compositional quality lower than other aspects such as newsworthiness. Sometimes I see these really bad shots in major newspapers, and I go to the shooter's website. Almost invariably they do really nice work; it's just that for some reason the photo editor chose a mediocre or crappy shot. Go figure...

Like he said.

I've often seen stuff move across the wires that I wouldn't have considered putting in my paper, let alone on the wires.

johng

Yes, that's a great point. When I was doing freelance I would often ask myself: why the heck did they use the worst pic of the lot? It can be the subject that's important to the story or it can be how well they crop the photo to make it fit within the space they want to provide. It's somewhat frustrating. With wire it's often about SPEED. There was a situation a few weeks ago on ESPN website - I forget what the photo was they posted. Really poor. But it was up right away. 1/2 hour later they had replaced it. It was a great example of speed trumps quality. They used the one shot they had from photog A regardless of quality because something was better than nothing. When they got a different photo from another photog then the better photo posted. If an editor wants a photo of player A, doesn't matter how good your photos of players B-G are. It's the photo of A that gets published.

zSCOTTz

johng wrote: »

Yes, that's a great point. When I was doing freelance I would often ask myself: why the heck did they use the worst pic of the lot? It can be the subject that's important to the story or it can be how well they crop the photo to make it fit within the space they want to provide. It's somewhat frustrating. With wire it's often about SPEED. There was a situation a few weeks ago on ESPN website - I forget what the photo was they posted. Really poor. But it was up right away. 1/2 hour later they had replaced it. It was a great example of speed trumps quality. They used the one shot they had from photog A regardless of quality because something was better than nothing. When they got a different photo from another photog then the better photo posted. If an editor wants a photo of player A, doesn't matter how good your photos of players B-G are. It's the photo of A that gets published.

Same thing happens in production in shop life. If the customer needs something, and the truck is waiting on it, quality is sacrificed in order to get it to the semi as quick as possible and onto the customer on site.

jhefti

I shoot pro sports because I like to, not for the money. (Ha! What money?!) Because of this--and to keep the credentials coming--I shoot a mix of shots: temper tantrums, sportraits, fans (which I actually like), and big moments in the game. I also shoot a lot of shots that I like, but do not fit the media formula. These I keep for myself and just enjoy them. At first it bothered me that my best shots never made it into the press; now I am just happy to have the credential and have no problem giving the media what they want.

I think time is the main issue. If you FTP a reasonable shot that captures a moment, and it hits the wire within minutes of the capture, it stands a far better chance of getting picked up.