Help needed for indoor ice rink shots

[April Does Photography]

I have a Canon Powershot A40 (yippie for me). I freelance for our local paper and am currently muddling through hockey and basketball seasons for our local high school for our sports section. I have read previous threads regarding capturing fast action shots and shutter lag problems. While it is so much easier to write my copy and email my photos after editing in one fell swoop when I get home, I am still forced to use my reliable, trusty, Canon SLR to get halfway decents pics suitable to print, which means getting the film developed to a CD from a local shop. The auto mode on the Powershot A40 just doesn't cut it as my hockey shots are all dark, too dark to edit. I went to program mode and pushed the ISO to 100. My shots were a little better, albeit pretty grainy. Would the spot flash mode work better as it concentrates on the subjects rather than collectively the players and ice? I haven't gotten around to figuring out what the exposure adjustment will produce, and can I get instructions from somebody regarding the shutter priority mode? Any help would be greatly appreciated. I am going to upgrade to what I don't know but a D SLR looks like my only option as the shutter lag on my powershot is insanely slow.

[Lionheart]

It might help to know what you pushed to ISO 100. Was it film rated at something less than ISO 100? In that case, yes, the pictures will be dark and grainy because of underexposure. In any event, I recommend using ISO 400 speed film indoors if you have a fast lens (f2.8 or better), 800 if possible. For sports photography, I usually shoot in aperture priority (AV mode), and shoot at the largest aperture available to get the fastest shutter speed possible under the current available lighting. If available light is adequate, then shooting in shutter priority mode (TV mode) and selecting the minimum shutter speed you need to get the shots would be great, but not always possible. Again, high speed film really helps, although I would stay away from ISO 1600 film. Today's high speed films have noticeably less grain than 10 yrs ago, although digital SLR's (Canon's in particular) can match or exceed high speed films for image quality today. I routinely shoot ISO 800 indoors, sometimes 1600, and the noise (digital equivalent to grain) is acceptable at worst, very good in most cases. If you want the convenience of digital, I'd recommend a DSLR that can use your current lenses.

[April Does Photography]

It might help to know what you pushed to ISO 100. Was it film rated at something less than ISO 100? In that case, yes, the pictures will be dark and grainy because of underexposure. In any event, I recommend using ISO 400 speed film indoors if you have a fast lens (f2.8 or better), 800 if possible. For sports photography, I usually shoot in aperture priority (AV mode), and shoot at the largest aperture available to get the fastest shutter speed possible under the current available lighting. If available light is adequate, then shooting in shutter priority mode (TV mode) and selecting the minimum shutter speed you need to get the shots would be great, but not always possible. Again, high speed film really helps, although I would stay away from ISO 1600 film. Today's high speed films have noticeably less grain than 10 yrs ago, although digital SLR's (Canon's in particular) can match or exceed high speed films for image quality today. I routinely shoot ISO 800 indoors, sometimes 1600, and the noise (digital equivalent to grain) is acceptable at worst, very good in most cases. If you want the convenience of digital, I'd recommend a DSLR that can use your current lenses.

Thanks for such a quick reply. I fear that I might have confused everyone. I'm well versed with my SLR(20 + years experience). What I did was push my PowershotA40 to IS0 100. The rest of both my quieries remains the same, so I am still looking for any help. Thanks again for replying so fast.

[another view]

I've used an A60 and I think the "normal" ISO speed is 50. Going up the ISO scale on a small digital gets noisy really quick - my Coolpix starts at 100; 200 is questionable and I can't really even use 400.

Shooting inside a dark space with fast action is just difficult. I've never shot hockey but have shot a lot of concerts, and my standard is a digital SLR at ISO800 with fast lenses (f2.8 isn't fast IMO). If it's a small (darker) place I'll use b&w film at 1600 or 3200. It's just that dark - but stages may even be brighter than some hockey rinks and the action is faster. IOW, it's a tough thing to do.

The other thing (other than quicker lag time) you'll gain with a DSLR is a much larger sensor. This will let you shoot at higher ISO's with much less noise. ISO800 on my Fuji S2 looks really good for example. The newer Canons look good even at 1600.

You will also have more flexibility with editing - when you try to bring up the levels on a very underexposed shot from a small camera, the image just falls apart. Of course you should try to nail the exposure, but with some Photoshop work it's possible to save a very underexposed shot (not optimum but probably good enough for newspaper reproduction).

[April Does Photography]

I've used an A60 and I think the "normal" ISO speed is 50. Going up the ISO scale on a small digital gets noisy really quick - my Coolpix starts at 100; 200 is questionable and I can't really even use 400.

Shooting inside a dark space with fast action is just difficult. I've never shot hockey but have shot a lot of concerts, and my standard is a digital SLR at ISO800 with fast lenses (f2.8 isn't fast IMO). If it's a small (darker) place I'll use b&w film at 1600 or 3200. It's just that dark - but stages may even be brighter than some hockey rinks and the action is faster. IOW, it's a tough thing to do.

The other thing (other than quicker lag time) you'll gain with a DSLR is a much larger sensor. This will let you shoot at higher ISO's with much less noise. ISO800 on my Fuji S2 looks really good for example. The newer Canons look good even at 1600.

You will also have more flexibility with editing - when you try to bring up the levels on a very underexposed shot from a small camera, the image just falls apart. Of course you should try to nail the exposure, but with some Photoshop work it's possible to save a very underexposed shot (not optimum but probably good enough for newspaper reproduction).

I very much appreciate your reply. It's just what I needed.

[bobmnu]

I very much appreciate your reply. It's just what I needed.

April,

Nice to meet another Newspaper Sports Photographer. I too am a freelance photographer for our local paper
I have done a lot of hockey pictures of my sons playing. I started with a 35mm SLR and and later used a point and shoot 35mm back to an SLR and finally ended up going digital. I am now on my second digital, first Olympus C700uz and now a Minolta A1, and looking to go Digital SLR. The two biggest problems I have had is the lighting of indoor rinks is all over the palce. Some pictures have a greenish, blue, or orangish cast due to lighting. Ajusting the White Balance helps sometimes. The second thing is finding a good location to shoot from. With hockey often you are forced to shoot through the "Glass Boards". I try to get permission to be in the scores box or at one end of the team bench.
Good luck and I hope you can get a Digital SLR for the next season.

[JSPhoto]

April,
Check out the sports forum here, Lin4lax09 just shot some hockey, I shoot hockey on occassion (wish it was more ) Were friendly over there.... just go to the main page and scroll down till you see sports photography
OBTW, I too freelance for newspapers.

JS