Bantam Hockey

[tadrscin]

I just wanted to post a couple of pics with the new Sigma 70-200. C & C welcome. Well now that I'm over the Seahawks loss and back on my home computer, I'd thought I'd redo these two




and add a couple more:
Did he catch it?

You're guess is as good as mine.


For my exposure I metered off the ice and tried to get it as far to the right of the histogram as I could. At ISO 1600 and wide open it would've taken a shutter speed of 160 to put the ice all the way to the right. I settled for 1/200 and 1/250. I started shooting from behind the glass which was pretty dirty and then decided to try from the top of the stands. At least now I didn't have the glass to deal with, but that did result in more DOF than I wanted.

[livin4lax09]

#1: good timing, but no face. too bad, because the puck's there.

#2: faces, but no puck. really wish there was one there.

These are also quite noisy, which I suspect is a product of underexposing and bringing the exposure back up in PP. if you are going to do this, shoot RAW and still try not to underexpose by more than a stop. But when possible, nail that exposure dead on, and you will deal with less color differences across the ice.

[Jimmy B]

Same game, I am multi tasking Seahawks on tv. Hopefully better than my last hockey pictures. last shot I am a little relctant to post but what the heck.
Jimmy B

[tadrscin]

#1: good timing, but no face. too bad, because the puck's there.

#2: faces, but no puck. really wish there was one there.

These are also quite noisy, which I suspect is a product of underexposing and bringing the exposure back up in PP. if you are going to do this, shoot RAW and still try not to underexpose by more than a stop. But when possible, nail that exposure dead on, and you will deal with less color differences across the ice.

These were some quick edits. All I did was adjust the WB, resize and do some sharpening. I didn't lighten them up at all. I don't have any noise reduction software on the computer I'm using here so I haven't done anything about that yet. I shot at ISO 1600 and wasn't willing to shoot slower than 1/250 most of the game. I did shoot some at 1/200, but I haven't looked at them yet. I did shoot about half in jpeg and half in RAW. These were jpegs.

[tadrscin]

Well I edited the first two in my original post as well as added two more. Here are a few more as well.






Can you spot the puck?

[livin4lax09]

that third shot in the original post is an awesome shot. a bit too much NR for my like though. I like enough to drop the noise, but not so much that it is evident that NR was used. if you boost the saturation on that shot and darken the darks, then you may be able to make it pop a bit more.

[masdog]

Maybe it's just my monitor, but the colors in all these shots appear to be off. They seem to lack something that makes them pop.

[tadrscin]

How about this one?

[Jimmy B]

Masgog, Tads are alot better than mine. I dont quit have the PP down and I need to just shoot RAW.
Nice shots Tad.
JB

[tadrscin]

that third shot in the original post is an awesome shot. a bit too much NR for my like though. I like enough to drop the noise, but not so much that it is evident that NR was used. if you boost the saturation on that shot and darken the darks, then you may be able to make it pop a bit more.

How about this?

[livin4lax09]

looks a lot better, but the WB is still a bit off. Mind if I have a go at it?

[tadrscin]

Go for it. That's one reason I like shooting RAW, it's much easier to set the white balance by using a reference shot of a grey card. I find it harder with jpegs, especially with the cycling lights. I haven't been very successful with the photos that end up with the pinkish tint.

Here's another try at this one so I'll be very interested in what you end up with and how you did it.