Comments on: Hockey Photography: A How-To Guide

By: Rob Rasmussen

Rob Rasmussen — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 02:47:29 +0000

Well, at least I found the AI Servo.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 20:29:23 +0000

Thanks, Rob.

White balance is the weakest part of my game. I’m sure there are folks that can give you better advice than me on that subject. I tend to do all of my color adjustment in Photoshop. This is less than ideal, but I am very comfortable with Photoshop, so it works for me.

On my camera the AI Servo setting can be acquired by pressing the AF-DRIVE button on top of the camera and turning the dial through the ONE SHOT, and AI FOCUS modes to the AI SERVO mode. Make sense?

I use Evaluative metering and cheat down one stop from where my meter centers up. I’m sure that’s not ideal either. I would think the Partial metering mode may work as well, but somewhere in my past tinkering I settled on my approach for a reason I no longer even remember. Ha!

If you find a combination of these settings that works better I would welcome the advice. I don’t pretend to be an expert. I’m sure there is someone out there that knows a better way

By: Rob Rasmussen

Rob Rasmussen — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 19:00:35 +0000

This is a great article, thank you for writing it and sharing it. Do you have any suggestions on white balance? How about on the metering mode? And I do have a Canon, but I can’t seem to find AI Servo in the settings. Any thoughts? Again, great article, thank you!

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:43:13 +0000

Thanks, SMB

I’m not sure I can say much more on the choice between these two great lenses. Also, I’m afraid I’m not even sure if Nikon has exact equivalents. I’m assuming that they do. But the choice between them is a bit of a compromise. And you just have to determine which factors are more important to you and your particular situation.

The 135 is much lighter, faster and sharper – all of which will help you shooting hockey. It also brings simplicity in that you don’t have to work the zoom, you just focus and shoot – which as you already know, is hard enough. On the other hand, you do not have the ability to zoom in on the action and more tightly frame your shots. The 135 also has a shorter focal length than the 200mm that the other lens gives you. So there will be parts of the rink that you simply won’t be able to get close enough to with the 135mm prime.

With all of that said, I shoot with the 135mm prime. The extra stop to f/2.0 is just huge in some of the rinks I shoot in. And I get to take a break when the action is out of my range But I do, unfortunately, miss some great shots because of this. Also, I used to shoot 3 or 4 games in a row and I’m not sure if I could have done that hand-holding the heavy 70-200. I’m comfortable with the compromise I made for my situation. You may be different, of course.

Either way, you’ll get what you want. And hey, if you can afford it, just get ‘em both

By: SMB

SMB — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 01:40:25 +0000

Loved the article!! I’m ready to invest in a better lens but have a question – can you provide some more insight as to which direction I should go 70-200 f/2.8 or 135 f/2.0?? I have a Nikon. Am not near professional photography and just started playing w/ the manual settings based on your article and have received good results from that alone. Which lens is a better fit for me (need less maintenance w/ good results). I usual take from glass view or bench.

By: KKH

KKH — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:25:06 +0000

Great article. I am also a Canon shooter, and will def change my focus point – I use center normally, but what a simple, yet smart idea. Love that you recognized Meg Handy and her Hockey Mom Blog. I agree – she is very funny and insightful.

By: Hockey photos « Click Whirr

Hockey photos « Click Whirr — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 00:03:12 +0000

[...] game. Well armed with advice on taking hockey pictures from helpful bloggers Daniel Woolston and Mark Buzek, I headed straight for an unoccupied corner if the ice as soon as I got to the game. I knew I was [...]

By: Andy

Andy — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 04:59:36 +0000

Nice little article. I didn’t personally learn much from it beyond what I already know, but it’s always nice to get another person’s perspective on things, especially when it comes to stuff like lenses.

I know the most recent comments are 6 months old, but I have a few thoughts. For WB, I usually take a custom reading off the ice. The lighting is actually pretty even at the local rinks, so this seems to work well. Even if the light varies a bit, it should stay close enough to fix it up in post-processing.

As for exposure settings, probably the best option is to expose off of a gray card and leave it at that. Again, your mileage may vary depending on the lighting at your rink. It takes a lot of practice, and some intuition to get it right and much of the time the exposure just isn’t going to be right anyway.

If you don’t have a gray card, try exposing off of a player’s face (that’s really what you’re after anyway — there’s so much emotion in hockey, and the expression on a player’s face is hands down the best way to capture that), or use your hand. My hand is about two stops over the gray card exposure.

If I may make a recommendation, a place called lensrentals.com provides rentals for numerous lenses, cameras, and accessories, so that may be a good way to go to try things out. Better to spend $40 to rent a Canon 70-200 for four days than $1200+ to buy one to find out you hate shooting hockey. They have a huge inventory (or so they claim), good customer service, and fast turnaround. Just make sure you pay the extra few bucks for the damage waiver!

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:16:09 +0000

Thanks so much for contributing, Chris. You are far more ambitious than I with the goal mounted camera. You would most definitely get some awesome shots if you can work that out. Hopefully someone will pitch in some advice on the topic. I’d love to know more about it myself. Good luck!

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:42:30 +0000

Thanks for the thoughts. I have been shooting in a variety of rinks and finally hit upon the correct White Balance and speed settings to make the pictures acceptable. Normally the setting is somewhere between 3500 and 4000 k if your camera can adjust K value.

My next challenge is to figure out how to mount a camera inside the goal. I have all of the necessary remote equipment, but I looking for a box to protect the camera. They are used in the NHL, but I cannot find one on line. Any one have an idea before I build one myself.

Chris

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:08:53 +0000

Thanks for the nice comment, Alicia. Glad I could be of some help.
You also ask a great question about metering. I would actually love to hear some other opinions on that topic. But for what it’s worth, here’s what I do. . .

I use Evaluative metering and then overexpose by one stop to compensate for the bright white ice. I basically try to get the best exposure of the players’ faces as possible. With this in mind, I also use a single autofocus point (top center) so that I am zeroing my focus in on the player’s face. Because of the very narrow depth-of-field you get at around f/2, this helps me get their faces in focus.

Mark

By: Alicia

Alicia — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 04:04:06 +0000

Your site has been very helpful – as hockey and photographer “want to be” it has enlightened me on a couple things – 1 – the lens – I have to bite the bullet and get the right lens instead of continuing to be frustrated with my cheapo! Darnit anyway – if I would have done that in the first place i probably would have saved myself alot of time and frustrations!!!!! Thanks again for the great pointers! Any thoughts on how I should set the metering? Evaluative, Partial, or Center Weighted?????

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:38:37 +0000

Wow! Finally, an easy-to-understand walk-through of how to shoot hockey photos! This is exactly what I’ve been looking for, a no-bs-here’s-what-you-need-to-do-this explanation in layman’s terms.

Thank you so much!