Hockey photography

Here's one for ya...I'm photographing my son's hockey games, and I'm

having a hard time finding the right film. Usually, I'd have luck

with a good 400 speed film, but those didn't work because the lighting

is very bad at the rink they play in. I don't have fast glass (28-90

f/4.5-5.6...almost all shots taken at 90 mm), and upgrading isn't an

option right now.

 

Just shot a roll of Superia X-tra 800, which solved the blur problem,

but the backgrounds are very dark and the colors just aren't

impressive.

 

I figure I'll compensate a step next time around, but I thought I'd

also ask if anybody had experience with 800 speed films with punchier

colors. I don't think I've EVER shot 800 before, so I don't know much

about it. Keep in mind, too, the white ice, white boards, and light

gray ceiling about 40 feet high. The lights are tungsten bulbs

hanging about 25 feet from the ice in a square grid, each lamp about

12-15 feet from its neighbors.

 

I'm also probably getting the Nikon 85 f/1.8 soon. Could this solve

my problems and allow me to return to 400 speed films? Or should I

just bank on the 800's from now on because of the lighting? Thanks!

If you can, you might consider the AF 180mm f2.8 (D or non-D) Nikkor lens over the 85mm f1.8 lens. You could pre-focus on a spot (i.e., the front of the goal) and turn off the AF -- and wait for the action to capture the action on your film. (A hint: try to meter on a referee with a spot meter (not knowing if your camera has one?) and don't let the ice influence your exposure. ISO 400 film may work with a 2.8 lens and that would be an improvement over your present lens.)

Here I have settled on Superia 800/Press 800 as my hockey film. This is after 7 hockey seasons of shooting. Use a 4 layer emulsion film; to deal with the mixed lighting. Here during the pro games the exposure is about 1/250 @F2.8 with Superia 800. During the amateur league games; the exposure is about 1/125 @f2.8 ; the goofs usually turn on only the first bank of lighting. If the amateur games are held after a pro game; we luck out and have full lighting. <BR><BR>Differnet rinks vary widely in lighting; I carry a notepad to record the exposures at neighboring rinks.<BR><BR>The white ice will come out as grey if you use auto exposure metering; here one must add about 1 stop extra light.<BR><BR>You have a tough job if the lighting is all tungsten bulbs<BR><BR>With a slow F4 to F5.6 film; your job is tough. I have shot some with F4 and F5.6 lenses and gotten decent shots when I used lower shutter speeds and panned the camera with the player being photographed. Some of the slow P&S cameras will focus lock when panning; but not with a camera held still; and the players moving. My old Olympus P&S zoom with a slow 105mm max does this. <br><br>The yield of good images drops when using slow lenses; A used 135mm F2.8; or a 105mm F2.5 would help. The focal length required depends on how close you are to the action.

I forgot to mention that I already do use a spot meter, which in this situation is the only way to go. So that isn't the problem at all. I also don't WANT to use a longer folcal length, as I'm perched right behind the players' bench at a small, old rink. 90/85mm is just right for the VAST majority of my shots. (I do have a longer zoom already.) I should also mention that my son is 9, so these players aren't exactly burning up the ice. Thought the extra info would help...keep the suggestions coming, please! Thanks in advance

I would guess that 800 speed is the minimum you can get by with using that slow lens.

 

Manual exposure should work well. Just meter around the rink when you get there and find out what average exposure will work, then set the aperture and shutter speed one time. If you are metering off the ice, the camera is underexposing (which would explain the dark backgrounds). You probably need an extra stop or so which means slower shutter speeds. I might actually underexpose a stop on purpose just to get a little higher shutter speeds, but you'll have to see how much blur is acceptable and how well you can pan with the players (a monopod can help a little there).

 

Consider the wider end when players get close. The extra aperture and wider DOF will may getting a non-blurred shot a little easier. A cheap solution is the 50mm f/1.8, about $100 and you could probably go to 400 speed film.

Here I manually set the exposure; the lights are constant. Im not sure what Nikon body you use; whether autofocus or manual focus; ole or new. There is also the old 85mm F2 Nikkor too. The used 50mm F2 or F1.8 sometimes are cheap on Ebay; and are of excellent quality. If you are shooting behind a glass/plexiglass; sometimes the larger apertures "react" abit when shooting thru the "glass" at a strong angle. My 180mm F2.8 seams to be alot more sensitive to this than my smaller aperture ancient 105mm F4 lens. The "glass" is like an imperfectly flat filter; here it is plexiglass; and not flat on many of the panes/panels. <BR><BR>With dark uniforms; underexposure shows up alot more. With your favorite focal length of 90mm; you are at F5.6. A fixed 85mm lens used F2.8 would be two extra stops; a real boost in light gathering. With faster lenses; I rarely open them up past F2.8; since the DOF then is often nil.

fixed 85mm lens used <b>at </b>F2.8

Go for a 4-layer Fuji 800 film (Superia 800/Press 800). When there's enough light, you

can confidently overexpose it by 1 or 2 stops without a problem.

 

You can also look into getting a telephoto zoom, e.g. a 70-300G if you shoot Nikon.

It's actually pretty good up to 135mm, even wide open. That'll give you one full stop

over the 28-90, plus some extra reach. On the Canon side you could look at a very

similar 75-300, and if your budget allows getting the IS version would probably solve

your problems pretty well.

Thanks for the advice, everyone. I'll probably just stick with the Superia X-tra 800 (4-layer, much like Press) and try overexposing by a stop. I think that was the root of the problem. This ice, boards, and players looked okay, but their uniforms were a little dark and the space beyond the opposite plexiglass was extremely dark, making the place look dreary...which it isn't. (It's _quaint_, but not _dreary_ by any means. This is an old, beloved local rink named after the first person from my town [Grand Forks, ND] to play in the NHL: Cliff "Fido" Purpur.)

Chris; do you shoot thru the "glass"; or are you actually in the players box? . Here the coaches/parents are many times in the players box for kids games.

Chris-

 

Also consider trying Fuji NPZ 800. Better color rendition than Superia 800 IMHO (I regularly shoot both).

Kelly-

 

I shoot over the plexiglass BEHIND the benches. It's just the right height to rest my arm(s) on, and I can shoot just about every square inch of the ice from there.

 

David-

 

Maybe I'll give NPZ a try. Others have recommended it, and I've noticed that nobody--here or anywhere else--has recommended a different film.

 

Thanks all.

Chris; Go break some rules and have some fun! Here is an shot with an ancient discontiued film ; with a Rolleiflex E3 TLR with a 80mm Xenotar. The camera was scale focused; and held above the glass; with the camera held high above my head. This Kodak film was ASA 1250; and abit more grainy than tri-x. With a TLR; one can shoot from above a crowd or object. Here I was standing on a bench; behind the glass; and holding the camera above my head. Part of a glass section is the blur at the right. Notice there is detail in the grey/white ice; ie skate marks; BUT the dark Jerseys go to full dark. This is the result of a slight "push"; which really just increases the contast; but does about nothing to the shadow detail. Non pushed shots with the same film; at the same rink have less contrast; and the same full dark Jerseys with little shadow detail. This shot was done about 22 years ago; at the old Conejo Valley Rink in Newbury Park California. The exposure was roughly 1/125 @F4 or F2.8. The DOF appears more like an F4 shot; Im not sure. The photo below is a clickable thumb photo; of a full frame 120 format image. The Rink moved to Simi Valley about 8? years ago<BR><BR><A HREF=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-452.jpg target = "_blank">

<IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/thumbs/tripods-452-thumb.jpg BORDER=0></A>

The film was Royal-X; in 120 format; asa 1250. This was a true ASA 1250 film; when not pushed. With a tlr; one must plan where one is going to be focused. The shutter delay is nil; compared to an slr.

Royal-X has alot of grain; here is a cropped section of a full frame ; that would be about 35x30 inches; at a 72 ppi/dpi ; close to monitor resolution. Amateur rinks are alot darker than pro rinks; this makes shots more difficult. My friends Olympus 3030 3.3 megapixel digital works well at the pro rink; the DOF is huge and detail is great. plus the pros<IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-453.jpg><BR><BR>This is a composite of two shots; one exposed for the rink; another exposed for the girl. Then they were combined in Photoshop to make an image that appears to have detail on both the rink surface; and up in the dark nose bleed section.<BR><BR><IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-371.jpg><BR><BR>Here is Rejean Stringer shot at 1/250 @F2.5 using Superia 800 from Walmart; using a 10.5cm Nikkor on a Leica M3.<IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-406.jpg>The girl having fun<BR><Br><IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-374.gif>

Kelly-

 

Those are pretty good. The TLR photo is a bit dark, but what could be expected with the sparse/high fluorescent lighting? Other than that, I'm a bit surprised at how well it turned out, considering the film, lighting, and your awkward positioning. The other photos are quite good, too!

Chris; I didnt show you all my duds!; ;) The old B&W shot was when the Conejo rink was going thru some hard times. They pulled about on half the bulbs out of the lamp fixtures; to cut the lighting load; and save money.. <BR><BR>The old Olympus P&S zoom-105mm 35mm camera I played with several seasons ago was slow too at its maximum focal length. ( about F5.6 ) . When panning with the action; it many times would have time to autofocus; and thus have good focus as a by product of the panning. Every now an then I take a wierd camera to shoot hockey; to learn something new.<BR><BR>While skating last Sunday; all the girls at a public session used disposable 35mm cameras. It is funny how these simple cameras get images; where the more expensive cameras fear to tread. I prefer to use my old Russian cameras on the ice; since their value is way less than my skates. It is funny in all the film versus digital rants/threads; the cost of dropping ones camera is never mentioned.

...before the NJ Devils won any Stanley Cups, I used to get my company's box seats which were about 4 rows back behind goal.....I met a newspaper photographer who used to work for the Bergen record. He told me about this totally unscientific rule for shooting hockey events. Since most arenas have different lighting and metering is difficult do to ice reflections and contrast. He called it the Hockey 4-5-6 rule. Use a lens set to f4......shutter speed 500......film pushed to 1600. I shot HP5 and some color slides also pushed to 1600 ASA. I shot at Devils games and also at my nephew's youth hockey game. This approach always seemed to give good results for most photos. It may not be the best approach.....but it is a good place to start.