Ice Hockey Extremely Grainy

<p>Hello. I have been reading posts on here for too long without having asked what I'm hoping someone will find to be a simple question! I take collegiate level ice hockey pictures for my University. I have always loved taking shots, but just recently invested in a Nikon d200. I have a 55-200 VR lens and a 70-300. I have been a hockey fan and spectator for many years and have absolutely no problem finding the right shot. What I'm struggling with is a few small (user induced) camera glitches (or so I think?).<br>

I have read about an experienced the low lighting issue. I'm not here to complain more about it- but just wanted to let ya'll know that I have to get past that, and need your help in doing so! I attached a few pictures and I believe that the settings used were: Auto ISO, max 1600. Aperature priority. CH mode, with auto white balance to compensate for the reflection from the ice without overexposing to cause a whiteout- or under exposing so the guys have grey ice and faces. I have tried to read the manual but some of the terminology gets mixed up in my mind. I think this past game I was changing my exposure and thought it was fixing the white balance. Or maybe it's the same?I have the shutter speed set at maximum 1/250. That is as high as it would let me go, so perhaps I am restricting the setting with another manual setting. I can see that several other posts on photo.net have significantly higher speeds than that.<br>

I would greatly, greatly, appreciate any feedback and help you may be able to offer. I absolutely love to shoot the games, and the school has used a few of my shots already, so if I can get past the luck and into consistency I'd be eternally grateful! Thank you for your time!</p><div></div>

<p>Two things:<br /><br />1) White balance refers to the <em>color</em> balance - usually something you consider because of the hue of the light you're shooting in. If you're shooting under green-ish light (like fluorescents), you'd want to set your white balance to the camera's fluorescent setting. If you're under warmer, red-toned tungsten light, you'd choose the tungsten setting. Likewise with bright sunlight, cloudy daylight, etc. As you change your white balance setting, you're changing what your camera things white should look like, color-wise. Not how <em>bright</em> it thinks white should be. White balance and exposure are two different things.<br /><br />If you shoot in RAW, and use the right software after the fact, you can adjust white balance later, with no damage to the image quality. If you shoot straight to JPG, you want to get it as right as you can at the time you're shooting. With that in mind, read the brief part of the manual that explains how to set a custom white balance on the fly. It takes just seconds, and all you'd need to do is use the ice as a reference for the WB shot. Nothing to it.<br /><br />2) If you're only able to get to 1/250th, it's either because you're trying to use your camera's pop-up flash (which isn't likely to help in a situation like this), or it's because that's the fastest shutter speed your metering is telling you will work given the ISO setting you've chosen and the amount of light you're able to get into the camera through the lenses you're using. This is really the heart of the matter: those lenses.<br /><br />The 55-200 and the 70-300 are "slow" lenses. When you try to open up the aperture to the widest possible setting (the lowers f-stop number), you're going to be, depending on the focal length (the zoom setting in millimeters), somewhere around f/4 or f/5.6. That's not a very big aperture, and in order to make up for that, the camera is having to slow down the shutter (so that it stays open longer) to allow in more light. <br /><br />The solution - as most people who shoot indoor sports soon discover - is to either have a camera that can shoot at much higher ISO settings, or to use a lens with a much wider aperture. Or both.<br /><br />There may be some comparatively inexpensive options for you. A lot of it will depend on the focal length at which you find yourself shooting. As you're looking at the EXIF data on the images you're getting, do you see any of them that are closer to, say, 50mm? If so, you can spend not much money at all on a 50/1.8 lens. That will gather <em>several times</em> more light than your 55-200, allowing you to raise the shutter speed (to better freeze motion) or lower the ISO (to improve quality) or both. But as you shoot with a "faster" lens like that, with its much wider maximum aperture, focusing becomes more of a challenge. <br /><br />Note that if you <em>are</em> able to get cleaner, brighter, faster shots at something like 50mm using such a lens, you might not at all mind cropping those images somewhat. For use on the web, or in modest-sized printing (as in a newspaper), you could crop away half of the image, and not care at all. But with the D200 (I still have one, though I use the D300 more), you really want to try to get that ISO down to 800 or lower if at all possible. No matter what you do, if you're using high ISO settings, you want to <em>avoid under exposing the images</em>. The noise/grain will look much worse when you under-expose, especially if you then try to brighten the image up after the fact when you go to use it.<br /><br />Another lens to look for might be the 85/1.8, which will give you more reach than the 50/1.8. Visit the rink with your existing lenses, and note the focal length(s) at which you find yourself able to work. If 85mm would do it, then that may be just the ticket. You need more light! And since you can't use flash to solve the problem, and your current camera's high-ISO sensitivity is a sort of built-in problem, there's nothing for it but a faster lens. </p>

<p><em>" maximum 1/250. That is as high as it would let me go" </em>- this would be the case if you were shooting with the camera pop-up flash. I would not use flash for long distances at hokey game.<br>

You certainly can use faster shutter speed in aperture priority, but perhaps the available light does not allow to shoot faster with your slow lenses. Try also shutter priority mode, or manual mode, and you will see what is really preventing faster shutter.</p>

<p>I would recommend add some in camera noise removal, unless you will do it in post processing. With in-camera noise removal and at ISO 1600 on D200 you should get some properly exposed pictures.</p>

<p>Your lenses are at the low end of lenses for sport use. If lighting is sufficient, they should be OK. Practice with your camera and lenses some outdoor sporting activity in good lighting, to learn how that should work. Then get back to the hokey indoor location, and you will see the difference and where the lighting fails you not allowing faster shutter speed that you need for sport.</p>

<p>VR does not freeze sport action, so perhaps learn to shoot without it. <br>

Instead of shooting with lenses at aperture 5.6, rent a lens that would allow you shoot at 2.8. Rent a camera that would allow you to shoot at ISO 6400, e.g. D700. D3S.</p>

<p>Matt! Your response was beyond what I ever could have imagined! I am so grateful for your positivity and patience in explaining small minute terms that I was almost too embarrassed to ask about. I am trying to teach myself, and the way you explained that was just perfect.<br>

If I take a test shot to set the custom white balance, will this stay the same until I tell it otherwise? Will I need to turn off Auto WB? I would be happy to email you some of my pictures if you'd be willing to look at what settings I have. I was not trying to use the popup flash, and I do believe when the players were closer the pictures were snapping faster and considerably more clear/less grainy. (Seems very obvious, but every now and again those would be blurry too.) Some people were writing on another forum I found about how they like to shoot auto or manual, and I'm sure everyone is just different in this regard. Until I have more time to really read manual back to front and test shoot, I'm going to test the WB at a practice tonight and try and figure out the exposure (it says +1? now).<br>

My fiance only has 4 games before Christmas, and several of the players wanted to gift them to their parents. So I've been reading up, working through the manual, testing, asking the old man in the shutter shop close to home, and hopefully I can come up with a few good shots!!</p>

<p>If you go through the (quick, I promise!) process of setting a custom WB, it will stay that way until you change it to a new custom WB, or until you simply change the WB setting to one of the presets (tungsten, cloudy, automatic, etc). <br /><br />As for exposure: remember that your camera's metering system is only ever applying its best guess about how to set the variables you tell it to automatically set as you shoot. Taking manual control of that process can be a good idea, if you're shooting in a situation where the camera might be easily fooled (say, by large expanses of white ice in funky lighting conditions!). <br /><br />Remember: the camera has no idea that that's ice, or that it's supposed to be white. When in doubt, the camera assumes that things are actually <em>gray</em>, not white. And so it will settle the exposure down with that in mind. Which, of course, makes the darker elements in the scene (like your players) look even darker. You can use the camera's exposure compensation feature to simply tell it to over-expose a bit, and it will then be less inclined to make whites look gray. </p>

<p>Jean, <br>

one additional hint: set your Color-Saturation to „normal” or even lower. A bit of overexposing (some parts of the ice blanked out) will make your pictures look much better than with the same amount of underexposing.<br>

Happy shooting and good luck, Georg!</p>

Along with the above suggestions, try using center point focus (generally faster) so you get a sharp focus and use AI SERVO or

the Nikon equivalent to track moving players. You may also want to look into focus lock ....focus on goalie for example and if

skaters move in front focus doesn't change. This is a custom function on canon I am sure Nikon has a similar feature.

<p>Hi Jean. I would add that sports photography is very demanding of equipment and sports in low light, which would apply with indoor ice hockey, is the most demanding of all. There is no substitute for good glass and that costs. That's not to say you can't get great sports pics with cheaper equipment but you will have to work within its limitations and the failure rate will be higher.<br>

I don't know much about Nikon I am afraid, except that alongside Canon they are probably the best. A quick google tells me that the D200 is not one of the latest models, in fact it was introduced six years ago – a long time in the development of digital cameras which have come on leaps and bounds in more recent years in terms of noise suppression (looks like the grain that you refer to from the days of film).<br>

I would have thought that the noise in that photo is probably about right for that camera and ISO speed. As you probably know, the noise will increase the higher the ISO speed.<br>

No, the main problem with the photo you posted, I would say, is that it exhibits signs of subject movement caused by a too slow shutter speed. As others have written, there is technically no way around that as you are constrained by your relatively slow lenses. <br>

So, instead of shooting the peak action, look for the moments when a player pauses, turns or hesitates, etc. You may still produce a high percentage of duff images (don't we all!!) but don't worry your pictures will improve with experience and it will also teach you an invaluable lesson in how to read the game.<br>

Enjoy, and don't be disheartened.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Jean, I don't shoot hockey but I do shoot figure skating in the same rinks with similar fast action under low light. On the photo you posted here, grain is not your main problem. The first problem is that it isn't even remotely in focus. Focusing under these conditions is very difficult. I rent the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII for figure skating and using it on a D200 (admittedly an older camera) it can just barely focus fast enough. Your two lenses may simply be too slow to focus fast enough under the conditions. As for exposure, you need to go completely to manual. Light doesn't vary from one end of an ice rink to the other, so once you determine the exposure you can lock it in and forget it. At my rink, I shoot 2.8 at 1/200 at ISO 1600. If my camera could go to 3200 without excessive grain I would do that and get 1/400. If you use auto white balance or auto ISO your exposures are going to be all over the place. As for WB, do a manual white balance off a sheet of white paper. Most important of all, just shoot tons of pictures and expect to throw away a lot in order to get a few good ones. For a skating recital, I might shoot 900 frames and keep 250-300. Some frames are going to be out of focus or blurred, some are going to be backs of heads or awkward expressions, others just aren't good photos even if they are technicaly OK.</p>

<p><strong>The grain is exacerbated, because the image is underexposed. </strong><br />It is underexposed, very likely because the pattern metering is reading the ice and the backboards as grey and not white. It is about 1 stop, perhaps a bit more, underexposed.<br />Please see here below and note the histograms –in the second, the ice is approaching pure white, and is not blown in 95% of its area:<br /><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/14711813-lg.jpg" alt="" width="635" height="686" /><br>

(On the larger version on my monitor the panelling on the backboards and the rivet heads and the line on the ice below the stick are still visible and the ice itself is reading typically 248:248:248 just on the screen capture - it appears blown and with no detail.)</p>

<p>If the lighting is even in across the rink, then take a meter reading on something approximating a mid grey and set manual and use that exposure for the duration.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p><strong>There is also much subject movement. </strong><br />(As an aside, I believe focus has been nailed reasonable well - please look at the “BAUER” on the hockey stick and the face grid on the helmet: they are both about in the same plane and the letters are reasonably sharp, sharper than any facets in front or behind, yet the face helmet shows movement – which is indicative of the Shutter Speed being too slow to arrest all movement.<br />At the moment in time of exposure, the middle of the stick is actually quite still, (but the striking end is moving quite fast) – the player’s head is moving as are the shoulders and the hands.)</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>The <strong>Speed of the Lenses</strong> (largest aperture available) and the <strong>Maximum ISO</strong> of which the camera is capable are<strong> the two contributing factors to limiting the correct exposure at a shutter speed to arrest the Subject Motion. </strong>This has already been mentioned – you firstly<strong> need faster lenses</strong><br />Your shot was pulled at: F/5.6 @ 1/125s @ ISO1600, FL = 170mm.<br />To freeze reasonably swift transverse motion, at that shooting distance, you’ll need to be at about 1/800s.<br />So something like an 85/1.8, which has been suggested, will give you around 1/800s shutter speed at F/2, but if that light is typical you will still require about another 1 STOP of exposure.<br />If you are at that shooting distance, you will need to crop tighter if you shoot with an 85mm lens – but this that might be an economical solution for you.<br />Frankly, from the sample image and if that is indicative of the light you generally have, you also really need to be shooting at about ISO3200 and at about F/2 to make a shutter speed acceptable for most shots.<br />If you time the shot when there is least Subject Motion such as a pivot etc – then you should be able to make 1/500s and get keepers.<br />Certainly a faster lens should also assist with better AF.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Looking closer I think William may be right about the focus but the camera shake/motion blur negates it and the digital noise is robbing all resolution. I would try renting the 70-200. This type of job is part of what that lens is made for. The 85 is faster, but it's only useful at a specific distance and hockey is all over the place.</p>

<p>Thanks for coming back re that side point: I was in two minds as whether to mention it or not, glad I did as I now note you seem a "detail" person also.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>William -- Thanks!<br>

For those of you who shoot hockey at say the high school/club level, where do you usually shoot from? For figure skating, I shoot from the "hockey box" areas with the benches where the hockey players usually sit. But obviously those spaces are in use during a hockey game, and the local rinks don't have a designated "photo dugout" like at baseball or a hole cut in the glass. Since I'm around the rink so much, I wouldn't mind trying to shoot some hockey but I've never done it before.</p>

<p>Hi Craig, <br>

I shoot club-hockey about once in a month, so I'm not a real expert.<br>

The local venue offers two or three useable places to shoot from:<br>

I've found a couple of security-glass-segments of good quality in each corner at the side where the players benches are located. Some glass-segments are of lower quality - every shot looks like suffering from camera-shake. A couple of scratches won't effect the quality as much as bad security-glass.<br>

Another place in the local venue is a small glass-free area of about 1.5 meters just right of a players bench. If possible I shoot from this place, but I have to wear a helmet (and hiding for cover every 3 or 4 minutes). <br>

I shoot with 2 cameras - a D700 with a 200mm lens (ISO 4000 - f2.2 - 1/500sec) and a D7000 with a 85mm (ISO 2500 - f2.0 - 1/500sec). In the past a D2H worked quite well for distant shots with the 200mm (ISO1600 - f2.0 - 1/320 sec). <br>

Enjoy shooting hockey and please excuse my crude english, Georg!</p><div></div>

<p>I'm a Nikon shooter and the D200 is one of the worst bodies for poorly lit arena's. It simply cannot handle low light. I went to a D300 and eventually D3. Get fast glass, minimum 70 -200 f2.8 and a better body. If you can't afford to buy, rent.</p>

<p>Georg/Dave<br>

Thanks both. I may approach the hockey teams at the rink where I shoot.<br />Agreed on the D200. I already rent the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII for the skating events I shoot, but the D200 has lots of noise even at 1600 and the AF isn't barely fast enough. Definitely looking at an upgrade and possible rentals in the meantime.</p>

<p>Hi all! Thank you so much for all of the input. I appreciate your patience and understanding that I am a little new at this. I have shot 2 games a week since the beginning of November, and I learn something new each time! I did do a pre-set white balance last game, and the pictures came out much better than before, however, they still are off. The skintone of the players is very gray. I can alter that post, but I am frustrated with the fact that I have a (relatively) nice camera and I struggle to get the color correct!<br /> If anyone has a few free minutes, I'd really appreciate a more indepth explanation of the AI-Servo mode. Also, what is the most commonly appreciated benefit of the auto lock focus? I am going to rent the lens you all are talking about. There is another gentlemen at some of the games I go to that shoots another local team. He has this lens, and loves to shoot hockey with it. The pictures are great, but I don't feel comfortable enough quite yet to discuss the photo world with him. I don't think everyone understands a "newbie" like me the way you all do! Everyone has to start somewhere, I suppose!<br /> My latest shoot I got into the penalty box. I asked the Coaches if they'd let me, and they gladly allowed it. I was super excited. Again, the lighting is low, but that is to be expected. I tried to adjust the focus method during the game, but it was merely a guess and check and I really have no clue what I'm doing when it comes to which setting to use and how many sensors, wide, etc. I work full time and go to school for 12 credit hours. I have my hands full, but have loved the art of photography for a long time. If only passion could create fabulous pictures with no light, a d200, and a slow lens... sigh... :) I will be renting the 70-200 lens for approximately 2 weeks, and I hope to get the logistics of my shooting down so I can maximize my time with the better lens. Thanks again for any help you can offer.</p>

<p>Here is a picture to explain my focus problem. The color was post edited but I am content with that. I just can't seem to get the players whole body in focus, but often get the player in front of or behind my intended target. I think I am using the wrong setting, or sensor mode.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>I just can't seem to get the players whole body in focus, but often get the player in front of or behind my intended target. I think I am using the wrong setting, or sensor mode.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is somewhat difficult to tell upon invetsigating such a small resolution image, but I enhanced it and it appears to me that Gold Player is in, acceptable focus.<br>

I referenced the three hockey sticks of the three players and they all appear to b equally sharp.<br>

However, Gold Player appears <em><strong>to have movement in his head and also his feet</strong></em>, whereas the Blue Players appear to be more still – which seems logical as both the Blue Players’ feet and legs seem to be locked, but the Gold Player seems not yet to have steadied himself.</p>

<p>The EXIF shows:<br>

<strong>135mm lens shooting at F/6.3 @ 1/80s @ ISO1600.</strong><br>

Therefore it is quite plausible that some subject movement would be captured at such a slow shutter speed and also that the DoF would be about 7-9ft if that is the full frame, so it is likely that the three men would be in, acceptable focus<br>

It appears that the three players are in sharper focus than the background.<br>

Therefore, it appears to me (without seeing a better resolution) that in this image is likely suffering from Subject Movement of Gold Player, rather than a focus inaccuracy:<br>

<strong>Subject Movement can only be arrested, by using a faster shutter speed, </strong>(or by using Flash).</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Ok. I rented the 70-200, and my pictures are outstanding! (My own opinion). The pictures are significantly more focused, but the exposure is a serious issue. I am having to edit the exposure afterwards in all the pictures. Can someone help me to set the exposure properly? Is there an automatic feature for this? How can I utilize the histogram that is built in the camera? You are probably wondering how I possibly made it 3 months without knowing, but I generally just guess and check and most turn out somewhat decent. Thanks for any help!!</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>the exposure is a serious issue.</strong> I am having to edit the exposure afterwards in all the pictures. <strong>Can someone help me to set the exposure properly?</strong> Is there an automatic feature for this? How can I utilize the histogram that is built in the camera? You are probably wondering how I possibly made it 3 months without knowing, but I generally just guess and check and most turn out somewhat decent.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em> </em><br /> <em>“If the lighting is even in across the rink, then take a meter reading on something approximating a mid grey and set manual and use that exposure for the duration.” (My post 29.11.2011)</em><br /> <em></em> <br /> <em>***</em></p>

<p>This is a very safe method, especially for a novice - <strong>if the lighting is even </strong>– because using any automated feature, the camera’s light meter can be tricked by the amount of white (ice) as the framing varies.</p>

<p>Alternatively, if the lighting is uneven, you could select Centre Weighted Average (CWA) Metering and use an Automated Mode – such as Shutter Priority or Aperture Priority – AND keep the<strong> main subjects in the centre of the frame, but</strong> <strong></strong>the players cannot be wearing ALL WHITE.<br>

<br />I am not intimately au fait with NIKON’s metering modes, but it occurs to me that CWA with Nikon is reasonably suitable to this task.</p>

<p>Glad that you had fun with the 70 to 200/2.8.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>WW,<br>

Can I send you a few pictures to evaluate? Or help out? If not, I understand.<br>

THanks! Jean</p>

<p>Yes, you may.<br />I might not respond instantly, though.<br>

However, posting two samples here also will reap arguably better results, because many heads are better than just one.<br>

WW</p>

 

<p>No problem, I will post on here for all to see. Perhaps it will help others, too. You are so kind, thank you.</p><div></div>

<p>For clarity of my meaning:<br>

I have no problem with you sending me images AND posting some on the thread.<br>

I write literally - there is no hidden meaning - I simply have a few gigs this weekend and might not respond for a couple of days - either on the thread or privately to you.<br>

It was co-incidence that I was logged into Photonet, when you posted just now and I responded so quickly.</p>

<p>Yes, indeed, posting a couple of images here also shares any learning with others who are having similar difficulties.</p>

<p>WW</p>