Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-18-2014, 04:37 PM   #1
Junior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 43
Hockey Critique
Lens: DA 18-135 WR Camera: K-50 Photo Location: Wilmington Ice House 

Had the K-50 about a month, done mostly landscape type photography so far. I'm a paramedic and did a medic standby at a hockey game last night and took the opportunity to shoot the game. I must say I'm addicted to sports photography now, I had a blast trying to catch the action. All shots are with my K-50 and 18-135 WR lens. I did have to do quite a bit of PP in Lightroom to get the exposure where I wanted it but all in all I'm very pleased with how the combo did for a fairly budget setup. I've been trying to decide whether my next lens would be the Sigma 70-200 or Pentax DA* 60-250. I was leaning towards Sigma for the 2.8 but now that I've seen that K-50 can handle high ISOs I'm back to thinking the 60-250 can handle everything I would need it to do.

Took over 400 shots of the game. I picked the ones I thought were the best composition wise. I'm going to add more than 5 photos since I'm so new to this and am really curious on what types of shots people find most interesting. As always any and all criticism and advice is appreciated. Thanks!

Univ North Carolina Wilmington vs Univ South Carolina

1.


Exposure 1/750 sec @ f/5.6
ISO 3200
Focal Length 100mm

2.


Exposure 1/750 sec @ f/4.5
ISO 1600
Focal Length 53mm

3.


Exposure 1/750 sec @ f/4
ISO 1600
Focal Length 21mm

4.


Exposure 1/640 sec @ f/5.6
ISO 3200
Focal Length 100mm

5.


Exposure 1/750 sec @ f/4.5
ISO 1600
Focal Length 60mm

6.


Exposure 1/640 sec @ f/5.6
ISO 3200
Focal Length 88mm

7.


Exposure 1/800 sec @ f/5.6
ISO 3200
Focal Length 78mm

8.


Exposure 1/750 sec @ f/5.6
ISO 3200
Focal Length 100mm

9.


Exposure 1/750 sec @ f/4.5
ISO 1600
Focal Length 53mm

10.


Exposure 1/750 sec @ f/5.6
ISO 3200
Focal Length 88mm

11.


Exposure 1/750 sec @ f/5.6
ISO 3200
Focal Length 100mm

12.


Exposure 1/640 sec @ f/4.5
ISO 3200
Focal Length 48mm

13.


Exposure 1/640 sec @ f/5
ISO 3200
Focal Length 53mm

14.


Exposure 1/640 sec @ f/5.6
ISO 3200
Focal Length 88mm

15.


Exposure 1/750 sec @ f/4.5
ISO 1600
Focal Length 48mm

16.


Exposure 1/400 @ f/5.6
ISO 3200
Focal Length 68mm

01-18-2014, 05:16 PM   #2
Junior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 30
Hi,

The ISOs in the pictures' EXIF info look quite high for (what I imagine) must have been a well-lit playing field in a mostly white environment. I think some of these shots could benefit from a slower shutter speed and a little motion blur in order to show players' movements and speed. And I really like pic #1486!

Best regards,
Guilherme.
01-18-2014, 06:39 PM   #3
dms
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New York, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,192
I like 1495--and agree some motion blur would be interesting, but 1495 is just right as is--except suggest you bump up the saturation and/or contrast.
01-18-2014, 06:46 PM   #4
dms
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New York, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,192
I took the liberty of doing what I suggested. Hope you don't mind.

Attached Images
 
01-18-2014, 06:50 PM   #5
dms
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New York, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,192
I should have thought of it while I had it in Photoshop, you may want to do some sharpening (or more) as well. I really like the shot/what you are getting--or else I wouldn't be commenting as I am.
01-18-2014, 06:58 PM   #6
dms
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New York, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,192
And here is a sharpened version.
Attached Images
 
01-18-2014, 08:37 PM   #7
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,223
QuoteOriginally posted by Guizo Quote
some of these shots could benefit from a slower shutter speed
Try about 1/320, which will be like making your lens twice as fast (and nowhere near as heavy or ackward as a "professional" f2.8 zoom) to get the ISO down for less noise . Skaters should still be sharp, the only blur will be the puck when it is shot, which is much better than a black dot frozen in space anyway. The thing about hockey is that action moves all over the ice very quickly, so the instant AF of the 18-135 DC is ideal. With an APS-C camera 135mm should be enough reach, especially if you are at ice level, there will be too many players between you and the action if you trying to capture something at the other end of the rink. Bonus, you already have the best lens, and it cost about a third of your next best options.

There is no point in getting lots of the rink in the frame, a shooter in the slot and the goalie is as wide as you should ever go. It's a close quarters, physical sport, so just the forward and the defenseman battling, someone getting rubbed into the boards, or a forward stickhandling past the defender are all good shots. Don't try to find the puck in the net, but get the red light in the frame to show a goal has been scored. The good thing about goals is that the red light stays on for a couple of seconds and it usually takes that long for the goalie to get up and the goal scorer will be still in the area, starting to celebrate. Other than that, try to be ahead of the play, waiting for players to reach the blue line, or concentrating on the corners and 20-40 feet in front of the goalie, because that is where all the action/contact will be. Whatever you do, don't try to follow the puck.

01-18-2014, 09:56 PM   #8
Junior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 43
Original Poster
dms, yours definitely looks better than mine! That shot was at a pretty extreme angle through the plexiglass which is why it looks more subdued than the rest, I'm surprised it was as clear as it was and not distorted. This may be a stupid question but what exactly does sharpening do and when is it best used? My Lightroom skills have all been self learned through trial and error, still have a long ways to go.

I'll try dropping my shutter speed next time and experiment but I still feel like I'll be pushing it to drop my ISO below 1600. I had to greatly increase exposure and whites to those shots at 1600 and 3200 in Lightroom to have anywhere near a usable shot. Maybe that's not a big deal and that's what the software is for, I don't know. I'm using 1/3 EV stops for aperture and shutter speed and full stops for ISO, does anyone recommend using 1/2 or 1/3 ISO stops? I've read a couple places that those intermediate ISO values can have more noise than the next full stop above them. Opinions?

Thanks again guys, I greatly appreciate your feedback.
01-18-2014, 11:41 PM   #9
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,223
QuoteOriginally posted by V.rider Quote
I'll be pushing it to drop my ISO below 1600
I've taken usable shots at high school football games under the lights at 8000 ISO. It takes software to do that, but I was only using Lightroom's noise reduction tools. Adobe has online tutorials on noise reduction that I found helpful. I would suggest using TAv mode, so you use the same shutter speed and same aperture and let your camera figure out what ISO it needs. You are taking action shots where the light isn't consistent and some of your shots will be taken through a Plexiglas filter, so there isn't much point in worrying about capturing fine details. If you fill the frame with hockey players in motion and keep the colours bright, no one will notice if you have to blend some details in post processing. Capturing the action is the most difficult part, and is what will make people oh and ah when they see your pictures.
01-18-2014, 11:53 PM   #10
dms
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New York, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,192
I think the shot is great, as I said! However you took it.
Anyway the sharpening increases the change in contrast at edges (where light and dark meet) and that is where we see/infer sharpness. I will simply give you a formula (a recipe)--i.e., do the following. And see if it works well. Actually I am a recent convert to doing it--I didn't do it for years but now have decided I should. In a way that is why I commented on yours--when I teach/explain I improve my own understanding.
Anyway I did it in Photoshop. I presume your software also does it.

1. I used saturation and bumped it up a bit. Not sure what I used as I don't normally use this (I work in camera Raw)--just put a little zip in. I may have used +30.
2. I used curve (and put an S shape) which means a little contrast--lighten the highlights and darken the dark areas.

Now the sharpening. And I am no expert as I suggested above.
3. I used Unsharp Mask, and the settings were:
Amount 12%, Radius 60 pixels, Threshold 0
This is called "midtone contrast" (by the late/great Bruce Fraser) and adds some sharpness. I think I got the values/ideas from the Ctein, here.

masteringphoto.com/the-fine-art-of-digital-printing-using-unsharp-masking-to-improve-texture-and-tonality-in-your-prints/

4. I used the Smart Sharpen and the settings were (about/not sure but looks OK):
Lens Blur, Amount 100%, Radius 0.1 pixel
This does a stronger very local sharpening. I believe I got the idea/values from Ken Rockwell, here.

Sharpening

If you don't have the Smart Sharpen then you might try the Unsharp Mask again, with following:
Amount 100%, Radius 0.2 pixels, Threshold 0

As you can imagine there are numerous place to read up on this. I found the following pretty useful (actually there several Parts I-V I tthink).

Sharpening in Photoshop -- Part II

FWIW I use iso 1600 (theater pictures for my college) w/ a K20d and no noise reduction--and am generally pleased. I think theater photog. is similar to sports photog. except the lighting is less (and uneven w/ local spots) but the shutter speeds can be longer. Maybe noise bothers me less than others but also I expose to the right (try and get the maximum exposure).

Last edited by dms; 01-19-2014 at 12:04 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
100mm, critique, exposure, f/4.5, f/5.6, flickr, iso, length, photography, sec
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature Hockey, Maple Leaf, Mounties, Tim Horton's ... daacon Post Your Photos! 12 10-01-2013 05:36 AM
Hockey & Lenses 18 mths Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 32 04-20-2013 01:43 PM
Sports Hockey is Back! GeoJerry Post Your Photos! 7 01-20-2013 08:16 PM
Hockey anyone? EarlVonTapia General Talk 9 01-10-2013 12:16 PM
People Hockey portrait attempt HockeyDad Photo Critique 11 12-09-2012 11:45 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:19 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top