Hockey with 135 f/2

My first time shooting hockey.  Through the glass from the stands.  Light was surprisingly good, though seams often got in the way.  Maybe a little underexposed?

I agree with BAK.  This is more or less what your pictures should look like:

.

/

I've tried shooting hockey a couple times and find it hard to shoot through the glass. None of the rinks around me have holes in the glass to shoot from and the glass is so dirty and scuffed up.

Macro guy wrote:

I agree with BAK. This is more or less what your pictures should look like:

Thanks, Macro guy.  I see the improvement.  What tweaks did you make?  I shot in RAW and am using DPP.

Dave wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

I agree with BAK. This is more or less what your pictures should look like:

Thanks, Macro guy. I see the improvement. What tweaks did you make? I shot in RAW and am using DPP.

All I did was played with the curves a bit.  I brought up the midtones and high mids and then I played with the highlights just a bit to keep the ice from completely washing out.  It took me all of 30 seconds to do it.  It wasn't anything special or difficult.

BAK wrote:

You are not using your camera's exposure meter properly.

It is reading too much white, and then setting to camera so that white turns grey.

Manual exposure is your friend.

BAK

What about exposure compensation? I use that when shooting snow scenes and wish I'd thought of it Friday night.

Macro guy wrote:

Dave wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

I agree with BAK. This is more or less what your pictures should look like:

Thanks, Macro guy. I see the improvement. What tweaks did you make? I shot in RAW and am using DPP.

All I did was played with the curves a bit. I brought up the midtones and high mids and then I played with the highlights just a bit to keep the ice from completely washing out. It took me all of 30 seconds to do it. It wasn't anything special or difficult.

Thanks.  I am still learning the curves and look forward to the point where using them is as instinctual for me as they have become for you.  I shot JPEG for years before finally making the leap to RAW, so at least they're now more readily available to me.

Dave wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

Dave wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

I agree with BAK. This is more or less what your pictures should look like:

Thanks, Macro guy. I see the improvement. What tweaks did you make? I shot in RAW and am using DPP.

All I did was played with the curves a bit. I brought up the midtones and high mids and then I played with the highlights just a bit to keep the ice from completely washing out. It took me all of 30 seconds to do it. It wasn't anything special or difficult.

Thanks. I am still learning the curves and look forward to the point where using them is as instinctual for me as they have become for you. I shot JPEG for years before finally making the leap to RAW, so at least they're now more readily available to me.

I think the point that BAK was making (with which I completely agree) is that your exposure compensation should have been done in camera. Whereas it's good to get comfortable with post processing and to be able to make at least rudimentary adjustments, I think it's a bad habit to rely on post processing to correct your mistakes. Post processing is there to enhance the image, not to correct it. If you use it to correct it, you'll find that you'll quickly run out of enhancement options.

Yeah, looks about 1 stop underexposed. When I shoot sports under fixed lighting it is far better to shoot manual so the exposure doesn't drift all over the place. The meter will get fooled by the white ice, dark (or light) uniforms, illuminated advertising in the background, etc.

OSP2017 wrote:

Great points above on getting exposure right in camera. I shoot hockey in full manual and I expose for the faces. If you underexpose and try fixing things in post, there will be way too much noise.

Get a rubber hood similar to this one and shoot right against the glass to minimize reflections and glare:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/11157-REG/B_W_65069613_72mm_Screw_In_Folding_Rubber.html

You also want to shoot from an angle where players are coming at you. There is barely any face visible in photo #1 and nothing in #4 (unless you were photographing #24). When Zamboni comes out, you can wash both sides of the door without getting on the ice; you can shoot from near the goal (more glass to wash) or from the goal line — depends on where the door is. Get some windshield washer fluid for this; Windex will freeze on the glass.

For post-processing, dehaze helps you bring photos closer to what they look like when shooting without the glass.

I agree with and appreciate everyone's advice. I'll find a face to use to set exposure for skin tone. A coach, official, or Zamboni driver may be my best option. Maybe create a chart in case I'd like to vary shutter speed? I'd like to hold ISO constant.

Unfortunately I don't have access to the glass or the ends. The arena where I shot (the only arena I'm likely to shoot in) has stands along one side of the ice - and not its full length. Not exactly an NHL venue (I leave my camera at home when I go to one of those).

The absence of faces was intentional; I don't publicly post pictures of people without their permission. I was sitting next to the parents of one of the players (who is a friend of my daughter's) and got some of her for them. I'll have the tools to do a better job next time.

Macro guy wrote:

Dave wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

Dave wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

I agree with BAK. This is more or less what your pictures should look like:

Thanks, Macro guy. I see the improvement. What tweaks did you make? I shot in RAW and am using DPP.

All I did was played with the curves a bit. I brought up the midtones and high mids and then I played with the highlights just a bit to keep the ice from completely washing out. It took me all of 30 seconds to do it. It wasn't anything special or difficult.

Thanks. I am still learning the curves and look forward to the point where using them is as instinctual for me as they have become for you. I shot JPEG for years before finally making the leap to RAW, so at least they're now more readily available to me.

I think the point that BAK was making (with which I completely agree) is that your exposure compensation should have been done in camera. Whereas it's good to get comfortable with post processing and to be able to make at least rudimentary adjustments, I think it's a bad habit to rely on post processing to correct your mistakes. Post processing is there to enhance the image, not to correct it. If you use it to correct it, you'll find that you'll quickly run out of enhancement options.

While I too agree, I still want to learn to use the curves.  Such simple changes should be at my grasp to enhance properly-exposed images.  Does anyone have a book or website to recommend that will help me on my quest?

DPP Image Tone Curves

DPP Basic Adjustments

Dave wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

Dave wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

Dave wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

I agree with BAK. This is more or less what your pictures should look like:

Thanks, Macro guy. I see the improvement. What tweaks did you make? I shot in RAW and am using DPP.

All I did was played with the curves a bit. I brought up the midtones and high mids and then I played with the highlights just a bit to keep the ice from completely washing out. It took me all of 30 seconds to do it. It wasn't anything special or difficult.

Thanks. I am still learning the curves and look forward to the point where using them is as instinctual for me as they have become for you. I shot JPEG for years before finally making the leap to RAW, so at least they're now more readily available to me.

I think the point that BAK was making (with which I completely agree) is that your exposure compensation should have been done in camera. Whereas it's good to get comfortable with post processing and to be able to make at least rudimentary adjustments, I think it's a bad habit to rely on post processing to correct your mistakes. Post processing is there to enhance the image, not to correct it. If you use it to correct it, you'll find that you'll quickly run out of enhancement options.

While I too agree, I still want to learn to use the curves. Such simple changes should be at my grasp to enhance properly-exposed images. Does anyone have a book or website to recommend that will help me on my quest?

DPP Image Tone Curves

DPP Basic Adjustments

The curves are easy enough.  You can just play with them and look at the effect you're getting with various adjustments.  Eventually, you get a feel for it and it become second nature.

There was a site, that I thought was really good, but I don't remember its name.  It was retouching something.  Perhaps someone else could chime in.

photo_ion wrote:

Loved my 135 for junior hockey (used it on sony aps-c), I try to avoid shooting through glass, on most arenas easy task, blazing fast AF even in low light (used with adapter from sigma). For sure 70-200 is more versatile but twice the size and weight, used exclusively wide open and find it much sharper then 70-200 versions I tried

Is that outdoor/pond hockey? How did the 135 enjoy the cold?

What can I say, this particular arena tends to be pretty strict. Maybe I just haven't asked the right person yet.

Macro guy wrote:

The curves are easy enough. You can just play with them and look at the effect you're getting with various adjustments. Eventually, you get a feel for it and it become second nature.

There was a site, that I thought was really good, but I don't remember its name. It was retouching something. Perhaps someone else could chime in.

Playtime it is, then.  Please share the site if you remember it (and if no one chimes in first).  Thanks for your help.