These are pretty nice. The lighting is actually quite good, almost 1 stop better than where I recently shot, and the rink was brand new. I assume you were shooting thru the plexi too? That takes away about 2/3 stops of light and really affect sharpness where I've shot (again, nice new facilities).
Where do you like to plant yourself when using the 300mm lens?
Where do you get to sit on these shots. I have tried doing the same for some of our hockey teams but unless wear a helmet I am not allowed to do anything besides shoot through dirty glass.
DJ...good stuff as usual. Composition is very nice. 12 is a real keeper and the parents and grandparents will eat this one up for years to come.
#2 is a good example of the limitation of dynamic range in our digi-cams. Nail the exposure on the kid and you lose the ice. Nail the ice and the kid is underexposed. You clearly made the right choice by getting the main subject nailed here. I would love to see what would happen in PS is you selectively lowered the exposure on the ice so that both ice and kid were optimal! That would be killer.
And right on the money about parents' preferences. I get all excited about dramatic contact shots with the distortion of effort clear on the athletes' faces. What sells? Pictures of the kid taking the ball upfield, unobstructed and looking pretty.
musclepics wrote:
These are pretty nice. The lighting is actually quite good, almost 1 stop better than where I recently shot, and the rink was brand new. I assume you were shooting thru the plexi too? That takes away about 2/3 stops of light and really affect sharpness where I've shot (again, nice new facilities).
Where do you like to plant yourself when using the 300mm lens?
Thanks for the comments... and yeah the lighting here in this rink is about as good as it gets for amateur rinks around here... I think ISO3200 was buying me around 1/400th to 1/800th all over the ice, so I sure won't complain about that. I actually shoot from the side of one of the player benches in this rink (which is easier when you're hired by that team to shoot ) so I don't have to shoot through the plexi. The spinoff is I'm only getting faces coming out of the zone, and not in towards the goalies, but at the same time I can get the goalie faces which is nice. It also lets me get a pretty nice low angle at them. The 300 on FF is a decent length here too because I can get goalies and even into the corners a little, plus coming out towards the neutral zone... but what I lose is the stuff closer to the benches, unless I go for real tight expression shots (like #1).
Anthony Labbe wrote:
All look up to your usuall standards!
AMAZING and still my goal to come close to matching quality.
If your ever in need of a second photog.... I'm only an hour and a half away... as long as I get 20 minutes to play with the 700 / 300 combo!!!
You're welcome to come and give it a go. If you're ever in this area gimme a shout... I haven't been shooting as much as usual so far this year because I've been busy with a lot of other stuff. Hopefully by January it settles down and I can start booking some more. Which direction are you in... I sometimes get oppportunities outside this area too...
Hey thanks for looking Louis... I was initially upset with the player that came into that shot, but glad I didn't delete it, because the eyes in that shot just sold me. Hopefully sells the parents too!
dionysis wrote:
Where do you get to sit on these shots. I have tried doing the same for some of our hockey teams but unless wear a helmet I am not allowed to do anything besides shoot through dirty glass.
This particular arena has large benches (this rink houses an Ontario Hockey League team) so I'm lucky there. I'm right at the end of the player bench - there's a significant "runoff" behind the door before the plexi starts, so the 300/f2.8 on a monopod is a great weapon here. The thing is, this rink also has clean plexi compared to most other amateur rinks in the area (I think I can likely thank Paul Surette - FM's "sutegrat" for that, because he shoots the OHL team through it and likely has an army of squeegee kids running around at his command! Right Paul?
Thomas Miller wrote:
DJ...good stuff as usual. Composition is very nice. 12 is a real keeper and the parents and grandparents will eat this one up for years to come.
#2 is a good example of the limitation of dynamic range in our digi-cams. Nail the exposure on the kid and you lose the ice. Nail the ice and the kid is underexposed. You clearly made the right choice by getting the main subject nailed here. I would love to see what would happen in PS is you selectively lowered the exposure on the ice so that both ice and kid were optimal! That would be killer.
Nice work and thanks for my daily dose of hockey....Show more →
Thomas, thanks as always for checking 'em out!
For the exposure, you're right in that a lot of shots are about compromise. For typical full-player shots you can usually get enough texture in the ice and keep exposure nailed on the faves. On the tighter shots it's tougher, and I'll always compromise blown ice for good light on the faces. Truth is - parents want the expressions. I'm amazed at how many "wow" photos (at least, I think they're wow... big contact or shot or something) don't sell, and how many plain boring action shots that have a funny or cute facial expression get picked up. I'm learning... slowly...
gman1339 wrote:
Nice work DJ. I know you're there for the Storm, but those Battalion jerseys are pretty sweet.
Actually I'm there for anyone who will open their chequebook! But yeah, the Storm team got me there.
Glad YOU like those jerseys... Actually truth is I like them too, although pure black jerseys on white ice isn't exactly a dream for a photog. A lot of people hate the snot green, but they've grown on me.
And right on the money about parents' preferences. I get all excited about dramatic contact shots with the distortion of effort clear on the athletes' faces. What sells? Pictures of the kid taking the ball upfield, unobstructed and looking pretty.
You are SO right. Always blows me away. I swear you put the kid in a uniform and make them make a goofy face you don't even NEED to go to the arena / ballpark / field and play a game!
dj dunzie wrote:
Truth is - parents want the expressions. I'm amazed at how many "wow" photos (at least, I think they're wow... big contact or shot or something) don't sell, and how many plain boring action shots that have a funny or cute facial expression get picked up. I'm learning... slowly...
CHEERS!
It only took me two tournament weekends shooting 10,000 action frames per weekend to figure out what the parents buy and what they don't. Roughly speaking, if the kids are 12 or under, the parents want the cute, my little boy, expression shots. You can sell those all day long. When they get to be over 12 the kids come into the purchasing equation and want the high drama, peak action, bone crushing hit shots. Since the parents and the kids tend to want different things, it usually ends up in a No Sale.
I am not into tournament photography to pad my portfolio, I am there to sell pictures, so guess what kind of shots I would take!
dj: As if there's anything here the parents wouldn't like! Great series--good variety, nice sportraits and action, and you succeed at "isolation" even when you have 4 players in the shot! Colors/white balance are awesome as well. Does this arena have cycling lights? and if so, how do you beat 'em?
The thing is, this rink also has clean plexi compared to most other amateur rinks in the area (I think I can likely thank Paul Surette - FM's "sutegrat" for that, because he shoots the OHL team through it and likely has an army of squeegee kids running around at his command! Right Paul?
What are you doing shooting on my turf?
The arena never, ever cleans the glass. There has been time where what looks to be bodily fluids on the glass, and there is no way I can shoot through it...
) so I don't have to shoot through the plexi. The spinoff is I'm only getting faces coming out of the zone, and not in towards the goalies, but at the same time I can get the goalie faces which is nice. It also lets me get a pretty nice low angle at them. The 300 on FF is a decent length here too because I can get goalies and even into the corners a little, plus coming out towards the neutral zone... but what I lose is the stuff closer to the benches, unless I go for real tight expression shots (like #1).