Photos from Sacred Heart Game

Photos from the Sacred Heart game which featured the special jerseys are up.

[www.elynah.com]

Didn't occur to me that SH wore red & white unis. Must've been a really wierd game to watch, rooting for the team wearing dark color, strange looking jerseys and rooting against the squad wearing white with red trim...

I just noticed the bottom of the window in IE Win is drawing in the wrong place without a reload on the thumbnails page. No need to tell me. I can fix it tomorrow (even though every other browsers handles it fine...)

Age - Photos look even better than last year. Maybe it was just the new jerseys added excitement to viewing the pictures, but I think they look even better, well done.

Or maybe it's the new camera

Now when I actually have my good lenses...

What's wrong with your camera? You know about color correction? The red tones are all over the place. On my paintstakingly color corrected monitor, it appears that the Cornell pants are, like, eight shades more faded and less red than the Cornell jerseys. And it's that way on every picture. It's almost as if the guy wearing the "Lodboa" jersey had to wear the very same pants Lodboa wore in 1970. Sheesh, this is not good advertising for Cornell hockey.

But it's only the color correction that's off for the Cornell unis. Sacred Heart's red is nice and bright red. All their jerseys look spiffy and new and so do the pants. *They* look like a successful hockey team.

For still photgraphers, it's a bear without jersey numbers on the front and/or also on the sides of helmets. Back and sleeves aren't enough. It's possible if the player is facing the camera and his jersey sleeve is obscured by a a tangle of bodies that you won't know who it is.

Maybe we can embed an RFID chip in each player and put a sensor in the camera. Yeah, that'd do it.

Their regular jerseys match the hockey pants a lot better. Those special jerseys were quite a bit darker. Speaking of color correction, this is what the photos looked like out of the camera


Love that Lynah lighting...

Whoa...someone needs to relax a little. Those pictures are awesome...and as Age was saying about the colors...no doubt in my mind that those 'third' jerseys were done in a darker than normal color to match the traditional Cornell Red...this traditional red is what is now being used in the new Cornell logo/identity...from the identity styleguide:

The program is based on an emblem that was developed
early in the twentieth century, with elements that
evoke our founding principles and our status as New
York’s land grant university. It uses the traditional
university color, a deep red that was first used at Cornell
inauguration ceremonies in 1868, and the classic typeface
that has been our standard for many years.

They obviously didn't get new pants for one game so there is a mismatch...

[q]Their regular jerseys match the hockey pants a lot better.[/q]And the pants never matched the red jerseys exactly. Or at least according to a couple of my female hockey friends, who said that was why they hated the road uniforms.

Um, that was intended to be tongue in cheek about the pants not matching the jerseys. I suspect the regular red jerseys don't match the pants. I think the pants must be used for about five years or so and somewhere along the line they lose a little of their red luster. I think we had a thread last year about how threadbare they looked.

The overall color correction of the uploaded photos is pretty darn good. Sodium vapor or whatever the lighting is is not exactly full-spectrum daylight.

Very nice photos. i really liked the one with the sieve looking over his shoulder watching the net catch what he couldn't.

I didn't bother to do any manual white balance since it's trivial to fix afterwards when shooting RAW. I'm not even sure what the white balance was set on. My only complaint about the Lynah lights is the cycling color cast. If you stare at one spot on the ice you'll see it repeatedly shift from blue to red. I suppose if all the lights did this uniformly, then you'd end up with a consistent cast, which is also fairly easy to remedy. The probablem is adjoining lights always seem to be completely out of phase with each other, so if you look at that unadjusted pic above, you'll see the area around the goal is bluish-green and the far boards are orange-red. A couple seconds later and it would be inverted. That's a much bigger hassle to correct. The camera also seems to pick it up a lot more than the naked eye.

Heh. I actually had another shot that was almost exactly the same which I didn't bother to include. Not often a goal shot is boring or repetitive, but it's better than the alternative.

The pictures are awesome, as usual. Nice job, Age.

very nice pics indeed... the only question i have is whether or not a goal was scored in SH05_027...

[Q]min Wrote:
very nice pics indeed... the only question i have is whether or not a goal was scored in SH05_027...
[/q]
Nope. But it was a great wraparound attempt.

thanks...

Really nice photos Age. Speaking of Lynah lighting, back in the "dark ages", the 60s and early 70s, available lighting was 2.5 stops LESS than today. We had to push the heck out of the B/W and Ektachrome films. Much better today.

Larry '72

Yeah, but at least you were shooting B&W. Becuase I was using my crappy zoom, I was shooting at ISO 800 and about a full stop dark, knowing I could (for lack of a better term) push the RAW image. The best I could manage was around 1/200s. Thank goodness for Noise Ninja and RAW images.

So.... does color correction somehow account for why McKee is wearing Lenny's name ? (SH05_052)

The Larry 72 signature would almost certainly have to make you Larry Baum '72, ex of the Sun. You were a guy who would know about the lighting.

Yep...that's me. Grew up in Ithaca and started attending Cornell hockey games around 1965 or 1966. While at Cornell, I was a photographer for the Sun during 68-70, then for the Ithaca Journal and freelance from 70-72. Left Ithaca for about a year to work in Syracuse then back at the Ithaca Journal till 1978 when I started Computing Center. I still did some professional photography through 1981.

We used to push the B/W films to ISO 1600 shooting hockey at f2.8 @250th in Lynah. First time I went to Boston Garden, I thought I was in heaven...could shoot hockey at 500th of a second! The 1970 NCAA championship game was in the Old 1932 Rink in Lake Placid. That's about the lighting of the "old" Lynah lights. Not very good. Unfortunately, I never tracked down my negatives from that game. Those negatives and a whole lot of others were stored at The Ithaca Journal and were "cleaned" out sometime in the mid-1980s.

Larry

Larry...Wow...at ISO 1600 you must have had an incredible amount of film grain. That's such an advantage in today's digital SLRs...you can push the ISO to 800 or 1600 and still have very usable images with a minimum of noise.

Age...what camera are you using, and with what lens? Do you use a monopod, or just hand hold?

Yes Age, I was also wondering about the new camera.

And did the silent auction take place for the jerseys? If so what was the spread on the bidding?

[Q]marty Wrote:

And did the silent auction take place for the jerseys? If so what was the spread on the bidding?[/q]

The silent auction takes place this Friday at the Harvard game. The minimum bid on each jersey is $150, apparently (which bums me out since that's totally out of my price range).

Here's the details:
[cornellbigred.collegesports.com]

Jordan, B&W film holds up much better at high ISO, so even shooting at 1600 will give you pretty decent results. Also, I'm not sure where you're seeing this "minimum of noise" at 1600 (or even 800) on digital cameras, but by all means get me one of those cameras.

I'm shooting at 800 and it's quite noisy. Fortunately for web use, I can recover by downsizing and liberal use of Noise Ninja. Certainly irriating after shooting racing all summer...

Anyway, I'm usually using a Nikon D2H body and given my proximity this year, starting with Harvard I'll be using a Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR AF-S. In the past I've used a Nikkor 80-400 f/4-5.6 VR AF, which isn't ideal for sports, but I've needed the extra zoom at times. I'm going to get the new TC-17E II teleconverter from Nikon, which I'll use with the 70-200 when I need a longer lens rather than revert to the 80-400. I use a Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 AF-S for the wide shots.

The D2X looks very promising, though the pseudo-sports finder to get 8fps thing seems odd. Ideally, I'd replace my D100 with a D2X when it becomes available, but unless I sell a whole lot of those prints, it seems unlikely.

[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:

Heh. I actually had another shot that was almost exactly the same which I didn't bother to include. Not often a goal shot is boring or repetitive, but it's better than the alternative.[/q]
Gotta respectfully disagree. Those "moment" shots are the best. All the photos are beautiful and its great to relive the game, but guys pushing or just skating are things you can appreciate at the time.

There's something that much more special about capturing a 'moment' that you're not able to appreciate in real time. In that goal shot where you look at the picture and almost feel Lynah ready to break into all out joy, its the moment that you can't appreciate when you're there cause its a fraction of a second, but with the picture you can sit there and really appreciate the event.

Doesn't have to be a goal either, the wraparound attempt is another great one, it can be a spray of ice form a skate (you had one of those), or anything that. Capturing a moment that illustrates the beauty of hockey, of which you only usually get fleeting glances.

Or maybe that's just me

Well, you asked for it. It's the first one on this page:

[www.elynah.com]

Didn't necessarily mean you had to add it this time, just sharing my opinion for future editorial decisions. Thanks though. Not sure how many people agree with me or not

Wow, Age...quite a bit of $$ on your equipment. I'm unaware of the grain on high ISO B&W prints, but on color negative or slide film, I've seen pretty grainy results at high ISO. Most of the current digital SLRs, including yours, have considerably less noise at equivalent ISO to color film, from the comparisons that I've seen. (one quick mention is an article on digital SLRs by Peter Dulis, which says, "Canon has done an especially good job of noise reduction with the 10D. ISO 400 and 800 images are very clean when compared to the same ISO output in film."

Obviously, there is still noise, and digital noise is somewhat more distracting in the same amount than film grain, but it seems to be pretty managable, especially in post processing. (I use NeatImage for my noise reduction, but I'll have to check out Noise Ninja).

I was looking into getting a Nikon D70, but since I have no glass right now, and that's a bit out of my price range, I'm going to pick up a few lenses and a Digital Rebel, which has enough features to keep me satisfied. Eventually, when I've built up a nice lens collection, I'll get a better body, but I can't justify spending the extra $330 for the D70, or an extra $400-500 for a Canon 10D or 20D.

Anyway, your photos look fantastic.....

SOMEbody shoulda jumped down my throat for being so ignorant as to either not realize the original purpose of the special jerseys or not having the eyeballs to bother looking at the other names. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Where's facetimer when I need a good flaming? Sheesh...

[Q]Darren Leung Wrote:

SOMEbody shoulda jumped down my throat for being so ignorant as to either not realize the original purpose of the special jerseys or not having the eyeballs to bother looking at the other names. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Where's facetimer when I need a good flaming? Sheesh... [/q]

I think everyone thought you were joking.

Sadly, only half-joking. I was just baffled and made a snide remark rather than look closer at the other pics. Oh, Due Diligence, why must you torment me so!