TLR fill flash advice

skysh4rk

skysh4rk

Messages
3,102
Name
RJ
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

I was looking for some advice regarding fill flash and flash height relative to the taking lens.

I generally prefer to use my Rolleiflex 2.8E, but unlike my Minolta Autocord, it doesn't have a cold shoe to enable easy fill flash. This means that I will typically use my Autocord if I need fill flash, as a flash bracket on the Rollei makes the camera feel unbalanced and blocks either the focusing wheel or the winding mechanism, depending on what side I stick the bracket.

It then dawned on me that I could use one of my Rollei tripod quick releases to quickly and easily connect a flash. The only concern here is that the flash is then below the lens. Is this likely to cause a problem? I was thinking the biggest issue would be a potential shadow above the nose at close distances, but I don't really shoot very close with the Rollei, especially when using fill flash.

Any thoughts?

I had planned to test this out a few weeks ago, but I've broken one wrist and sprained the other, so I've been forced into a photo-taking break for the moment.

Below is the proposed set up. It allows me to hold the camera as I would normally and it's easy to take on and off.

IMG_0502.JPG
 
I'd think the issues would be the same as having it on top but shadows will go the other way. I'd try a digital camera upside down with the same flash and see how it looks first.

If it's set to fill and you're not too close and the subject isn't too close to a wall that should minimise shadows.

Looks perfectly bonkers but it might just work well :)
 
edit.......^.......:ROFLMAO:



I kinda want to put a ring flash on the thing but it would have to be huuuuge to avoid blocking the viewing lens, sense and finance dictates an 18 inch ring light rather than flash, with the tlr in the middle.
Ring flashes are just so good at eliminating facial shadows in portraiture
 
Last edited:
srichards said:
I'd think the issues would be the same as having it on top but shadows will go the other way. I'd try a digital camera upside down with the same flash and see how it looks first.

If it's set to fill and you're not too close and the subject isn't too close to a wall that should minimise shadows.

Looks perfectly bonkers but it might just work well :)
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I don't own a digital camera to test it, so I might just have to wait until my wrists are better.

You have just given me one idea though with your mention of turning the digital camera 'upside down'. The Rolleiflex has both an eye-level focusing feature and a direct sight composition feature, so it is possible to rotate the camera 90º and still use it relatively comfortably to take a photo. I wouldn't want to do this all the time, but it is something that I could do for those photographs where I definitely didn't want to have issues with shadows, as I could get the flash to lens height then.

RaglanSurf said:
How about this?

Flash
Click to expand...

I imagine that would help to get some big smiles for any portraits. :D
 
joxby said:
edit.......^.......:ROFLMAO:



I kinda want to put a ring flash on the thing but it would have to be huuuuge to avoid blocking the viewing lens, sense and finance dictates an 18 inch ring light rather than flash, with the tlr in the middle.
Ring flashes are just so good at eliminating facial shadows in portraiture
Click to expand...

There you go @joxby.

https://shop.pimoroni.com/products/...nt=640302517&gclid=CLC3n_zJmtICFQ0R0wodMHgDhg

Buy 4 of those and run them off a 3.7v lipo battery boosted to 5v with an Adafruit Trinket controller (what I've fitted inside my Yashica 44) and you've got a controllable, ultra bright ring light that can also output any colour you want :0)
 
We used the flash hand held much of the time . Though I mostly used large Braun flashes which had their own rollie fitting brackets that still let you change the film.
Like the metz flashes they had large flash packs holding accumulators. And a cord to the long handled flash head.
Though you could also buy flash brackets that gave space for focussing and had a square base to fit a TLR. I most likely still have one somewhere hidden away. That camera looks about 1955 To 1956.
 
Last edited:
An 18 inch ring light already exists that would encircle the Rolleiflex with room to spare.
This isn't a flash though, flash is where its at, and I doubt one this size is available for less than the price of a kidney.
I can't think of a way to minimize portrait shadows with a low speedlight mounted as pictured without diffusers, reflectors, scrims and misc other bits and bats that you just don't set up for a casual mug shot..:)

That mounting position is......unfortunate
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top