Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

Chuck,

what did you do wrt light sources ?

I still have a collection of midges that need to have their photos taken
for public display.

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

Chuck,

what did you do wrt light sources ?

I still have a collection of midges that need to have their photos taken
for public display.

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

"Svend Tang-Petersen" wrote in message
...
Chuck,

what did you do wrt light sources ?

I still have a collection of midges that need to have their photos taken
for public display.


how does one reconcile the loss of a fly with the work put into making it?
i've not tried to tie any, but i imagine it is a hell of a lot of tedious,
intricate work. i think i would be sick if i lost one to a tree, or a poor
job of tying it onto my tippet, etc.....
they're gorgeous....

snakefiddler

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

"Svend Tang-Petersen" wrote in message
...
Chuck,

what did you do wrt light sources ?

I still have a collection of midges that need to have their photos taken
for public display.


how does one reconcile the loss of a fly with the work put into making it?
i've not tried to tie any, but i imagine it is a hell of a lot of tedious,
intricate work. i think i would be sick if i lost one to a tree, or a poor
job of tying it onto my tippet, etc.....
they're gorgeous....

snakefiddler

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

Svend Tang-Petersen wrote:

Chuck,

what did you do wrt light sources ?

I still have a collection of midges that need to have their photos taken
for public display.

Svend,

I took a low-tech approach. I propped up some gray tying foam in
the background and let the camera provide its own lighting (e.g., a
flash). They were shot in my garage in low light conditions, so ambient
light wasn't a factor.


Chuck Vance (who was surprised at how well the pics came out)

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

"snakefiddler" wrote in
:


"Svend Tang-Petersen" wrote in message
...
Chuck,

what did you do wrt light sources ?

I still have a collection of midges that need to have their photos
taken for public display.


how does one reconcile the loss of a fly with the work put into making
it? i've not tried to tie any, but i imagine it is a hell of a lot of
tedious, intricate work. i think i would be sick if i lost one to a
tree, or a poor job of tying it onto my tippet, etc.....
they're gorgeous....

snakefiddler



It's much better than reconciling the loss of a fly with paying for it!

Scott

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

"snakefiddler" wrote in
:


"Svend Tang-Petersen" wrote in message
...
Chuck,

what did you do wrt light sources ?

I still have a collection of midges that need to have their photos
taken for public display.


how does one reconcile the loss of a fly with the work put into making
it? i've not tried to tie any, but i imagine it is a hell of a lot of
tedious, intricate work. i think i would be sick if i lost one to a
tree, or a poor job of tying it onto my tippet, etc.....
they're gorgeous....

snakefiddler



It's much better than reconciling the loss of a fly with paying for it!

Scott

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

snakefiddler wrote:

how does one reconcile the loss of a fly with the work put into making it?
i've not tried to tie any, but i imagine it is a hell of a lot of tedious,
intricate work. i think i would be sick if i lost one to a tree, or a poor
job of tying it onto my tippet, etc.....

It's just a fact of life, and there's always more where that one
came from. I guess it could be looked at as tedious, but for me,
working with your hands isn't tedious even if it is slow-going. (Well,
tying flies for the GFS might be considered tedious.) I woodwork also,
and I do it almost exclusively with handtools. It's slower than using
machines, but you're also more in touch with the process.

I tend to look at it from another perspective: There's nothing like
catching a fish on a fly you've tied yourself.

they're gorgeous....

Thanks. But there's a downside to taking macro pics of your own
flies. You can see every little imperfection.


Chuck Vance

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

snakefiddler wrote:

how does one reconcile the loss of a fly with the work put into making it?
i've not tried to tie any, but i imagine it is a hell of a lot of tedious,
intricate work. i think i would be sick if i lost one to a tree, or a poor
job of tying it onto my tippet, etc.....

It's just a fact of life, and there's always more where that one
came from. I guess it could be looked at as tedious, but for me,
working with your hands isn't tedious even if it is slow-going. (Well,
tying flies for the GFS might be considered tedious.) I woodwork also,
and I do it almost exclusively with handtools. It's slower than using
machines, but you're also more in touch with the process.

I tend to look at it from another perspective: There's nothing like
catching a fish on a fly you've tied yourself.

they're gorgeous....

Thanks. But there's a downside to taking macro pics of your own
flies. You can see every little imperfection.


Chuck Vance

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

"Conan the Librarian" wrote in message
...
snakefiddler wrote:

how does one reconcile the loss of a fly with the work put into making
it?
i've not tried to tie any, but i imagine it is a hell of a lot of
tedious,
intricate work. i think i would be sick if i lost one to a tree, or a
poor
job of tying it onto my tippet, etc.....

It's just a fact of life, and there's always more where that one
came from. I guess it could be looked at as tedious, but for me,
working with your hands isn't tedious even if it is slow-going. (Well,
tying flies for the GFS might be considered tedious.) I woodwork also,
and I do it almost exclusively with handtools. It's slower than using
machines, but you're also more in touch with the process.

I tend to look at it from another perspective: There's nothing like
catching a fish on a fly you've tied yourself.

i'll bet so :-)

they're gorgeous....

Thanks.


But there's a downside to taking macro pics of your own
flies. You can see every little imperfection.

my daughter is an artist, and my son is a photographer; an artist in his own
right, and i find that, like you, they are highly critical of their work.
usually the critiques are unfounded, (in my eye, anyway)

snakefiddler

Chuck Vance

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

Much better macro mode than my Canon G5. Now I'm psyched about buying a
macro lens - expensive though. Mu

__________________________________________________ _____________________
\ Mu Young Lee
remove all dashes and underscores in reply address

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

"snakefiddler" wrote...

"Svend Tang-Petersen" wrote...
Chuck,

what did you do wrt light sources ?

I still have a collection of midges that need to have their photos taken
for public display.

how does one reconcile the loss of a fly with the work put into making it?
i've not tried to tie any, but i imagine it is a hell of a lot of tedious,
intricate work. i think i would be sick if i lost one to a tree, or a poor
job of tying it onto my tippet, etc.....

There is nothing more satisfying than catching fish on your own hand-tied (as
opposed to . . . ) flies. Especially if it's a pattern of your own design.
Losing flies is part of the game, so you grieve accordingly and move on.

they're gorgeous....

Chuck's are, in any case. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

"snakefiddler" wrote in message
...

"Svend Tang-Petersen" wrote in message
...
Chuck,

what did you do wrt light sources ?

I still have a collection of midges that need to have their photos
taken
for public display.


how does one reconcile the loss of a fly with the work put into
making it?
i've not tried to tie any, but i imagine it is a hell of a lot of
tedious,
intricate work. i think i would be sick if i lost one to a tree, or
a poor
job of tying it onto my tippet, etc.....
they're gorgeous....

Their a lot like children in that respect. After you've lost a couple
hundred, it gets easier. :)

Wolfgang
who no longer drives school buses.

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

"snakefiddler" wrote in message
...

"Svend Tang-Petersen" wrote in message
...
Chuck,

what did you do wrt light sources ?

I still have a collection of midges that need to have their photos
taken
for public display.


how does one reconcile the loss of a fly with the work put into
making it?
i've not tried to tie any, but i imagine it is a hell of a lot of
tedious,
intricate work. i think i would be sick if i lost one to a tree, or
a poor
job of tying it onto my tippet, etc.....
they're gorgeous....

Their a lot like children in that respect. After you've lost a couple
hundred, it gets easier. :)

Wolfgang
who no longer drives school buses.

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

Mu Young Lee wrote:

Much better macro mode than my Canon G5. Now I'm psyched about buying a
macro lens - expensive though. Mu

SWMBO has the Sony DSC-F717, and it's a damned good camera, but we
did some macros side-by-side and we both agreed the Pentax was at least
as good, plus the super-macro mode enables it to get even closer than
the Sony.

So far it's shown itself to be more than adequate for my expected
uses. SWMBO has all the bells and whistles for her Nikon (wide-angle,
close-up lens), plus the Sony, so I'll let her do the artwork. :-)

So how much would the macro lens run for your camera?


Chuck Vance (who knows exactly what the wide-angle cost, 'cause
he bought it for her for xmas)

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

snakefiddler wrote:

my daughter is an artist, and my son is a photographer; an artist in his own
right, and i find that, like you, they are highly critical of their work.
usually the critiques are unfounded, (in my eye, anyway)

It's worse than that for some of us who woodwork. We've been known
to actually point out the imperfections of our work to the very people
who are on the receving end.

But, to quote a venerable ROFFian (and he told me I could use it):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

When it ceases to be tough to look at your own work in the bright clear
light of the next day, it's time to switch to something you're qualified
to judge.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


Chuck Vance (THAT was a damn good line)

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

"Conan The Librarian" wrote in message
om...
Howdy,

Here are a few shots I took with my mini digicam (Pentax Optio
S40). I was impressed with how well it performed in macro mode, and
it even has a "super macro" that enable you to get extremely close
(moreso than SWMBO's Sony). These are all some flies that I was
playing around with recently, so they might not be the prettiest, but
I just wanted to test the camera. (It passed, with flying colors.)

The first is a pic of a #16 Usual. This was from the first batch
of these I ever tied (my first time working with snowshoe hare) and
I'm still working on the wing/tail proportions on these, but they look
downright buggy.

snip

Chuck Vance



Those are some really nice pics. And you say you paid $40 for the camera?

I have to ask, "Where can I get a camera like that?!?!?!?"


And about that Lime Trude...

....I'm not sure why you would want to use CDC for the wing. The hackle and
the tail should float that fly, right?



------------------------------------------------
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
- Dan Quayle

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

"Conan the Librarian" wrote in message
...

snip

But there's a downside to taking macro pics of your own
flies. You can see every little imperfection.


Chuck Vance



Now ain't that the god-awful truth.

But then on the bright side, you can see where you need to improve. :-)





------------------------------------------------
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
- Dan Quayle

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

Hooked wrote:

"Conan The Librarian" wrote in message
om...
Howdy,

Here are a few shots I took with my mini digicam (Pentax Optio
S40). I was impressed with how well it performed in macro mode, and
it even has a "super macro" that enable you to get extremely close
(moreso than SWMBO's Sony). These are all some flies that I was
playing around with recently, so they might not be the prettiest, but
I just wanted to test the camera. (It passed, with flying colors.)

The first is a pic of a #16 Usual. This was from the first batch
of these I ever tied (my first time working with snowshoe hare) and
I'm still working on the wing/tail proportions on these, but they look
downright buggy.

snip

Chuck Vance

Those are some really nice pics. And you say you paid $40 for the camera?

I have to ask, "Where can I get a camera like that?!?!?!?"

And about that Lime Trude...

...I'm not sure why you would want to use CDC for the wing. The hackle and
the tail should float that fly, right?

------------------------------------------------
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
- Dan Quayle

I dont think he paid 40$ for it. What he bought was a Pentax Optio S40, which
costs ~300$.

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:45:29 -0400, "snakefiddler"
wrote:


"Svend Tang-Petersen" wrote in message
...
Chuck,

what did you do wrt light sources ?

I still have a collection of midges that need to have their photos taken
for public display.


how does one reconcile the loss of a fly with the work put into making it?
i've not tried to tie any, but i imagine it is a hell of a lot of tedious,
intricate work. i think i would be sick if i lost one to a tree, or a poor
job of tying it onto my tippet, etc.....
they're gorgeous....

snakefiddler

Jeez snakefiddler, don't let these guys fool you with the "Aw shucks,
it is hard to see my efforts gone to waste..." shtick. Most of us can
turn out at least 4 or 5 an hour. With some ties, like Pass Lakes,
even a mediocre tyer like me can complete almost a dozen an hour. I
leave the intricate flies for the guys at Fly Tyer magazine. For me a
fly has to be doable in a short time, be simple to tie and be durable.
None of which is hard to accomplish. But even if I lose it I still
view the time tying it better spent than having wasted it in front of
the tube.


g.c.

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

"Hooked" wrote in message
...
"Conan The Librarian" wrote in message
om...
Howdy,

Here are a few shots I took with my mini digicam (Pentax Optio
S40). I was impressed with how well it performed in macro mode, and
it even has a "super macro" that enable you to get extremely close
(moreso than SWMBO's Sony). These are all some flies that I was
playing around with recently, so they might not be the prettiest, but
I just wanted to test the camera. (It passed, with flying colors.)

The first is a pic of a #16 Usual. This was from the first batch
of these I ever tied (my first time working with snowshoe hare) and
I'm still working on the wing/tail proportions on these, but they look
downright buggy.

snip

Chuck Vance



Those are some really nice pics. And you say you paid $40 for the camera?

I have to ask, "Where can I get a camera like that?!?!?!?"


And about that Lime Trude...

...I'm not sure why you would want to use CDC for the wing. The hackle and
the tail should float that fly, right?

I'm not sure of others' reasons, but I'll sometimes throw some CDC on a fly just
to give it a nice motion in the water.
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

"Svend Tang-Petersen" wrote in message
...

I dont think he paid 40$ for it. What he bought was a Pentax Optio S40,
which
costs ~300$.



Oh.

I guess in all my haste to buy a decent camera for as little as possible, to
take out on the water, and save my good camera for dry land, I misread that.

I guess maybe I'll have to go to Office Max and check out the camera they
have on sale.

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

"Tim J." wrote in message
news:VwGIc.60585$JR4.7940@attbi_s54...

I'm not sure of others' reasons, but I'll sometimes throw some CDC on a
fly just
to give it a nice motion in the water.
--
TL,
Tim


But isn't the Trude a dry fly? The point I'm trying to get at is, will that
CDC even see the water? Will the hackle float the fly to the point that the
CDC will remain above water?

I thought CDC is good for floating a fly. If the CDC never gets near the
water, because it's used as a wing on a hackled dry fly, isn't that
defeating the purpose?

I can see the use of CDC as the wing material on an emerger, but for a dry
fly?



------------------------------------------------
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
- Dan Quayle

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

Hooked wrote:

Those are some really nice pics. And you say you paid $40 for the camera?

No, it's an "S40". I didn't pay anything for it, SWMBO gave it to
me for Dad's day after I dropped some carefully placed hints. :-)

I have to ask, "Where can I get a camera like that?!?!?!?"

Uh ... get you a SWMBO like mine? :-)

And about that Lime Trude...

...I'm not sure why you would want to use CDC for the wing. The hackle and
the tail should float that fly, right?

Sure. I was just playing around with the CDC to see how it looked
as a wing. I like it, but don't know yet if the fishies will. I'll get
ot find that out at the end of the month on the Crowsnest.


Chuck Vance

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

Hooked wrote:

But isn't the Trude a dry fly?

Yes and no. :-)

The point I'm trying to get at is, will that
CDC even see the water? Will the hackle float the fly to the point that the
CDC will remain above water?

I thought CDC is good for floating a fly. If the CDC never gets near the
water, because it's used as a wing on a hackled dry fly, isn't that
defeating the purpose?

The way I planned to fish the Trude is to let it swing at the end of
the drift and strip it back. So yes, it's a dry, but it's also fished
wet. I figured the CDC would look good, and I could dry it out for the
next cast with a few false casts.

IIRC, the Trude actually started life as a wet (or am I confusing it
with something else?).


Chuck Vance

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

Hooked wrote:

But isn't the Trude a dry fly?

Yes and no. :-)

The point I'm trying to get at is, will that
CDC even see the water? Will the hackle float the fly to the point that the
CDC will remain above water?

I thought CDC is good for floating a fly. If the CDC never gets near the
water, because it's used as a wing on a hackled dry fly, isn't that
defeating the purpose?

The way I planned to fish the Trude is to let it swing at the end of
the drift and strip it back. So yes, it's a dry, but it's also fished
wet. I figured the CDC would look good, and I could dry it out for the
next cast with a few false casts.

IIRC, the Trude actually started life as a wet (or am I confusing it
with something else?).


Chuck Vance

Some pics of flies taken with my new digicam
 

"Conan the Librarian" wrote in message
...
Hooked wrote:

But isn't the Trude a dry fly?

Yes and no. :-)

The point I'm trying to get at is, will that
CDC even see the water? Will the hackle float the fly to the point that
the
CDC will remain above water?

I thought CDC is good for floating a fly. If the CDC never gets near the
water, because it's used as a wing on a hackled dry fly, isn't that
defeating the purpose?

The way I planned to fish the Trude is to let it swing at the end of
the drift and strip it back. So yes, it's a dry, but it's also fished
wet. I figured the CDC would look good, and I could dry it out for the
next cast with a few false casts.

IIRC, the Trude actually started life as a wet (or am I confusing it
with something else?).


Chuck Vance


Oh.

Ok.



-------------------------------------------------
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
- Dan Quayle