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

"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

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

"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

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)

"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

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$.

"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.

"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

"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