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

"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

"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.

"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.

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)

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

"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

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$.

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.