FLYMPH FORUM

So I started fooling around with the water tank yesterday and got a couple pics that offer a better look at the body/underbody when submerged. I haven't been to the stream to collect stream water, so distilled water will have to do. I'm trying to get to the dimensionality of the body construction and use a white background. More work to be done.
This fly was one that didn't make the cut for the swap, so you can see in vivid detail where the thread broke tying off the rib and where I tied it back in. I should have picked a good one before shipping them out. oh well.

Hook: Daiichi 1530 #12
Thread: Griffiths 14/0 brown
Hackle: outer covert Woodcock wing
Body: light and medium olive green seal, natural seal and spectral green wool, pre-spun on Pearsall's #2 Straw
Rib: primrose silk buttonhole twist.

The body looks fuller dry. It seems that the underwater not only reveals the underbody but offers a different look at the mass and profile.



underwater


underwater body


I was having trouble getting a good shot of the hydrofuge on this fly. I think the material blend and amount of dubbing at the thorax prevented a large amount of air to collect, and the distilled water results in a reduced effect. My intent was really to get a clear pic of the body underwater. But I wanted to see if I could get it to bubble by squeezing it with an amadou patch, and it worked, but getting a good shot of it was tough. The natural seal fibers are hardly visible in any of the pics. Even the shot of the spun body on the card doesn't show the near transparent seal fur. Maybe I'll just avoid tying flies with snowshoe rabbit foot or natural seal.

post amadou squeeze


These were from early last season 2015, using grouse, and stashed in the wallet.


This is the tinsel version that I tied the season before that 2014. I hope this year will prove this fly just as effective.

I find these sort of underwater experiments fascinating. The dubbing fibers seem more translucent, revealing more for the inner construction. I recently bought some small square mirrors to augment my underwater tank (a.k.a. - plastic baseball card holder). I am hoping to get a better look at the impressions the fly makes at the water's surface, before it sinks.

Excellent post William.

dub-ya, Howdy;

OK! Everyone into the hot tub , ... no ... .

Ya have a nice bubble under the Hackle in the first underwater pic, and one on the abdomen
in the "post amadou squeeze" pic. Perhaps better in 'Real water" ???

hank

What power microscope did you use on this mighty macro?

I feel so small.

letumgo wrote:I find these sort of underwater experiments fascinating. The dubbing fibers seem more translucent, revealing more for the inner construction. I recently bought some small square mirrors to augment my underwater tank (a.k.a. - plastic baseball card holder). I am hoping to get a better look at the impressions the fly makes at the water's surface, before it sinks.

Excellent post William.

Thanks, Ray. I hope your mirrors work out. Is love to use the tank to get some views of flies, especially spiders suspended in the film. Shouldn't be too tough. I plan to do a lot more of this in coming weeks with different construction types.

hankaye wrote:dub-ya, Howdy;

OK! Everyone into the hot tub , ... no ... .

Ya have a nice bubble under the Hackle in the first underwater pic, and one on the abdomen
in the "post amadou squeeze" pic. Perhaps better in 'Real water" ???

hank

always count on you for a snicker. I'm not sure what you mean by real water. Tap is out of the question as the pressurized water just results in lots of bubbles clinging to every surface. Might as well be photographing through seltzer. I suppose I should fool with some different bottled waters, maybe the electrolytes in Smatwater will offer the fly some addition vigor. I'll try some different water. For the purposes of clarity in macro photography, you can't beat distilled water. These pics are pretty clean for an 1/8th inch of acrylic and a 1/4 " of water between the lens and the fly. I just wanted to find the best result for all the construction of the body. I'll keep fussing with it. As we conceive of material combinations it's interesting to see more detail rather than making small assumptions about what is actually happening.

swellcat wrote:
What power microscope did you use on this mighty macro?

I feel so small.

It's just my Nikon D5100 with a 40mm macro lens. Fairly inexpensive and mid-level set up. Works fine for me. Any clearer and my vision wouldn't register any difference anyway.

As I was saying, the point for me is to understand what the materials are actually doing. You get a good idea by wetting silk in the vise to see it darken and blend, but it also darkens and causes other materials to bind together or appear darker when this is not a representation of what happens when submerged. So at this level you could argue that the fish don't care, or good luck determining any difference in strike rates, but we do go to some trouble selecting materials, judging different amounts of materials and the qualities of the materials. Do the trout care? I believe the profile matters, the hydrofuge at times matters, the action of the hackles matters, but the body/underbody coordination also matters so seeing a result in some detail helps me make adjustments. I'd like to see more fine fibers included in this blend, based on my intention I think i would be nearer my mark.

All the other factors probably come in ahead of this narrow focus, but it is interesting to me. On the stream as I look at these flies the components, especially the buttonhole twist seem more absorbed into the juicy body, but here it's surprisingly distinct. Maybe that's an improvement or maybe it's something to adjust. I'm not sure. I know it works for sure, but it's still good information.

Very sorry for the late night cup of fully caffeinated coffee. I've been dragging all day. Now to stare at the ceiling for a while before drifting off.

dub-ya, Howdy;

By real water I was referring to stream water. Perhaps if you were to
fill a plastic water bottle from the stream next outing ... sort of a trout's
eye view as it were.

hank

Yeah, I wonder if that would matter, or if the particulates in the water would only obscure a pic that is only about being able to see something we don't really see. You know I'll try it though. It's not about trout vision. Although, I saw a very cool tank in Somerset where the streamer guys were all playing with their favorite flowy materials. The circulation in the tank was actually pretty cool. Fill that full of stream water, shoot pics outdoors and maybe you could learn something about the flies behavior, but really only at the conclusion of the swing, or if you only ever drift a fly 12". I really would be curious to pulse a bunch of different flies with different hackles against a current and see the flex and resistance of each type of feather. It's possible to learn something new.

The viewing tank is a fun waste of time.