Woodcock and Silver Wire - Submerged

[Hans Weilenmann]

William,

I had a closer look at your rig - nifty little bathtub.

Did you make it yourself (or had it made for the purpose), or this an off the shelf item? You may have started a new craze here.

Cheers,
Hans W

[DUBBN]

I have always enjoyed seeing patterns submerged. I also like seeing them when they are photographed wet (out of water). I am not trying to be negative, but what is it that we learn from these pictures? If there is no current pushing the hackle back over the fly, or sweeping the dubbing material towards its tail, are we really seeing the true appearance of the pattern?

In calm water, patterns like the Peacock and Partridge, or my Muskrat look rather plain when just sitting in water (submerged). They really don't look all that different than when dry, except for a few bubbles coming from them. Add movement (current) and the two patterns take on a whole different appearance. The hackles sweep back and envelope the body in a fascinating shroud. The patterns look completely different than just submerged or out of the water and wet.

Like I said before, I do enjoy the pictures, but what information is gathered from submerged patterns if there is no current?


As always William, your patterns are top shelf, and a pleasure to see.

[hankaye]

Howdy All;

Of course you are opening up the other age old question.
How do fish see things compared to how we humans see things?

To me the sight of a mixed Hatch might look like this to the 'Wild Trout';

http://www.google.com/search?q=vintage+ ... 50&bih=730



hank

[William Anderson]

William,

I had a closer look at your rig - nifty little bathtub.

Did you make it yourself (or had it made for the purpose), or this an off the shelf item? You may have started a new craze here.

Cheers,
Hans W

Hans, after seeing what Ruard was able to accomplish and a few others on the site have been able to photograph quite well, flies submerged, I really wanted to see if that was something I could add to the comparitive nature of my posts. I don't get out much, for months now, and the prospect of getting into a shopping area is weeks between, so when I saw Chris Stewart post this http://www.tenkarabum.com/micro-fishing-photo-tank.html on his site for photographing living nymphs streamside...the bells went off. And my photo set-up is well suited to add something like this, with a little planning. (Thanks for the compliment regarding the set up.)

These come with a lid, which I removed and I use these ceramic magnets for lots of applications around my tying station and travel station as well. I think there is something to be gained here, maybe not, but it's interesting to try it out. Chris was quick to ship and easy to work with. I like this little box quite a lot and you can see from the shot of the fly in box, without water on the first page of this thread...the clarity of the box is superb. I'm hoping more folks will give this a go, if not for photographing the flies, but just for the pleasure of watching them come to life and undulate in the water.

w

[William Anderson]

The correct answer was distilled water at room temperature. Lots of hydrofuge, no microbubbles. None. and much better look at the fly. I haven't put that to the macro test yet, so photographing them may reveal something different, but it was night and day using the distilled water. No gin was harmed in the posting of these flies.

w

[Stendalen]

William, too cool. Have to re-read this a couple of times!

Martin

[William Anderson]

I have always enjoyed seeing patterns submerged. I also like seeing them when they are photographed wet (out of water). I am not trying to be negative, but what is it that we learn from these pictures? If there is no current pushing the hackle back over the fly, or sweeping the dubbing material towards its tail, are we really seeing the true appearance of the pattern?

In calm water, patterns like the Peacock and Partridge, or my Muskrat look rather plain when just sitting in water (submerged). They really don't look all that different than when dry, except for a few bubbles coming from them. Add movement (current) and the two patterns take on a whole different appearance. The hackles sweep back and envelope the body in a fascinating shroud. The patterns look completely different than just submerged or out of the water and wet.

Like I said before, I do enjoy the pictures, but what information is gathered from submerged patterns if there is no current?


As always William, your patterns are top shelf, and a pleasure to see.

Wayne, I don't take your question as a negative in the least. It's the question I've hinted at throughout the entire thread. What is the difference and even so....so what is the relevance? When I posted the Waterhen Flymph with the mole/beaver blend, I noted that the third image, simply wet was maybe a better reflection of the actual underbody, but I didn't know if it was because the light was better able to show the silk in the body, or because the microbubbles were obscuring the body itself.

My intention was not to demonstrate what soft-hackles look like or do in the stream in fishing conditions. My intention was simply to see if I could better represent the qualities of the underbodies found in flies tied using the silk and dubbing loops or spun bodies. Period. When I post a fly that is wet, I usually say, it's a shame what it does to the dubbing, mucking it up and causing an effect that is unreal in every context. I'm trying to get around that. What I didn't expect, but should have, was the ability of the fibers to create that larger hydrofuge, which is discussed by most soft-hackle writers/fishermen, including Nemes, Hidy, Hughes...and there are a few others. It's a phenomenon that does occur and many speculate that it is relevent to making a fly more life-like. Maybe not, but a nice image to share is interesting to talk about and I am interested in looking at which body materials create this and maybe why. I lean toward finding the hydrofuge as possibly productive. That's as far as I can say on that.

As to the current of the water being such a significant factor, and I'll step on your toes here, gently, (but if we agreed on everything, it would make for a very dull conversation), but you have commented many times about hackles clinging to the body and creating a profile very much like a nymph shape, with fibers clinging to body. You're not alone in that, as it's often said that a small thorax built into the north country spiders will help keep the fibers from collapsing. I like to see a thorax on some because I hold the profile as one of my core design beliefs. I don't often include them on North Country Spiders, but I find them in line with my own thinking when I see them. (that was way off point. Sorry.) I don't dispute that there are occassions, either with very weak hackles, or especially strong currents and hard swinging flies that the fibers do slope back against the body, and to our advantage, the profile of this is fantastic and likely realistic. I don't however believe this is the case in most situations, even with north country spiders. Water pressure surrounding every fiber, micro-currents and the nature of the materials themselves, do not want to cling to the body as they do when you lift them from the water. They move. They are always moving and especially when you add a dubbed body, those fibers too want to move in every direction. As Ray mentioned the materials want to spring in every direction when they get below the water's surface, and if you're fishing these dead drift or up stream as I like to do...a hard current doesn't come into play.

(I feel like I'm channeling MC with such direct statements, made with such certainty - which I don't think is usually my style, quite the opposite I hope).

Discussing the nature of the flies in the current, despite Jeff's innovation mentioned above , wasn't the point here at all. Only that dry photos illustrate how these flies look when tied to match the tiers desired result, dry. Wet photos tend to show a bit of the translucency of the materials, and certainly a darkening of the materials when wet, but the appearance of the fly is lacking. I am hoping to add something to that. (Note, I think showing the flies dry, wet and submerged is a better conversation than advocating showing flies submerged as opposed to showing them wet.)

A key point that I hadn't seen until Lance pointed it out, and today with the distilled water, I demonstrated to myself again, something that I wouldn't have picked up on. We tend to see what we expect to see I guess. But with the flies submerged, and every fiber spread, absorbing and reflecting light, the dubbing and the hackles are not darkened as they are when you take them out of the water. In and out, like a little kid, I watched closely and found the darker waterhen fibers lighten, as did the dubbed bodies. With the Woodcock as well, it does darken when it's out of the water, but put it back in and it lightens to the color of a dry hackle. Dark hackles? who cares right, but when you're entertaining the idea of imitating a March Brown, so subtlety comes into play. I really don't know what to make of this yet, it's a new thought for me, and if I'm making a fool of myself based on such a small sample size...I'll eat every word. No problem. I'm just sharing what I see. As I said in the intial post...let the speculation and suspicions regarding it's relevance begin. That will certainly prove to be an interesting conversation. I think we're safe in have disagreement for the point of learning. I hope to be the one to gain the most from this little exercise.

Someone check...is this my longest post to date? My apologies, sincerely. I do have some strong opinions based on my experiences, but I'm wide-eyed and looking for input from every angle.

Please share your reactions, I have no problems with entertaining opposing opinions. I rather enjoy it.

w

[Hans Weilenmann]

Thanks William,

I will have a quiet word with Chris

Cheers,
Hans W

[gingerdun]

William, you may aspire to channeling MC, but you have a long way to go, my friend. But this was a good start!

Wayne speaks for the skeptic in all of us. What indeed is the point of photographing the submerged fly?

We might as well ask, what is the point of photographing the fly dry? Just that it is easier to do?

I agree with William—this macro photography of the submerged fly gives us a tool for evaluating the hydrofuge of different tying materials. It could also answer the recurring question of what effect shampooing has on feathers and fur. If we shampoo the mask of an English hare, does it lose its famous hydrofuge? And if I spin a body with mohair, how does its hydrofuge compare with another body made from wool yarn, or from a 50/50 silk and wool blend? Or how does plain old Wapsi rabbit dubbing compare with the legendary English hare's mask? Or what happens if sparkling synthetics are added to the dubbing blend? How does Arctic fur seal substitute compare with the real thing?

As for the question of water current, here's what Leisenring wrote in the conclusion of his book:

I do not try to impart any fancy movements to my fly with my rod but simply allow the fly to advance naturally with the current over the stones and gravel until I check its progress gently by ceasing to follow it with my rod. Then the slight tension from the water pressure flowing against my leader and line causes the fly to rise slowly, opening and shutting the hackles, giving a breathing effect such as a genuine insect would have when leaving the bottom of the stream to come to the surface. The water will do all that is necessary to make a fly deadly if it is properly tied.

William's little "bathtub" shots are not going to illustrate this, but it would be interesting to see how accurate this vision of Leisenring's was. Can't we actually test it by dangling or drifting a fly in the stream's current near our waders and watch the hackle movement just below the surface? Have you tried that Wayne?

[Mataura mayfly]

Not to burst Williams bubble, pun intended, I did a little lunchtime hydrofuge test in my own agricultural way. Not lucky enough to be set up with the tank, lighting and nice space William has, I used a glass, tap water* and a simply horrid looking but effective fly.

Test subject.



#12, small copper wire tag, yellow #12 thread, very sparse dubbed possum belly abdomen, slightly darker more guard hair possum thorax and grouse hackle thorax wrapped. Looks like crap, but trout don't mind.

Placed onto the water film. This fly will float if dry and not in fast water...... possum is good like that.



Allowed to sink naturally, a thorax bubble formed very quickly. No Champagne micro bubbles.



The bubble grew and extended toward the surface.



Moving to the side of the glass immediately.



The bubble then "tear dropped"



And broke free to fly to the surface....... not quick enough on the shutter for that!

All this happened near as quick as I could move the camera and press the shutter release.

* Our tap water has been tested as some of the purest in NZ and is drawn from underground aquafiers by pump/water bore set-up. There is a pressure tank on the line, but even if a bit mineral deficient (hard water) it is very pure and as close to distilled as your going to get from a tap.
Not very technical or well done, just my own casual observations and not meant to detract from Williams studies in any way.