Pete Hidy flymph

[Kelly L.]

Thanks Lance for the wonderful fly photos. Hans, I agree about the naked eye. I may think that my fly is pretty darn good, until I use the macro lens on it, and I see little imperfections that pop up. I got an OptiVisor not that long ago, and I am seeing things now, that I didn't before. Still, the camera won't lie, and it has bummed me seeing things I did not see when I was tying the fly. It just makes me want to do better. I am determined to get it right, eventually. (for me anyway)

[gingerdun]

I do my tying for the trout, first and foremost. Some of the flies may never see water, but that is not the point. I tie them for the trout, first and foremost. My flies will be scruffy (in my parlance Controlled Chaos, or Organized Anarchy) where I want them to be scruffy, and sleek where I want them to be sleek.
Scruffy does not equate bad tying, provided the scruffiness is with intent, measured and controlled.
Sloppy tying almost invariably results in scruffy fly, sure, but it is a scruffy fly which is less likely to fish well, and certainly will come apart sooner.

Hans, thank you so much for this thoughtful look at the effects of photography on fly tying. Also, your distinction between "scruffy" and "sloppy" is an important one. I don't see how your thinking diverges from mine. Rather, you have just illuminated the subject more clearly than I had done.
I hope it is clear to forum readers that I was not being critical of those of us (I included myself) who are self-conscious of how macro photography reveals the details of our flies—flaws and all. Photography has changed the way we tie, no question about it, and I really think that, overall, it is a good thing. Macro photographs of fly details are educational to other tiers who want to expand their craft skills. We can see things that were essentially invisible to the naked eye. However, Jim and Pete wrote that they always carried a small magnifier that they used when sharpening hooks, etc., which undoubtedly gave them a closer look at the fly's details.

Anyway, there is no contradiction between tying for both the trout AND the camera. That double goal just raises the bar of difficulty, making the craft all the more exact and demanding. You, sir, have one of the most personal and innovative tying styles of our day, and your Danica Flytier's Page has become an international watering hole for flytiers seeking refreshing ideas. Your style would not be so influential if others had not tested your ideas on the trout, and found success.

I admit that I get a little defensive about Pete's flies, some of which are not only scruffy, but even start to look a little sloppy, with uneven rib wraps, and the like. I probably won't post or publish those. But critical eyes that are accustomed to macro perfection may not see "shoulders of giants," but emperors without clothes. That would be a shame, but such is the risk of magnifying the antique flies, warts and all. At least, here on flymph forum, there is little danger of that happening.

[Kelly L.]

Ginger Dun, I agree. Two thumbs up on your post. I enjoyed every line you wrote, and was shaking my head in agreement.

[gingerdun]

Kelly,
Thanks for adding your thoughts to this thread. Photography has become so huge. We talk about technical stuff regarding cameras and lighting, but not so much about the effect it has on the way we see, and tie——and now, the way we see antique flies from the days before macro photography.

[JohnP]

I think all of the flies you have posted have been fantastic. I love being able to see the tying details. My comment about the size of the heads on them was not meant to be critical, and I hope it was not taken that way. Please continue to share any and all of these flies with us that you wish. The least of them I consider to be a treasure.

[gingerdun]

JohnP, no worry, I didn't read your observation as critical, and it wouldn't matter anyway. The style of head was then, like today, somewhat arbitrary, or a kind of tier's signature. It is how you can tell Leisenring's flies from Hidy's, for example. Pete liked a slightly thicker head than Big Jim did. So far I have never heard any evidence that these variations in head style make any difference to the trout.

[Kelly L.]

I have always had a tendency to tie big heads on my flies. In some cases, I think they LOOK BETTER. The tidiness of the head counts in my work, but I have tied a bunch of flies with cruddy heads, and the fish don't give a flip about that. The ones who do are tyers. So the good flies are what you strive for, they go into the shadow box, or the pics. The ones with slight imperfections go to the fishing holes. No problemo on that for me.