Photographing Flies II - Scans of A Dry (the sequel)

[Greg]

This is a followup to the Photographing Flies thread of a few days ago. There, it was suggested that scanning dry flies probably would not give very good results. I had to see for myself since I hadn't scanned a dry previously.

Here are 4 views of a #14 Adams (I know, the fly sucks.) I would have put this up sooner, but it took awhile to figure out where the heck I stored my trout flies since I hadn't used them in about 5 or 6 years.

From start to finish, the entire process of scanning the 4 views and doing a little minor "touch up" took a total of 20 minutes.

I just wanted to share these results. You may find it good, bad or might even be totally ambivalent about it. This may or may not be a technique or tool you're interested in applying to your own flies, but at least it offers another option beyond trying to photograph without macro or proper lighting.

The first image is a "Trout's Eye View" or, probably better stated, from the underside. The second image is a side view, the third a frontal view and the 4th a view from the top and behind. Enjoy!

http://www.washingtonflyfishing.com/dc/user_files/1637.jpg

http://www.washingtonflyfishing.com/dc/user_files/1638.jpg

http://www.washingtonflyfishing.com/dc/user_files/1639.jpg

http://www.washingtonflyfishing.com/dc/user_files/1640.jpg

For 20 minutes worth of work, not too shabby in my humble opinion.

[Kent Lufkin]

Thanks for your suggestion about using a flatbed scanner instead of a camera. I've been playing with the idea (when I should be working on client projects) and have found it's vastly better that the results I was getting with my digicam. I'm aiming towards scanning shots of each of the damsels submitted to the swap I'm running.

[Flip]

very cool

[Tim Cottage]

Greg
I would like to thank you for the excellent responses to this question.

I have been fooling around with scanning flies for a awhile and could not achieve results anything near your examples. I had concluded that I needed a better scanner and your images and explanations confirm that. Scanners have come a long way in the last five years and it is time to upgrade.

Thanks
TC

[Greg]

Thanks for the kind comments, guys.

I didn't pay much attention to final image quality in this trial as you can tell...a bit oversharpened, definitely some exposure tweaking needed, maybe some better placement etc. Key word for the day is experiment. As these 4 scans show, dry flies can be scanned without being crushed.

Fortuna: I'm willing to bet you'll be taking the process to the next level, wherever that level may be; I look forward to your work.

[Kent Lufkin]

>Fortuna: I'm willing to bet you'll be taking the
>process to the next level, wherever that level may be;
>I look forward to your work

Thanks Greg. I was struck by your comment comparing a flatbed to a large format camera with a really shallow depth of field. Based on my own hasty experiments, I was pretty skeptical about being able to satisfactorily resolve the hackle in a dry fly - until I saw your images. You've obviously thought the whole process out and your persistence has paid off. Most impressive. Thanks again for sharing.