Takk skal dere har. In English again. I understand norwegian and speak quite a bit already, but writing is a different story.
I made a little mistake in the order of the tutorials. It can be understood as a system.
I understand fly tying as a simple construction, similar to other handycrafts. There are several techniques or modules. I am working on a longer explanation of this methodical approach.
techniques
1. thread base (common module for all fly tying)
2. forming (body or thorax)
2.1. using dubbing
2.2. using dubbing eye to bend and ribbing with thread coming forward
2.3. using peacock herl spun around the thread
2.4. using plastic sheets (nymph skin or flexibody)
2.5. using spun material clipped in to shape
2.6. using foam on the hook
2.7. using foam for extended bodies
3. hackling (independend on „where“)
3.1. simple (with just the hackle feather)
3.2. hackle interwebbed with thread
3.3. fur strip
3.4. splitting thread and insert a hackle material (hares hair, CDC fibres)
4. wingcase & back
4.1. „fibre“ (hare hair, peacock herl, pheasant tail fibres etc.)
4.2. „plastic“ (nymph skin, flexibody, plastic bag, foam)
5. wing
5.1. flat (deer hair, prepared or unprepared feathers, etc.)
5.2. upright as a post „soft“ (antron, CDC, hares hair, deerhair, etc.)
5.3. post upright „stiff“ (foam)
6. legs
6.1. soft (rubber)
6.2. semi realistic (Veli Autti method)
7. Whip finishing
7.1. on the hook
7.2. on the parachute wingpost
A. t.z.´s sturdy red tag - http://www.teazy.net/handmadeflies/redtag.html
1. / 2.3. / 3.2. / 7.1.
B. t.z.´s quick gnat - http://www.teazy.net/handmadeflies/gnat.html
1. / 2.3. mixed with 3.2. / 7.1.
C. t.z.´s hares hair dry - http://www.teazy.net/handmadeflies/hhd.html
1. / 2.2. / 3.4. / 7.1.
D. klinkhamar special - http://www.teazy.net/handmadeflies/klink.html
1. / 4.1. / 2.2. / 2.3. / 3.2. / 7.2.
E. t.z.´s foam hare klink - http://www.teazy.net/handmadeflies/fhk.html
1. / 4.2. / 2.2. / 2.1. / 3.4. / 7.2.
Maybe a bit complex to explain, but just start with fly A. and work you way up in the modules. The results can be actually very simple flies from just one material - like my HHD (hares hair dry) but the thought process is visible in a way. Just look at the shadow image of your flies from rather far distance and see weather it looks like an insect or not. Don´t be too specific.
Example - We all can identify a plastic fruit from a real one from even a far distance. The common fruit in furniture shop imitation can be as good as it gets, this just decreases the distance, but it will never be "real". It is missing too many variables. It maybe looks very much like the real thing, but we won`t grab it and bite into it. Imagine this when tying flies. Look at them from a distance. Observe the behaviour in all aspects. How does it "fly" (aerodynamics), float or sink. How do the fibres behave. Do they grab air? etc. etc. - endless - so give your feeling a go. A modular approach helps to change little aspects to make better flies. It is not so much about all these different patterns - it is more about the details. I personally think every fly is already different. --- add the presentation and you have quite a spectrum with just 6 flies in your box.
Thanks for making me think
tight lines,
Thomas