Impressionistic vs realistic?

Both. It depends on the fishing. When I'm fishing the white fly hatch, I use a realistic dry fly tied to match that exact insect. The same with some other notable hatches, Brown Drakes for one. Mostly I'm fishing impressionistic flies when searching, or when the fish aren't obviously keyed into a single insect. The same goes for nymphing, to a slightly lesser degree. I fish some realistic stonefly nymphs and caddis, but there again I'm more or less searching likely runs with a realistic pattern.

I think this is pretty subjective as far as what you consider impressionistic and realistic. For example: I fished an emergent sparkle caddis to great effect late last summer and into early fall. If you hold one beside the natural, its clear to see it looks nothing like the bug. Still, it represents a very specific stage of a particular insect, and incorporates a style and material that reproduces the key triggers for trout to feed on that insect. So...is that impressionistic or realistic?

I tie flies that catch fish.

Trout don't give 2 craps about a copper wire that is spaced too close to the other or a stray feather fiber.

Most of the guys that tie flies that are perfect and throw away the ones that aren't either want the ooooh ahhh effect to post pictures and stroke their egos, while some guys are just plain sick with the tying tools and couldn't mess up if they tried.  I commend everyones flies on here because no matter a slight imperfection, they will get the same feeling bringing a fish to hand with a fly they made, no matter how it looks.

Moral of the story is, Trout Don't Care.

I think size, proportion, general color are important. But not always crucial. I once read a Famous Fly Fisherman who urged less worry about exact imitation and focus instead on the thought that -- whatever is tied to the end of the leader -- you are feeding the fish.

Imitation can be easily taken to the point of irrelevant imho. An angler examing an #18 Adams in a vise under a lamp is seeing an object that's quite a bit different than the trout seeing it moving under water and having to make a quick decision whether to eat it or wait for the next one.

So all in all I'd say I'm of the guide fly impressionist school of thought, possibly with a lazy streak, and in agreement with advice to feed the fly to the fish.

Cold - Very well said.

ORIGINAL: anadromous

And after all of the discussion on perfection, realism and exact copies we can deduce nothing except that a fly that is well tattered, slimed and torn seem to be the best producers...I believe trout feed on the weak and crippled, therefore my ties should be just fine.

 
lol. i think the lazy, wounded fish eat the weak and crippled looking imitations. the better fish eat the more perfected imitations
you wouldn't eat a steak that looks like it was drug on the floor or stepped on would you?

Confidence comes into play as well.  I have some truly strange creations that are impressions of what i think a fish should bite.  then i have some-especially for steel that are nothing at all like a natural but conditions sometimes equal confidence in the colors etc.  I have some natural looking woolies and eggs that look better than the real thing.  Confidence helps.  But I will say that I am making an effort to use different flies just because they are different.              

It's a strange thing. My tying is very much like my handwriting. Very methodical, but messy, and not at all easy on the eyes. Without drafting tools, I can't draw a stick figure that isn't laughable. In the same vein, my flies are pretty goofy looking. I admire the good tiers, and am downright envious of the guys that can tie those stunning imitations.

I don't know how mine would be classified other than technically correct, but not quite what they should be.

I like to think that the time spent at the bench is a personal thing and what ever is created there should be done so in a way that gives the tyer his own personal sence of accompishment and what should be viewed with pride. But along with that, I have come to realize that this pasttime that we call tying has such a tremendous learning curve. There are so many different directions we can go with our tools and to learn all the techniques needed to master all the patterns for trout, spey, classic, saltwater, ect. ... well I think it would take longer than we have in one lifetime. For me, I tend to be very critical of my own personal tying. There are times when I am tying a difficult pattern such as a classic salmon or wet fly and something may not be right. I'll get frustrated, cut the thread from the bobbin and just start over. But that's me being critical of me. I know I've been on other forums and sites, and like anchke said - have been on the stream and have heard others being critical of others patterns. I know I have never read on this forum any critical comments on someone else's tie. Only words of encouragement and that is what is great about the folks here. Tying is a serious and strong passion of mine - one that I enjoy tremendously. When things are not quite in line with my life, I know that there is a place where I can go - put a Skynard cd in - and loose myself in whatever I'm about to try and create. Like DT mentioned, I feel there are times when trout that have been pressured will turn off a fly that is not the correct size or color. So I have tied imitations that I try and match these - But I also tie those that are way off the natural. And there are times when they are the ones that save the day...go figure that one out! So in reality... for me...Impressionistic/Realistic?... it's all good in my mind. But that's just me and I'm far from being the expert.

DT -- I didn't mean to be critical of you at all. I picked up a minor part of your post which connected with one of my pet peeves astream. I'm a native Pennsylvanian living under protest in Connecticut. Some (a few?) CT anglers are quite brand conscious and quite eager to offer unsolicited (and often misinformed) critiques of your stuff. So my pet peeves about angling yuppies may not even apply to your experience back in Pa. Anyway, sorry if I made you collateral damage. And thanks for the very helpful info I find in your posts.