About that color thing ...

[JohnScott]

... as a priority in fly tying / selection. Neil's current article "Let's Consider Perception" in the bi-weekly edition on the Home Page, inspired another experiment in the relative importance ( or unimportance ) of color in tying and selecting flies.

Sometimes it's about the flies - and tomorrow will be one of those days.

Tied a collection of flies based on a productive pattern in a random and wide variety of color combinations, none of which I would normally tie, or even come close to considering if I were really going out to catch some fishies.

But in the name of science ( to the extent that limited anecdotal evidence proves anything ) here are the flies for tomorrow.



Stay tuned.

John

P.S. One of the really knowledgeable anglers I knew down in the Idaho Falls area, Dr. Harley Reno ( the Dr. is for a Ph.D. in entomology ), when demonstrating fly tying often used to say about some component or other of a fly "Color ?? Yes ..... " and then pick up some odd ball color to incorporate in the fly he was tying.

[aged_sage]

With advanced degrees as a marine fisheries biologist, for anything floating on the surface, I doubt that any fish can actually see the color of the bottom side of the bug; even if the bottom surface has broken through the surface film of the water. It must be remembered that the fish is looking up; directly 'into' the sun! Thus the bottom would either look whiteish (remember, the belly area of MOST fish is white for a reason)*, or have no 'color' at all. Just try holding some object over your head out doors and looking directly up at it, and into the sun, and see what you see---typically the dark colorless, or almost colorless, 'shadow' of the object.

Once the fly gets through the surface film, the ball game changes drastically. For an in-depth venture into this realm I highly recommend: What Fish See, Understanding optics and color shifts for designing lures and flies" by Dr. Colin J. Kageyama, Doctor of Optometry. He is, or was, a lure designer for Mepps/ Mister Twister. He is also a fanatic steelhead fisher.

* As a sidebar note, the belly of a bullfrog is mottled dirty white/grayish color to camoflage it from underwater predators!

Regards,
Frank

[JohnScott]

...Once the fly gets through the surface film, the ball game changes drastically. ...Frank

... color. Generally, I agree with your comments, which happen to pretty much agree with Harley's. One of the examples he used was the "blue damsel". Might as well tie it with a black body because that is what the fishies will see from below.

However, this pattern does not float on the surface, but rides very low with most of the fly entirely submerged, with only the top of the bullethead and the wing at surface level. Thus it should be an interesting pattern for this kind of experiment. Not sure conditions will permit, but I'm thinking about putting on my diving mask tomorrow to take some underwater shots of the fly to show how it rides and how a human eye ( as represented by digital pixels ) perceives the colors.

One of the fun things about fishing this particular pattern is that there is often no obvious take, in the form of surface disturbance which you get with many, if not most, dry flies. It's pretty cool when you see a trout approach the fly and then go nose down with it and not leave so much as a dimple or a ripple on the water. Other times the takes are explosive and all heck breaks loose almost immediately.

The weather forecast is for good - but the river has been a bit fickle lately. Hopefully I'll run into mostly nearsighted, colorblind, dumb, and starving trouts, especially colorblind ones.

John

[CoachBob]

I tried to share fish vision information from my research and included that in:
WHAT BASS SEE http://www.flyanglersonline.com/arti...se20100503.php
WHAT BASS AND BLUEGILL SEE http://www.flyanglersonline.com/arti...se20100517.php

[Byron haugh]

I have read, in many places, that the trout has good color vision for objects which are a short distance away. I think that is why color is usually listed last in the old trio: Size, Shape, and color. Not to say it is unimportant. However, you have to fool the trout in size and shape in order to get him to the point of seeing the color clearly.

From personal fishing experience, I can say that color of the fly seems important - especially in slick water where the trout has plenty of time to inspect the fly closely.

Take Craig Mathews of Blue Ribbon Flies, for example. I think everyone would agree that he is a pretty no-nonsense, straight shooter. Believe me, when he selects a color for the body of a specific caddis fly, he selects the color of the insect. Or in his sparkle dun patterns - they aren't all one color.................

[JohnScott]

...It must be remembered that the fish is looking up; directly 'into' the sun! Thus the bottom would either look whiteish (remember, the belly area of MOST fish is white for a reason)*, or have no 'color' at all. ...
...Frank

I do disagree with this observation, that in sunny conditions the bottom would look whiteish. The stronger the backlight ( the sun ), the darker the bottom of the fly should appear from below. In low light conditions ( morning, evening, cloud cover ), more color should be perceptible, and perhaps in optimum conditions, all color should be observable.

It is my impression that the underside of most fishies is "white" ( as an evolutionay response to their environment ) to disguise them from below, so that predators below them will not as likely detect their presence. Obviously in that situation both the oberver and the observed are below the surface and the light belly tends to blend with the lighter colors above the surface. Conversely, the top of most fishies seems to closely "match" the colors in the streambed the fishy inhabits. Again, that tends to disguise them from predators higher in the water column, or above the surface, like us anglers.

John

[aged_sage]

I do disagree with this observation, that in sunny conditions the bottom would look whiteish. The stronger the backlight ( the sun ), the darker the bottom of the fly should appear from below. In low light conditions ( morning, evening, cloud cover ), more color should be perceptible, and perhaps in optimum conditions, all color should be observable.


John

John:

You are correct. Unfortunately, I left the 'critical' part of that comment out. My intent was to say that the bottom of objects on the surface would appear black, while those submerged would be seen as a fish would see the actual color, given the water conditions at the time. Interestingly, the temperature of the water apparently can actually alter the apparent color of an object, as perceived by man. I have personally observed, as a diver, pronounced color alterations with abrupt changes in salinity in marine environments; such as locations where large volumes of freshwater are flowing directly into the ocean.

Unfortunately, we cannot "think" like a fish (maybe we SHOULD be thankful that we can't; otherwise where would the fun be?). I have had similar experiences, both with trout and with our local 'bream', which can be extremely 'selective' when they want to be. It must be remembered that, afterall, a fish is a fish is a fish; regardles of where it lives.

Regards,
Frank

[pittendrigh]

I think fish get a pretty good look at wet flies, of all types and sizes. For dry flies I'm not so sure. I fished the Yellowstone last week. I spaced out and didn't bring my foam salmonfly and foam hopper box. Ticked me off big time. I ended up using a pink round foam bobber and various nymphs. I had at least a half a dozen hits on the pink bobber. I've heard stories about (evil) smokers throwing butts in the water, only to have a fish quickly bite and reject the drifting butt filter.

Spring creeks are one thing. But in a freestone river context I don't think they see much more than a characteristic dimple and vague size and fuzzy shape impression in the surface film. They might get some color impression too. But it's not clear how much it matters. The lack of rigorous, organized scientific observation in fishing is one of its best parts. No? The bent rod matters most.

[bgreer]

I agree with just about everything that's been said.

Light conditions is definitely a factor. And what Pittendrigh said above is a factor too.....talking about spring creeks and freestone rivers.

In slower waters with a smooth surface, fish tend to inspect the fly more closely than if the water is not as smooth and/or more swift.
How many times have you have a trout rise to your dry fly and take a while to inspect it. Sometimes he takes the fly, sometimes not.

Of course there are always exceptions. I've fished dries on smooth water only to have a trout swim across a pool to smash the fly without taking a second look.

I do think that you can stack the deck in your favor by presenting a fly that's a close match for the real thing. But I've also had trout ignore my nymph and rise to the top, inspect my indicator and think it worthwhile enough to eat.

But it is all fun and interesting.

....end of my ramble.

[aged_sage]

A critical element in the still vs moving water comparison is that a fish in flowing water typically does not have the time to make a close examination, it is more of a "now or never" situation for them; whereas, this is typically not the case in still waters.

With respect to the 'cigarette butt' comment, I have personally observed this on a couple of occasions. Once when a 'clown, was watching a feeding trout, and intentionally flipped his cigarette butt to it just to see what would happen. Idiot! We have all had fish slam our strike indicators while ignoring our offerings!