Fluorescent materials

[DonO1]

What are your views on fluorescent and phosphorescent fly materials and fly patterns? Have you compared fishing identical flies except for fluorescent materials? Has it made a difference with the fish? Just a touch, blended into the dubbing, a fluorescent soft hackle? Fluorescent ice dubbing?

What about phosphorescent (glow-in-the-dark) materials. Any success stories? Fishing at night? Saltwater?

[johnstoeckel]

I get a little confused about fluorescent, phosphorescent, UV and now I see UV2. I'm not sure I really understand the differences or pros / cons of each.
However, I do like some brightness and flash in flies at times especially those that are fished deep or those that are used in stained water. I have used quite a bit of UV Ice Dub in recent years and I do like it. It seems to work very well. I sometimes use it mixed with natural or other synethic materials or for a flashier fly, I use it straight,

[Rick Z]

I use some phosphorescent materials in dirty water. Either I fish them with more confidence or the fish see them better.

Rick

[hap]

Nothing I have ever seen fishing had the cool factor of watching a glow-in-the-dark smolt pattern swing down below me and disappear into a lake trout maw. I will always have them and use them when night fishing just to see the takes.

I have become a huge believer in UV materials, especially for trout and salmon. One particular pattern tied with one particular UV color last year so completely dominated every other color it "proved itself" to me.

Fluorescent colors I like, but have not seen them produce radically more fish.

Locally, I would say UV is slowly catching on, especially compared to other places.

[Allan]

Can only speak for trout fishing. I've not used any of the 'glow' functioning materials straight or mixed in dubbing. IMHO, if they did work, I'd have an opinion similar to the one I have about using scented materials in flies or placing a scent on a fly - I consider the use of these artificial or additives cheating.
Just my personal opinion that no one else needs to share.

Allan

[hap]

I sort of understand, but draw a different line in that we are only talking about color... and making it more visible to fish than with another color. For example, many materials, especially feathers reflect UV that birds can see and we do not. Many birds we see where the sexes look the same color actually look different color when a UV light sensing apparatus is used.

[johnstoeckel]

One particular pattern tied with one particular UV color last year so completely dominated every other color it "proved itself" to me.

So are you going to give us the particulars or are those secret?

I really like the UV Shrimp Pink Ice Dub. I use it straight for scuds and as a "hot spot" on other nymphs. I also blend it with about 40% yellow dubbing for an amber scud and with 80% tan or 80% gray dubbing for more more subdued scuds.

[Allan]

Just asking a question and wouild like to hear if anyone tried any 'non-scientific' test using any of the materials mentioned. By 'non-scientific' test I mean: Has anyone taken a fly, with the the body material described, and fished alongside someone else who was using the exact same fly that had a standard body material? Was there a difference in the 'takes' and were the abilities of the 2 fly fishers roughly equivelant?
A friend and I did this with a different natural material and there was a marked difference so I know that an un-scientific test can show some type of effective result. But has anyone tried to perform a test with the materials being discussed here?

Allan

[Silver Creek]

I hope you realize that the color you see in "UV materials" has no relationship to the actual "UV color" that is reflected by the material.

Also since humans cannot see under 380 nm, we cannot match the UV reflectivity of a natural bait to a tying material.

Plus there is disagreement as to whether adult trout have the UV rods that juvenile trout have. Some biologist say that this rod regresses in adults and others say that it comes back during spawning, and if it comes back, it comes back only in the upper half of the retina.

http://www.troutu.com/class/color_vision_trout_eyes


http://www.sexyloops.com/articles/wh...onidssee.shtml

Let us assume that adult trout can see UV. Since we cannot see UV ourselves, we cannot tell by looking at a natural what frequency (color) of UV the natural reflects. Similarly, we cannot tell by looking at a dubbing or other tying material what UV color it reflects. Therefore there is no practical way to match the UV reflectance of a tying material with the UV appearance of the natural. For me, that is the weakness of any argument that says we should "match" UV, when there is no practical way to "match UV.

If we cannot match the actual UV reflectivity of a natural, and we use UV reflective materials; I believe it is like adding some visual attractant like the flash material to a pattern to attract the attention of a trout.

Our "normal" color spectrum is that of an animal that is colorblind to UV. It is not just that the color "UV" is missing our color spectrum. The spectrum itself look different compared to an animal that can see UV.

We can "imagine" the difference by comparing our "normal" spectrum with someone who is color blind to one of the colors (blue, green, red) that we can see.

Check the chart below. Note the normal vision at the top and the various types of color vision below. A color does not just drop out, the entire spectrum is different!




The difference is more apparent with a side to side comparison:

Deuteranopia = no Green receptors
Protopanopia = no Red receptors
Trinanopia = no Blue recpetors






Then there are combinations of the above:




We can then see by the examples of colorblindness above that a person that is colorblind would have a hard time matching the color of dubbing or tying materials to a natural. Similarly, we are colorblind to UV so how can we match the "color" of a natural to dubbing or tying material when we do not see UV. Our color wheel does not match the color wheel of an animal that sees UV. If an adult trout sees UV, we cannot just toss some UV material into a pattern and think it matches what the fish perceives.

If UV seems to work, I think is EITHER because the bright NON UV color that we see, the fish also sees acts as an attractant, much like the hot spot on a Frenchie fly. OR the UV color of the dubbing does not match the natural at all but again is an attractant. The possibility that we are picking a dubbing and using a UV color that actually matches both the tint and the color saturation of the natural is very remote.

[malevo]

Dr Silver,
thanks for the nice and clear explanation of color vision. Other factor that affects color perception is the medium. Most of us are aware that colors seems to be darker when the material is wet. So, when we tie at the bench matching a particular color, we do it with dry materials... so color will change when the material get wet. The second factor that affects color perception is the turbidity of the water. Clear water will let light rays travel to particular depths, off color water will have a complete different effect on the distance that different wavelengths (colors) can travel in water. Light is energy and energy dissipates in water much faster than in air. So many of the colorful flies that we tie might be perceived by fish in a very different ways. Matching color for flies fished deep in the water column is difficult. We do see that some materials of particular color are more effective than other materials but, as Silver said it's most likely acting as an attractant.

M