Hap- Thanks for the experience. Just what I am looking for.
One thing I’m not sure about yet is why Ice Dub ‘UV’ colors do not glow under UV light- at least most of them. Some of them are very ‘hot’ under UV light.
Seems the ‘UV’ designation is in regard to a slight purple-ish tint of the material in most cases. Has anyone tested ‘UVII’ yet?
So your successful scud was a UV scud. Was it also fluorescent?
Hap, was the scud fluorescent UV, or just straight UV?
You are confusing UV and fluorescence… UV simply means it reflects light back in the UV wave length range, unchanged. Fluorescence means it lengthens the wavelengths into the visible spectrum. Some people can see a little UV, but they would have a hard time knowing it because they have been seeing the same things their whole lives.
A blacklight or UV flashlight simply put out light mostly outside the visible spectrum.
Unless you use a light meter sensitive to UV it is impossible to know the color of anything if it relies on UV.
Don
The pattern was the FOTW for August 12 of last year. I now use UV Ice Dub and fluorescent GSP thread… The thread forms ribs and seems to make a difference in effectiveness. Last year I tied over 200 of them and have none left currently. Of course I gave more than a few away.
art
I didn’t see any reference to Reed Curry’s book on trout, UV light and angling. I heard him at my local TU meeting a couple of years back. Here is a link to his site.
http://www.overmywaders.com/index.php?home
Mike
Please explain how the camera see a different color under the same UV light that you do.
Reed Curry as “overmywaders” and I had quite a discussion about UV and its significance on another BB. You can decide whether humans who do not see into the UV can use UV to “match” the hatch or whether it is an attractant.
http://www.theflyfishingforum.com/forums/coldwater-fly-fishing/301945-does-blue-excite-trout.html
BTW, fluorescent is not a UV material. In fluorescence the UV radiation is ABSORBED and a visible color emitted. UV materials DO NOT ABSORB UV, they REFLECT UV just like a red bead does not absorb red but reflects red as a color. UV materials reflect UV as a color below 380 nm. UV is technically below 400 nm but humans can see into the near UV from 380 - 400 nm.
In my view whether a trout sees into the UV or not means little unless we can use the UV reflectance to match the UV color of a natural. So the critical question for me how is that even possible since we are color blind to UV?
My second question is that if we cannot see the UV color of a UV material in the fly shop, how do we use it? Isn’t it analogous to picking tying materials in the dark and then tying a fly with it, hoping that the colors we have picked will catch a fish?
Excellent points. My response to the question of how we can match a spectrum we cannot see, is we cannot, obviously. Our inability to perceive/see UV is hardly an issue, however, because trial and error have been the guiding principles of fly tiers for time immemorial. It is quite possible that the colors that we find effective are perceived by the trout in the UV spectrum, but for me I only care if the fish responds to the fly, not how the fish perceives it. I am not skeptical of the scientific studies, just the nature of the materials being hawked as taking advantage of their conclusions, for exactly the reasons Silver Creek lists.
The new UV fad materials are interesting and I will experiment with them as I have experimented with new materials in the past, but I will judge the materials/patterns by how they perform on the stream (in a strictly anecdotal non-scientific method) and not on their supposedly “scientific” virtues. As far as I can tell so far, the UV craze is just a way of selling new materials, but I am willing to play with them a bit more to see if they do perform radically better than “conventional” products. Time will tell…
I move this debate be relocated to the river, or lake, or creek, or bay…wherever.
I’m building a stash of flies with UV, fluorescent, and Phosphorescent features.
I’m intending on doing 2-fly rigs- a main fly and a drop-back trailer. If the front is
different ‘light’ from the back, but the same fly pattern, I should get some kind of take
difference if other factors are the same. Then I’ll reverse the lead fly.
I agree that science is an explanation, but it also explains that we need the field testing.
My recommendation is that if you think you have found a UV material that works for you, buy a bunch of it.
If you have tied flies long enough you will have material that you bought before that does not match the color of the material that is currently being sold as the same stuff.
If we can see the color difference, we can tell that the new does not match the old. However, when we cannot see the color as in UV materials, we have not idea that the UV of the new will be the same UV spectrum of the old. So stock up.
It is a stretch to suggest a lay description hinged on the word “absorbed” is somehow more technically correct than a simple reflection at a slower wave length… To suggest UV materials do not absorb UV is wrong… They may reflect most of it, but cannot reflect all… and that amount would vary tremendously from material to material… and likely, dye lot to dye lot.
The fact we are color blind to UV has not changed the fact we have been tying with natural UV materials forever. Just because we cannot see UV colors does not mean they are not there.
Hap.
No doubt we have been tying with natural UV materials, but have we been doing it systematically with a purpose?
I ask you if the use of UV material is coincidental, or is it purposeful and systematic? In other words, have we been using these natural materials because they happen to match the color we can see, or because they happen to reflect a UV color we cannot see?
Secondly fluorescence is not “a simple reflection at a slower wave length”. It is emmited light.
Thirdly, there are UV materials that can reflect “all” the UV spectrum visible to fish. They are not advertised a specifically UV but we have been using them for decades.
A mirror will reflect the entire UV spectrum visible to fish, so just use regular flash tinsel and it will reflect the UV visible to fish as well as the light visible to us. It may not be 100 efficient but it will reflect across the entire spectrum visible to trout including UV.
You are correct in that the specifically labeled UV tying materials do not reflect across the entire UV spectrum visible to fish. I see that as a weakness and not as strength, as you seem to imply in your post. Why not label these materials as to the wavelength they do reflect? Currently we have no idea what we are buying. It really is like picking materials in the dark. If we cannot see UV and there is no labeling to tell us what UV “color” we are buying, what are we really getting?
Again,
What if we let the fish tell us what they like, which may be different from what they see.
How many field researchers do we have on this list?