The role that colour plays in catching fish.

[Ronje1]

Good to see back posting Ronje

Never left Volvo. Looks like the dog squad thought I had too.

Was busy organising something.

I deleted comments that I'd made about matters supporting peripheral issues but had no intention of deleting the attachments. There's a lot of information useful to site members in those attachments. (Didn't miss the "wee").

[disorderly]

Ignore the harassment brigade. There's something in the pipeline about these guys.

Just use your ignore button..Shame there wasnt a block button like facebook though.

Being a relative newby to Barra lure fishing I had been studiously reading your last thread but I personally dont know enough about lure fishing to contribute...

I'm sure there are many other lurkers that feel the same and dont want your thread derailed by personal crap ..

Once you are done with colour I'm also happy to read any other aspects and tips of finding and attracting barra...

I need all the help I can get.....

[shakey55]

https://www.sportfishingmag.com/how-and-what-fish-see/


Sent from my iPhone using Ausfish forums

[Ronje1]

I need all the help I can get.............Don't we all, Disorderly. Don't we all.

Its good to see that there are so many different ideas about the subject though.

People are pretty observant about these things as shown by the comments above.

I'm trying to put a technical base under whatever of those observations that I can. I've been concentrating simply on the straight colour relationship between eye and depth of that particular colour's penetration into varying degrees of murkiness.

Contrast is another characteristic which has popular "wings" and may also play a part that needs to be looked at. We'll get there.

If we can work out why those observations are accurate (or not), then we can introduce some predictability into our relationship with what we're trying to catch.

This thread is about the contribution that fish eyesight makes to their ability to obtain food. To do that we need to know a few things about their eyes.

I know about the characteristics of barra eyes because there's been a lot of credible scientific anatomical data available about it.

Combine that with the universal characteristic of the known stable relationship between water and light penetration into it, and we have a degree of predictability available should we choose to use it..

By concentrating on barra (a popular target), I guess I'm a one-trick-pony in that regard too.

Because of the popularity of largemouth bass in the US, there's also similar data about their eyes available.

Its not as if we get many largemouth bass in Aus but there's now some talk over there about this previously "unknown" characteristic of variations in colour fade as well.

There's as much confusion over there about the relationship between water and colour as there is here in Aus.

One guy from a research institute (a confessed fishing tragic) over there grasped the significance of the subject very quickly and wants to do a educational video about it though the amount of snow and ice in their winter is preventing and frustrating him.

Here are his thoughts about it:

It would great to create a video for fishers showing what you have been suspecting as, if it is true, this would be quite a profound realization for both fishing and science. Let me know if you are interested in collaborating on this further. Cheers! -K

Willingness and ability to think "outside the box" assists in this understanding this somewhat radical approach.

I'm beginning to understand how Magellan felt during the "flat earth vs spherical earth" debate of the early 1500s. He eventually decided to prove the point by sailing around the bloody thing. He proved that the earth wasn't flat but died before he could

make it all the way around. Hope that's not an omen.

[NAGG]

I think that maybe some are mistaking the differences between the colour environment in which the fish operates and the tools that the fish has to operate with.

Colour is NOT the prime determinant in attracting fish. The main tool used is the lateral line. Other things also contribute.

This is about HOW a colour helps. Contrast, how a lure is fished, night or day are just as relevant but nobody can define how they do that. I'm willing to listen and learn any facts associated with those topics and how they fit into the tools that fish use.

Lateral line is an important tool for the barra but so is their eyesight which is positioned in a way to to see what is above ....... this is where contrast comes into play as the lure / soft plastics get silhouetted against the sky or other background . Colour as mentioned with the slick rig was for me a important factor when night fishing - Those colours that worked in the day just didn't cut it of a night ..... certainly on my boat or the late Trevor Burgess 's ........ & while we caught a hell of a lot of barra at night on those lighter shaded hollow bellies , the dark coloured slick rigs ruled the roost . sometimes 3 or 4 : 1 . We certainly found out on the day which lure was doing the job. That my experience with colour & barramundi.

Chris

[NAGG]

Just on eyesight & barramundi - back in the day when fishing lake Kinchant weed bommies in gin clear water , I have seen barra move to a lure whilst it was still in the air & hit the lure on splashdown . ...... that was an amazing sight .

chris

[Ronje1]

Do you mean "gold bombers", Chris?

[Volvo]

It would great to create a video for fishers showing what you have been suspecting as, if it is true, this would be quite a profound realization for both fishing and science. Let me know if you are interested in collaborating on this further. Cheers! -K

Yep
Good idea.

[Volvo]

Tis ashame , that a one known as Ryan Moody that ive watched a few Vids on Youtube regarding Barra as well as other types of Fishiong couldnt hop onboard and make a comment regarding this/these posts.
Though i doubt he would as he has not only a Bussinus regarding Fishing , Barra as well as Fishing guided Tours to conduct not to mention Fishing education subscriptions.
Just a thought of getting more onboard with a different level of expertese??..
Now ,, back to my Filletting knife investigation..

[NAGG]

Do you mean "gold bombers", Chris?

Rapala X walks

[Lovey80]

Excuse me for trying to be a bit simple on this with my ignorance of the science.

Putting aside what the research says about colour penetration for a second. In my mind, when it comes to murky water you'd want the most reflective surface as possible. Sure red is going to be seen better as the depth increases in murky water (as Ronje has advised us on the research). But regardless of the colour v depth of water relationship, almost all of the colours have an opaque or absorbing surface on them (hope I'm articulating that properly). We see red because the other colours get absorbed and red is 'reflected'. But surely a more reflective surface, such as a very reflective silver or gold bomber is going to reflect that light in the water a longer distance because the surface of the lure absorbs less of the light that is actually hitting it? While the colour after hitting a gold surface may not be as red as it hit it, surely the reflectiveness of the surface holds more importance than the actual colour of the surface when it comes to murky water?

Am I missing something?

[Lovey80]

Just re-read my post and I'm not sure that even I make sense to myself so I'll try to write it another way.

Let's say the Barra are holding in murky water where all the other colours are not penetrating to- except red. The red lures look closer to red than the say green ones do green. The green ones look grey/black and the Barra eyesight is working more on silhouette in combination with the lateral line. This means that at that depth/murkiness ratio a red lure can be seen further away by the fish than the green lure correct? Now replace the green lure with a highly reflective mirror finish lure. While the reflective lure may look red to the Barra (because only red is penetrating the water), surely the amount of light reflected means that the Barra can see the reflective lure at a further distance than the actual red one?

[chris69]

Just re-read my post and I'm not sure that even I make sense to myself so I'll try to write it another way.

Let's say the Barra are holding in murky water where all the other colours are not penetrating to- except red. The red lures look closer to red than the say green ones do green. The green ones look grey/black and the Barra eyesight is working more on silhouette in combination with the lateral line. This means that at that depth/murkiness ratio a red lure can be seen further away by the fish than the green lure correct? Now replace the green lure with a highly reflective mirror finish lure. While the reflective lure may look red to the Barra (because only red is penetrating the water), surely the amount of light reflected means that the Barra can see the reflective lure at a further distance than the actual red one?

So a red metalic lure would be the go.

[Ronje1]

Volvo.....

Tis a shame , that a one known as Ryan Moody that ive watched a few Vids on Youtube regarding Barra as well as other types of Fishiong couldnt hop onboard and make a comment regarding this/these posts.

It won't happen, Volvo. I'll tell you a story about that by PM if you like.

The gurus, industry and writers have been supporting the the incorrect light and water interaction for years and years. Some have made a lot of money out of it (and still do) so they're not inclined to eat humble pie and acknowledge that they've gotten this

issue completely ar.e-up for a long, long time.

The saying "lures catch more fishermen than fish" is so very true and I believe its simply been a case of the blind leading the blind that's created all the confusion. Better to be confidently wrong than admit to not

knowing.

Mostly, they don't understand the technical side of the issues. Surprisingly, lure makers are the primary ones who don't understand. So they paint their lures based on invalid principles.

Lovey......In my mind, when it comes to murky water you'd want the most reflective surface as possible.

In a way, that's right. But its not a highly reflective mirror like surface that does the best job at that.

A mirror-like highly reflective surface cannot add "energy" (making it brighter) to a incoming colour.

You need to be able to raise the existing red colour of the lure to a higher energy level. and a mirror surface won't do that. Also remember the old law of conservation of energy that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be changed in form.

To raise the energy level of a coloured surface so that it appears brighter, you need to have ingredients in the paint that can do that. When those ingredients in the lure paint are activated by being exposed to a colour operating at a higher energy level, then

some of that energy of the activating ingedients being stimulated by another source is transferred to the red colour as its reflected. The red lure gets much brighter as it gains energy and lifts it to a higher level.

The lure is still red. Just brighter red.

Science likes neat outcomes so has done a lot measuring of the energy levels involved in this sort of process. How much has the energy level be raised? What is the yield of such a process (just like a farmer or a player of bonds on the stock market)?.

Because we're talking about measuring things, the activity is know as quantification. Determining just how much the energy level has been increased by (the yield) is called...... Quantum Yield. Sound a bit like Einstein stuff? It should.

The greater the difference in energy levels between the target (red lure) and the stimulating source, the greater the yield and so the brighter the red lure becomes.

All sound very scientific and complicated? Probably.

But what we're actually talking about is the scientific phenomena of fluorescence.

Paint a lure with special pigments and hit it with UV light (the stimulating source which operates at a higher energy level that the colour on the lure). In our case the lure is red and the stimulating source is uv light (in reality purple). These are at opposing

ends of the colour energy level graph so will produce max yield (there's that word again) and consequently make the red "redder".

That's a simple example of Quatum Yield and that's good 'cos that's its the only way I could understand and relate to it.

Have a look back at the article I put on the site about Fluorescence. You may now see it in a "different light' (so to speak).

So, there ya' go. Next time you go to a tackle store, ask the sales rep which lures have fluro paint and what's the Quantum Yield for each lure. Dare 'ya.

[Lovey80]

Woah, before we get to adding energy to the mix..........

at depths that only red parts of the spectrum are penetrating. Is a highly reflective surface like a mirror going to reflect more of the red light than a flat red colour, or more importantly absorb less of the red colour on its surface?