The role that colour plays in catching fish.

[Ronje1]

Is a highly reflective surface like a mirror going to reflect more of the red light than a flat red colour,

If the question is really " would the red colour seem brighter being reflected from a polished surface than if reflected from a flat surface" my view is yes, it will but only marginally.

The maximum energy level (brightness) that you can get back (reflected) cannot be greater than the energy level (brightness) that went in (incident).

"Flat" paint has an un-even surface which acts like a myriad of smaller reflective surfaces which disperse the reflected light in multiple directions. Hence the colour seems duller.

Gloss paint has a much smoother surface and doesn't disperse the reflected rays as much so you see more of them. It appears brighter than if reflected from a "flat" surface.

To raise the energy level of what is being reflected, you have to "value add" energy in the reflective process. Adding energy in that way means the lure will be much brighter than a simple "flat" lure or one painted with gloss paint.

One can liken a light reflecting process as similar to an an amplifier used in the radio frequency world. If you want more signal, put it through an amplifier and add more energy from a source of power. Convert the electrical energy from the power source into electromagnetic energy in the radiocommunications world. RF amplifiers (kickers/boosters) used in mobile phone circles are perfect examples.

If you don't have a ready power source available, then use a "passive repeater" to direct mobile phone signal into a "black spot" or similar. BUT there's no increase in energy level of the signal with a passive repeater because there's no source of electrical power from which to gain extra energy. A "passive repeater" in mobile phone circles is the equivalent to a polished reflective surface in the visible light part of the same spectrum.

Introduce a extra energy source and you have an entirely different ball game.

Part of my playing around with physical testing on this stuff, involved looking at different types of paint in a turbidity tube. Flat paint. Gloss paint and fluro all yielded different results both in terms of same basic colour with each other vs differing water murkiness.

Ditto with other colours of flat, gloss and fluro paint.

I put a LOT of work into this stuff and it took a couple of years. At the end of it I reached a conclusion.

It turns out that the conclusion I reached was the same one that a significant organisation (US Navy) plus science had reached years before BUT all were unknown to each other's work and all had different motivators.

My motivator was in terms of fishing and so I've shared the conclusion with other fishermen (you guys) and its up to you guys if you want to take notice of it.

[Ronje1]

The idea of this thread wasn't to simply keep going with the now locked " a technical approach to barra fishing".

This one was the next logical step in seeing how the colour aspect applies to other popular fish. Threadfin, murray cod, flathead, bass, grunter, bream, fingermark, mangrove jack etc.

I've found some info on the eyesight of a couple of these nominated species. Because they haven't got the commercial value of barramundi, not a lot of research has been carried out on them. I've found a little bit but would be keen to hear what any of you guys know about the eyesight of those above or where it might be found.

US people are interested in respect of largemouth bass. A huge industry in its own right over there. I visited a bass tournament comp run with a co-sited World fishing expo in Chicago. Absolutely huge.

40,000 people turned up at the weigh-in on the first day at the expo site. I couldn't believe it.

So something like this colour work is of widespread interest and not just in the bass tournament circus and related sponsorship arrangements. S..tloads of money involved.

Once this radical idea sticks, the yanks will go for it in a big way and it'll be by much smarter guys than us. Not to mention that it'll be bound to be claimed as a US discovery.

Interestingly, the scientist who is credited with the paper which first researched the subject (JTO Kirk) in 1994 was actually an Australian. He originally worked at the CSIRO. He'd be in his mid-80s by now. Had he realised what his discoveries would mean to recreational fishing, he'd have been the most recognised angler in Aus. He'd have pulled more redfin, carp and tilapia out of Lake Burley Griffin than anybody.

Look forward to any info you guys can throw into the mix.

[gazza2006au]

Ronj orange and pink are good colours for me, squid fishing orange always gets squid, for trolling orange or pink head colour rapalas work awesome but usually bonnies are hot fish and will attack most fish being trolled

[Ronje1]

Hi Gazz. What's a "bonnie"?

[Volvo]

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.

Please do mate , would love to read..

[chris69]

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


Sent from my iPhone using Ausfish forums

Has anyone read what's in this link is says that......... green......... has a greater quantum yeild than red as red and orange fade out quicker in turbid water ,this must be the conspiracy Ron was talking about with lure companies.

[Lovey80]

What specifically about the results of your testing turned out the best? Have you got a go to colour/combination of colours if the water is murky and you are fishing different depths?

[Ronje1]

Lovey

Have you got a go to colour/combination of colours if the water is murky and you are fishing different depths?

The lure info below is only for barramundi.

Yes, I do (depending on how murky the water is). I base my choice of predominantly red on the results below. Note the RHS graph particularly the depth scale. The murkier the water, then increase the red component.

Screenshot (206).png

Follow the X.

To avoid changing lures all the time, I use a combination of fluorescent red and fluorescent green to give increased visibility (a compromise colour combination) which works well for me. This combination of colours works well along "colour lines" where murky and cleaner water meet.

Note also the lure bibs. Shallow.


P3240015.jpg

A sample



P3240018.jpg

Same lures with uv treatment.

Note how dark the white lure is without any fluro paint on it although Its pretty high gloss/polished.

As far a depth is concerned, there is no point in selecting colours that don't penetrate to the depth that you want to fish as they don't get far.

And that depth is controlled by the murkiness (turbidity) of that particular water.

Look on the thread "Technical approach to barra fishing".

On post No 6 there's an attachment called "Revised barra fishing".

On page 10 of that attachment there's a graph (black background) which tells you the depth at which colour fades in different turbidities ranging from 5 NTUs of murk (really clear water) to 100 NTUs of murk (dirty floodwater). That's followed on page 11 by some photographs of water of 15, 20, 25 and 120 NTUs of murk.

Those photos are to give you an estimate of the water turbidity simply by looking at it.

[shortthenlong]

If the x moves away from the column marked UV why the UV paint/test?

Cheers Matt

[Noelm]

Hi Gazz. What's a "bonnie"?

Bonito, very common catch down South (Sarda Australis)

[chris69]

Ron please dont send me any more personal messages accusing me of harassment as i was just replying to something that im allowed to reply too this thread its not your forum Ron and just stated what was in the link that says the opposite to what you have stated ,all your supporters need to know how nasty you are how about you tell ausfish who can reply to your thread and who cant.

Its you sending me the personal messages too me that's you harassing me, the first personal message you sent me you wanted to discuss the topic away from the thread so you just
wanted to put your view forward with out any feed back mistake number one ,its not the Ron show here its the Ausfish forum that member's can reply too so deal with it Ron.

[Barry Ehsman]

Ron please dont send me any more personal messages accusing me of harassment as i was just replying to something that im allowed to reply too this thread its not your forum Ron and just stated what was in the link that says the opposite to what you have stated ,all your supporters need to know how nasty you are how about you tell ausfish who can reply to your thread and who cant.

Its you sending me the personal messages too me that's you harassing me, the first personal message you sent me you wanted to discuss the topic away from the thread so you just
wanted to put your view forward with out any feed back mistake number one ,its not the Ron show here its the Ausfish forum that member's can reply too so deal with it Ron.

Yea getting the same, get's a bit boring.

[CT]

Ron please dont send me any more personal messages accusing me of harassment as i was just replying to something that im allowed to reply too this thread its not your forum Ron and just stated what was in the link that says the opposite to what you have stated ,all your supporters need to know how nasty you are how about you tell ausfish who can reply to your thread and who cant.

Its you sending me the personal messages too me that's you harassing me, the first personal message you sent me you wanted to discuss the topic away from the thread so you just
wanted to put your view forward with out any feed back mistake number one ,its not the Ron show here its the Ausfish forum that member's can reply too so deal with it Ron.

How were you lucky enough to get special one on one tuition??

[Ronje1]

Bonito, very common catch down South (Sarda Australis)

Thanks Noel.
Never heard them called "bonnies". Guess I've led a sheltered life.

Squid and bonnies are ocean going so the lure colour choice is for clear water (not murkier estuarine water). Only ever caught a couple of bonito and they seem to chase anything down so its probably lateral line hunting and reaction takes for them. I wouldn't worry about colour for bonito irrespective of the depth.

[gazza2006au]

Hi Gazz. What's a "bonnie"?

Ahh Bonito, or other fish around the same locations trolling are Leeping Watson Bonito, Mack Tuna, etc...

All tuna looking species