I have to be honest and say I don't know, John, but when the trout is on the other side of the fly from the angler and the tippet , he just seems to be a lot more sensitive to seeing the floating tippet in the film. I'm guessing it's perhaps partly to do with the way they focus their eyes.John Finn wrote:Not wishing to be one of those picky people Peter ,but I have a big interest in this tippet floating versus sunk theory.Why don't the same principles apply in still water ? Surely the reflection of the sunken tippet would be more obvious especially in calm conditions. Granted it would disappear in the window as the trout approaches.......John
However, here's my speculative thinking:-
Logic dictates that a floating tippet, when fished upstream to a trout in a river, being his side of the fly, comes into the window before the fly gets into the window.In fact Marinaro concluded that trout actually keep the fly in the edge of the window--and not in it--as they rise to it. It's their way of continuous range-finding as they near their target.
So the fly never gets into the window, but the tippet does.
I think the tippet is less visible in the window than it would be in the silvered mirror beyond it.
Whereas, when the tippet is on the other side of the fly from the trout, as in stillwater or the downstream river situation, as the trout keeps the fly in the edge of the window while rising to it, the tippet, being on the other side of the fly, will always be in the silvered mirror.
If so, a floating tippet will be distorting the silvered mirror on the other side of the fly as it bends the meniscus--the same apparently horrid effect that makes everybody want to sink their tippet in all circumstances. But in wanting to avoid this meniscus-bending effect, anglers are not taking account of the fact that, when fished upstream to a trout, the tippet is always in the window, with the advantage of its relative transparency, as the trout rises. Hence the visual effect of meniscus distortion on the fish is minimised in upstream river fishing, and vice versa in stillwater.
Thank you for helping me clarify my thoughts on this John: the observation has been clear, but the 'why' has been bothering me and the above analysis (which you have made me think through fully now) may I think be a step forward in our understanding of what is going on.
Just call me 'Two Brains'. The other one is yours!