Welcome Peter Hayes!

[jphasey]

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

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.
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!

[John Finn]

That's really interesting Peter.I love this kind of stuff and really appreciate your thought processes which went into that answer. So the question is whether a floating tippet in the mirror is more obvious than one floating in the window ? I really don't know . My solution is to go as light as possible because I think tippet shy trout can see it on or below the surface eitherway. For some reason the sensitivity of trout to tippet seems to vary over a short period on a given water . Every day is different anyway.I need to sleep on this
Once again Peter many thanks; another book sold !........................John

[Massew]

AAAARGH! BLUE! How can that be right?

Mind you, I have trace memory that Skues experimented with blue macaw feathers for nymphs.
But then, like kingfisher feathers, it's not a colour, but a refraction of light seen as blue in the air by the human eye, but not necessarily in water by the fish eye...

Hmmm if I invented a blue fly I'd name it 'the Conundrum'.

Yrs, Peter

Haha, it can be right but not for your normal day at the Test. No, really, I make them for late night fishing. Blue is the last colour that is seen by fish (or men, cats and lizards I guess). I remember reading an article long ago about trolling with lures and spoons in deep waters. Red is only good a few meters down, then it looks black. Now I'm guessing but I think the range of colours, from red, orange, yellow, green and blue, turn black the deeper down they go, in that order. Anyway, blue is the hue you want for the lures that go the deepest. I don't know what to make of purple because that comes after blue if you follow the order of the colours of a rainbow.

So, a blue spent spinner or an adult sedge floating about in the water surface does not necessarily look black while there is any light left. I suppose it has a colour, instead of a mix of several, but still one is more than none (which is black). Of course, black can still be used, that is the common go to colour for night fishing but blue is more exciting. I may be out on a limb with some of these statements but I'm happy to be corrected if anyone knows what is really going on.

I caught a few fish with blue flies last summer and I will use them again this year.

Cheers, Mathias

[Graeme H]

The colours near the surface are still the same at night as during the day. There is just less total illumination around so our (poor) eyes can't distinguish those colours.

If you want to test this for yourself, just go outside in a location where there is no artificial light source with a digital camera and set it up for a longer exposure. You'll see all the normal colours in the image.

It does make sense that blue (and purple?) would be among the last colours visible as depth increases. In that case, the water is filtering out the colours progressively, whether that be night or day.

Cheers,
Graeme

[Massew]

The colours near the surface are still the same at night as during the day. There is just less total illumination around so our (poor) eyes can't distinguish those colours.

If you want to test this for yourself, just go outside in a location where there is no artificial light source with a digital camera and set it up for a longer exposure. You'll see all the normal colours in the image.

It does make sense that blue (and purple?) would be among the last colours visible as depth increases. In that case, the water is filtering out the colours progressively, whether that be night or day.

Cheers,
Graeme

Hi Graeme. Interesting. Is it then a waste of time to tie blue versions of your normal flies, because the normal colours work just as well? Apart from deep water fly fishing which I won't do anyway?

Cheers, Massew

[jphasey]

I'm just soaking this stuff up Chaps.
I have plenty of blue macaw and could send you some if you're interested (we used to have one!)
Best, Peter

[John Finn]

Blue Jay is used in some traditional Irish Lough flys . eg various Bumbles. Of course these are moving wet flys and the Bumbles work well at times when dragged through the surface film.Don't know of any dry versions that use blue. Why blue works at all is a mystery to me. Maybe those Bumbles would work just as well without the Jay.
How much is known about how good trout vision is ? You know those nature programmes that tell you that the Golden Eagle can see the toenail of a mouse at 20K. What is the equivalent for trout ? I am certain they can see colour better than humans in low light conditions.They can certainly tell the difference between green and cinnamon caddis at dusk when I can't without a light. They see quite easily flys smaller than I can tie. Think the best thing we have going for us is to try to create confusion in the surface film.................John

[jphasey]

Blue Jay is used in some traditional Irish Lough flys . eg various Bumbles. Of course these are moving wet flys and the Bumbles work well at times when dragged through the surface film.Don't know of any dry versions that use blue. Why blue works at all is a mystery to me. Maybe those Bumbles would work just as well without the Jay.
How much is known about how good trout vision is ? You know those nature programmes that tell you that the Golden Eagle can see the toenail of a mouse at 20K. What is the equivalent for trout ? I am certain they can see colour better than humans in low light conditions.They can certainly tell the difference between green and cinnamon caddis at dusk when I can't without a light. They see quite easily flys smaller than I can tie. Think the best thing we have going for us is to try to create confusion in the surface film.................John

Good stuff John, thanks.
Gary Lafontaine wrote that when he and his team were under water taking videos of feeding trout, they would often see the trout 'flare' in anticipation, at food items that they themselves could not see at all owing to their tiny size and the distance.Sometimes, they never did see what the trout ate.
Concerning blue--The Lake Olives that hatch on Corrib in April and May are a very bluey olive, like: almost no yellow in the colour.This got me taking macro pics and thinking, and tying last year, but then (typically) the huge hatches I'd seen in April were not repeated on my return in June. So it was the Mayfly all through the visit. One Leviathan took out all my backing, we started the motor to follow, whereupon it turned round and pissed past us in the other direction, wrapped my line round my rod tip (clever these Corrib trout, Eh? Obviously not incompetence on my part) dived for the rocks round an island, and pinged me. No lost fish more regretted. So I'm still waiting for the 'deja blue' experience...

[jphasey]

That's really interesting Peter, hadn't thought of it like that. I spend a lot of time fishing for selective trout . Agree with your point about Bob Wyatt's book , but I don't think he was talking about trout feeding in fairly intense hatches which is what I happily spend most of my time doing. I find tippet to be a real turn off at times and consequently use 7x whenever I can get away with it . This is very difficult to sink so I don't bother most of the time.I also find the best results if I can position myself at an angle to the fish rather than directly downstream. This ties in directly with what you are saying.
I have often had days when trout seemingly take the fly but no matter how you time the strike nothing is there. Bob Wyatt reckons that the fish simply misses the fly but I don't agree. Granted fish can miss the fly especially early in the season with the first surface takes but when fish after fish does it something else is at play. I think its a last second rejection. Something is not quite right with the fly or tippet and the trout does not close his mouth on the fly but can drown it. I have seen footage somewhere of trout taking artificial flys openmouthed and just taking them off the surface. I remember seeing Grouper in a tank taking food items fantastically quickly and when it was slowed down you could see that they had to expell water through the gill as the mouth was closing to take in the item.If they don't expell the item wont go in. Probably the same for all fish.Think trout are doing the same thing , by not expelling through the gills it allows them a final last millisecond rejection. Buggers Interested to have your thoughts on this.[/quote]


Whoops sorry missed that bit somehow!
Couldn't agree more--they can lose it very quickly indeed.When you watch NZ trout porn vids, half the time the pornstars strike so slowly they'd not stand a chance of hooking one of my usual spooky barstool fish! You see the fish eat the fly, the tippet descend, the leader draw tight, and then when he's finally got his act together the pornstar lifts poetically into it. But only because the trout didn't spit it out!

[John Finn]

Going to give Olive fishing on Corrib a good go this year eventhough it usually coincides with the start of Mayfly on my local lake ( Derg ) I feel the need to try something new. Don't have Olives on Derg
It's weird how lost fish really sear themselves into your memory. Time to worry when you have to start the engine. ........................John