Light waves underwater 2024
scaleface reply :
I have done a lot of reading on the internet on how light behaves underwater , its been quite surprising .
Remember a lure can only reflect its color if that wave length reaches it .
Visible light has different wave lengths . Red and orange the longest , yellow and green in the middle , purple and blue the shortest . In perfect conditions with "clear " water one would think that the red and oranges with the longer wave lengths would penetrate the deepest but they dont . The reason being is they are the warmest light and the water quickly robs them of their energy , so those wave lengths disappear first ., followed by yellow /green and last blue/ purple . Blue is the coolest visible light and will reach the deepest .
In fresh water bass fishing we encounter stained water most of the time and light behaves differently ,depending on how much suspended particles are in the water . In stained water blue / purple might be the first to go because their short wave lengths do not penetrate through the suspended particles as well . Red/ orange might penetrate slightly deeper but their warmer colors are quickly robbed of energy and the middle wave lengths of green and yellow penetrate the deepest . So most of the stained water we encounter the middle wave lengths of yellow/green are the last to disappear .
Some fish can see UV light . UV has shorter wave lengths and is cooler than blue . UV light penetrates the deepest in gin clear water but is the first to be filtered out in stained water . Fluorescent fishing lines take advantage of this .
The important point here is "it is not what bass can see but what is available too see ."
Raul reply :
The important thing is not what bass can see, nor what is available to see, what´s important is ----> what bass is willing to bite.
Also, let us remember that eyesight is not the only organ bass uses to find it´s prey.
scaleface reply :
On 12/23/2015 at 12:18 AM, Raul said:The important thing is not what bass can see, nor what is available to see, what´s important is ----> what bass is willing to bite.
Also, let us remember that eyesight is not the only organ bass uses to find it´s prey.
Of course Raul , there are a lot of variables . My post was only about one .
WRB reply :
Comparing the way a human brain enterprets visual light and translates that to a color spectrum via human eyes is a long stretch to how a fish ( bass) tiny brain enterprets the light to a color spectrum. Fish live and evolved under water, we evolved above and adapt to being under water poorly and can't see well because of poor light. the predator fish (bass) however see well because thier sight is highly developed to see colors and prey under poor light conditions or in the darkness.
Bass have a highly developed vision and pressure wave detection system of nerves along the lateral line to aid prey detection, less developed senses of odor detection, taste and hearing.
Surface water waves bend light waves creating shadows that help a striped or spotted predator to blend into the moving light waves giving a sight feeding predator ( bass ) advantages over it's prey. We can understand how moving surface waves bend light waves, maybe we will understand how bass see colors we can't see in poor light in the future.
Tom
scaleface reply :
I didnt compare the way humans and bass see light .I didnt suggest colors or lures to use . I reported the way light waves penetrate under water .I did not get the info from fishing articles .
WRB reply :
When info is posted in a bass fishing forum it implies the info pertains to bass fishing.
Good topic and lots of info that does apply to our fishing experiences.
If white reflects maximum light, what color is black that absorbs all light? Do fish see black as a absence of light?
Succhi disk ( black-white pattern) is used to determine depth of light penetration into water. It would be of interest if a study on various color depths used a Succhi disk for a baseline.
Tom
senile1 reply :
By design, every post any one of us makes on here is not an exhaustively researched, authoritative comment. Our posts would be the length of books if we were to cover everything. I think scaleface made a good post that makes us think, despite the fact that he didn't cover every possible method a bass uses to find its prey.
Catt reply :
On 12/23/2015 at 1:21 AM, scaleface said:I didnt compare the way humans and bass see light .I didnt suggest colors or lures to use . I reported the way light waves penetrate under water .I did not get the info from fishing articles .
Did you not say; The important point here is " it is not what bass can see but what is available to be seen"
Then you just compared the two!
You are referencing research done on how humans perceive colors underwater and applying it to all creatures. What is available for us to see does not mean that is what is available for all creatures to see.
The only comparision science can prove between fish and human eyes is that fish have "similar" rods and cones to humans but that is all there is, a similarity. What is not known is what those differences allow cfish to see or not see.
scaleface reply :
Catt you stubborn old cajun , LOL the evidence tells us that in order for an object to reflect its color then the wave lengths of that color must hit the object . That is science. I didnt make that up . Google it
Catt reply :
Who is "us"?
The us is humans!
To understand that "science" as it applies to fish we have to consider the anatomy of the fishes eyes and then the anatomy of the fishes brain.
You are looking at one part of "science" and stopping there cause it fits your narrative!
scaleface reply :
Yes , us are humans .
It makes no difference how good a bass can see , they cant change the laws of physics
scaleface reply :
On 12/23/2015 at 5:47 AM, Catt said:Did you not say; The important point here is " it is not what bass can see but what is available to be seen"
Then you just compared the two!
You are referencing research done on how humans perceive colors underwater and applying it to all creatures. What is available for us to see does not mean that is what is available for all creatures to see.
The only comparision science can prove between fish and human eyes is that fish have "similar" rods and cones to humans but that is all there is, a similarity. What is not known is what those differences allow cfish to see or not see.
This is not my narrative , this is science narrative . A fish can be completely blind and light waves will remain the same .
WRB reply :
What scientific paper you may be referring to depends when the research was done, by whom it was written. Research on how light affects colors and how a human perceives those colors is a changing science, 50 years ago the accepted norm will be different than today and different from 50 years from now. We humans keep moving the bar as we learn more and create new optical science.
Think about aura, it's Christmas.
Tom
HoosierHawgs reply :
On 12/23/2015 at 6:52 AM, scaleface said:Yes , us are humans .
It makes no difference how good a bass can see , they cant change the laws of physics
This is true. Light penetration is just the length of the physical wave, not what we see. Also, a shameless plug for my physics thread.
scaleface reply :
The main point of my post was how light and why light behaves the way it does under water not if . I did not know that red was absorbed because it was warmer . I speculate that a lot of membbers here did nit know that , Sorry if it went over some of your heads .
Molay1292 reply :
On 12/23/2015 at 6:04 AM, scaleface said:Catt you stubborn old cajun , LOL the evidence tells us that in order for an object to reflect its color then the wave lengths of that color must hit the object . That is science. I didnt make that up . Google it
Good thread and what you have shared is interesting. This conversation almost always creates a bit of controversy. Keep in mind that there are always exceptions to the rule. For example fluorescent colors will show their color when struck by any wave length of equal or shorter value. Fluorescent colors can also appear as two to three times as bright as the available light because they can convert invisible light (ultraviolet light) to a visible light.
I like your thoughts, keep sharing, maybe through the conversation we will all learn something.
Catt reply :
On 12/23/2015 at 8:02 AM, scaleface said:The main point of my post was how light and why light behaves the way it does under water not if . I did not know that red was absorbed because it was warmer . I speculate that a lot of membbers here did nit know that , Sorry if it went over some of your heads .
If it went over anyone's head it was your's!
I've tried explaining it , WRB has tried, & Raul who has a Veterinarian!
You say you were not comparing how bass see but ya keep throwing it out there!
I think you're having problems putting you thoughts into words
Molay1292 reply :
On 12/23/2015 at 6:33 AM, Catt said:Who is "us"?
The us is humans!
To understand that "science" as it applies to fish we have to consider the anatomy of the fishes eyes and then the anatomy of the fishes brain.
You are looking at one part of "science" and stopping there cause it fits your narrative!
There has been a lot of testing done to determine what fish are capable of seeing. To do this as you suggested they studied the anatomy of the fishes eye. They are able to look at the rods and cones and how they react to light. They also were able to isolate the chemicals in eyes that allow them to determine what a fish can see. " Several key types of light-reactive chemicals have been isolated in the eyes of different animals and fish. Some chemicals react to small amounts of light and recharge slowly. These types of chemicals are important for night vision. Other chemicals are sensitive to certain types of light, requiring larger amounts of light, and recharges quickly. These chemicals are important for color vision. Some chemicals allow the animal to see red objects, while others react to blues, greens, or yellows. Without getting overly technical, the types of chemicals found in an animal's eyes give scientist a good idea of what the animal can see.
If the majority of chemicals in an animal's eye are of a type that reacts to blue light, then it can be assumed that the animal is able to see objects that are blue. If the majority of chemicals in a n animal's eyes are reactive to red light, then that animal probably is best able to see objects that are red."
If anyone would like the reference for the quoted material please PM me and I will be happy to share the information.
There has been a lot of testing done, most scientist agree that Bass have a very acute sense of color vision. Many scientist believe that bass may be able to even see into the UV spectrum of color, this would explain some of the newer baits.
Just wanted to share a piece of information that I found while studying this very interesting subject.
desmobob reply :
On 12/22/2015 at 11:31 PM, scaleface said:So most of the stained water we encounter the middle wave lengths of yellow/green are the last to disappear .
Interesting. I mostly fish in muddy water and most of my favorite crank baits are predominately yellow and green. Coincidence? Maybe not!
Cool thread.
Tight lines,
Bob
scaleface reply :
On 12/23/2015 at 9:13 AM, desmobob said:Interesting. I mostly fish in muddy water and most of my favorite crank baits are predominately yellow and green. Coincidence? Maybe not!
Cool thread.
Tight lines,
Bob
Yeah , the original post confirms what bass anglers already know about color choice .
senile1 reply :
QuoteSucchi (sic) disk ( black-white pattern) is used to determine depth of light penetration into water. It would be of interest if a study on various color depths used a Succhi (sic) disk for a baseline.
If a Secchi disk were all that was used for measuring light transmission in marine environments, the "human eyes versus bass eyes" argument would be correct. However, there are other methods for measuring light penetration, water turbidity, and the scattering of light. Photometers detect photons of light, and not what any animal can see. Nephelometry is used to determine turbidity and the scattering of light. I won't create an exhaustive list of tools for light measurement as I don't have the time to research it thoroughly, but the point is, objective penetration measurements of each wavelength can be achieved. Now how that applies to what a bass sees can still be debated, but it is food for thought in my book.
scaleface reply :
On 12/24/2015 at 12:33 AM, senile1 said:
I use to have a light /temperature probe . . All it measured was white light but was very useful . The waters I fish are almost always stained and the light /temp always plummeted around the thermocline . It was so predictable that I quit using it .
WRB reply :
The fast temp change indicates a thermocline, about 1 degree per foot on average, the cooler water being higher density may or may not affect the depth of light depending on several factors. First there needs to be a thermocline and that only occurs about 6 out of 12 months in most bass lakes with minimal current flow, as current tends to mix the water column.
The bottom line with color regarding bass preference is simply subjective, each angler determines his or her confidence in colors. Experience teaches you not to get into a mind set that you know what color bass prefer, they will prove you are wrong!
Tom
Raul reply :
The subject on what colors bass can see depending upon depth and water clarity/color has been studied and commercially exploited before by Dr Loren Hill, anybody heard of the Color C-Lector ? for some of us old farts like Tom, Catt, RoLo and myself this is not new, we lived through those ages back in the 90´s when tackle manufacturers took a big effort making their baits Color C-Lector "approved", as many novelties the Color C-Lector craze was short lived, same thing happened to the Photofinish craze and the Guanim finish craze.
What bass can see and what bass is willing to bite can be two completely different things, personally I like certain colors and honestly I catch a lot of fish with them but you can bet that I catch a lot of fish with those clors simply because that´s what I use most of the time, I like "shad" colored baits ( even though I´ve never seen a Tequila shad colored shad ) and baits with lots and lots of metal flake, I´m confident to say that the glitter/ shine the metal flake produces when struck by the light attracts more than the color of it.
Choose whatever color you like and throw it with confidence, it´s more important for you to choose the "right" bait ( shape, size, properties like water displacement n such ) than to choose the "right color".
RoLo reply :
I heard my name: "Old Fart" 
The 'light spectrum' always inspires a lively exchange. In my opinion, the behavior of light waves is essentially the same in the atmosphere and in the hydrosphere (in air and in water). Regardless of the medium (solid, liquid or gas), 'red' light possesses the longest rays and therefore the sloppiest, most easily deflected waves (For this reason, infrared rays are used for night photography). At the opposite end of the light spectrum is "violet", which possesses the shortest and therefore the most penetrating light wave (for this reason, ultraviolet rays cause skin cancer).
Because 'red' light is the longest, most vulnerable light wave, it quickly turns black when luminosity is reduced in air or water. This was the theory behind red lines, which were touted as hard to see. In reality, red is the first color to turn black under low-light conditions, which enhances rather than demotes visibility.
With respect to lure colors, anglers adore the color 'blue'. This is partially due to the fact that crayfish in the soft-shell phase are usually 'blue', but mostly because 'blue' is among the last colors to disappear under low-light conditions. In any case, there's nothing to suggest that chromatic colors are more attractive to bass than achromatic colors such as white, gray and black. As a matter of fact, if my bass fishing was limited to one color for the rest of my life, that color would probably be 'black'.
Roger
scaleface reply :
On 12/24/2015 at 10:58 AM, RoLo said:I heard my name: "Old Fart"
The 'light spectrum' always inspires a lively exchange. In my opinion, the behavior of light waves is essentially the same in the atmosphere and in the hydrosphere (in air and in water). Regardless of the medium (solid, liquid or gas), 'red' light possesses the longest rays and therefore the sloppiest, most easily deflected waves (For this reason, infrared rays are used for night photography). At the opposite end of the light spectrum is "violet", which possesses the shortest and therefore the most penetrating light wave (for this reason, ultraviolet rays cause skin cancer).
Because 'red' light is the longest, most vulnerable light wave, it quickly turns black when luminosity is reduced in air or water. This was the theory behind red lines, which were touted as hard to see. In reality, red is the first color to turn black under low-light conditions, which enhances rather than demotes visibility.
With respect to lure colors, anglers adore the color 'blue'. This is partially due to the fact that crayfish in the softshell phase are usually 'blue', but mostly because 'blue' is among the last colors to disappear under low-light conditions. Nevertheless, there's nothing to suggest that chromatic colors are any more attractive than achromatic colors such as white, gray and black. As a matter of fact, if my bass fishing was limited to one color for the rest of my life, that color would probably be 'black'.
Roger
That is in clear water , in badly stained water the short blue and purple wave lengths disappear first .
There are two factors that come into play on how far different colors penetrate the water . One is temperature of a light wave and the other is the wave lengths . Blue light only penetrates the deepest in extremely clear water and red penetrates the shallowest because it is warmer and absorbed faster .. When there are particles suspended in the water shorter wave lengths like in blue cannot get through as easily as longer wave lengths .
You know , I'm an old fart too but not to old to learn something new .
JustinU1X reply :
On 12/22/2015 at 11:31 PM, scaleface said:I have done a lot of reading on the internet on how light behaves underwater , its been quite surprising .
Remember a lure can only reflect its color if that wave length reaches it .
Visible light has different wave lengths . Red and orange the longest , yellow and green in the middle , purple and blue the shortest . In perfect conditions with "clear " water one would think that the red and oranges with the longer wave lengths would penetrate the deepest but they dont . The reason being is they are the warmest light and the water quickly robs them of their energy , so those wave lengths disappear first ., followed by yellow /green and last blue/ purple . Blue is the coolest visible light and will reach the deepest .
In fresh water bass fishing we encounter stained water most of the time and light behaves differently ,depending on how much suspended particles are in the water . In stained water blue / purple might be the first to go because their short wave lengths do not penetrate through the suspended particles as well . Red/ orange might penetrate slightly deeper but their warmer colors are quickly robbed of energy and the middle wave lengths of green and yellow penetrate the deepest . So most of the stained water we encounter the middle wave lengths of yellow/green are the last to disappear .
Some fish can see UV light . UV has shorter wave lengths and is cooler than blue . UV light penetrates the deepest in gin clear water but is the first to be filtered out in stained water . Fluorescent fishing lines take advantage of this .
The important point here is "it is not what bass can see but what is available too see ."
Glad my post on DD22's could spark some dialogue lol
RoLo reply :
On 12/24/2015 at 12:20 PM, scaleface said:Blue light only penetrates the deepest in extremely clear water and red penetrates the shallowest because it is warmer and absorbed faster .. When there are particles suspended in the water shorter wave lengths like in blue cannot get through as easily as longer wave lengths .
There are many factors that determine underwater visibility such as 'water clarity' (e.g. sediment in suspension), 'refraction' (e.g. wind turbulence), 'sky clarity' (e.g. overcast skies) and one of the biggest players; 'water depth'. None of these factors however can alter the wavelength of light nor the order of color penetration.
The question is often asked: "Why is the sky blue?". The reason is because all the other colors are filtered out by the atmosphere, but blue has the greatest penetration. Conversely, the long, sloppy rays of infrared light is the best wavelength to use for nighttime photography, a choice that is not altered by water clarity or sky clarity.
Yet another example is skin cancer. On balance, the farther north you live the more cloudy days per year you'll experience. Despite that fact, the rate of skin cancer is higher in cloudy states such as Oregon, Iowa and Vermont than it is in sunny states like Alabama, Florida and South Carolina. One theory proposed is that those living in cloudy states are less apt to apply sunscreen or wear a wide-brimmed hat. In other words, short wavelength ultraviolet light has no trouble penetrating heavy cloud cover.
Roger
scaleface reply :
On 12/24/2015 at 10:58 AM, RoLo said:
scaleface reply :
I found a chart that demonstrates how light works "under" water . On the left it shows how the warmer colors are absorbed first . On the right it shows what happens when there are a lot of particles suspended in the water and the short wave lengths of blue cant penetrate very deep ..
Catt reply :
Rolo (Roger) you are so much more eloquent at this than I am!
Where's Paul Roberts?
RoLo reply :
On 12/24/2015 at 11:13 PM, Catt said:Rolo (Roger) you are so much more eloquent at this than I am!
Tom, I agree with 90% of what you submit, but your above statement doesn't make the cut 
Merry Christmas!
fissure_man reply :
RoLo,
With respect, it's not very correct to say that light behaves the same in Earth's atmosphere as it does underwater. Transmission, absorption, and deflection of different wavelengths of light depend very much on the composition of the medium or reflecting surface. Consider a simple case - different colors of stained glass. The composition of the glass determines which colors of light are transmitted. Likewise, 'air' and water do not share the same composition or state, and do not have the same effects on light transmission.
The daytime sky is not blue because red light is 'filtered' out; in fact, nearly the opposite is true. Earth's atmosphere is composed primarily of nitrogen and oxygen, both of which in gaseous form are effective at scattering short-wavelength blue and violet light, and less effective at scattering the longer waveforms of red, orange, and yellow light. During the day, 'rays' of sunlight containing the full visible spectrum (and more!) pass overhead through the thick atmosphere, having their blue-ish frequency waves preferentially scattered. When we look at the sky, some of these scattered waves find their way to our eyes, leading our brain to conclude that the sky is blue. This same effect explains why the sky often appears orange-red during a sunset. The light that reaches our eyes during a sunset has travelled on a longer trajectory through the atmosphere than the light that reaches us during the day, and as a result much of the blue-violet spectrum has been scattered away.
Clean, clear, liquid water is a different story, and it is true as you said that the shorter wavelengths of visible light (blue, violet) are able to penetrate further through this medium than the longer wavelengths (red). However, Scaleface's suggestion that other factors like turbidity, stain, and suspended particles can variably affect penetration depth of different colors of light seems plausible at least. Again, think of the stained glass. If red light can travel 50 ft (made up number) through crystal clear water, then changing the composition of the water probably won't make the red light travel any further, but it seems possible that it could selectively reduce the penetration of certain wavelengths more than others. Perhaps under certain conditions these effects can outweigh the progressive 'light filtration' effect of the clean water, creating a scenario where the normal hierarchy of penetration depth is shuffled.
Several have made the point that our observations tend to be grounded in our human perception of light and color, which may not match up with the 'perceptions' of a bass. And I would agree with that. But we know a few things about bass, namely that they have eyes, and that those eyes aren't entirely different from our own. If their eyes lend the bass some kind of light-based vision, and that ability to 'see' could be harnessed by the bass under certain conditions in the pursuit of food (or to locate targets for aggression), then I don't think the discussion of light penetration in water is off-base. Even if the spectrum of light a bass can detect is different from ours, and their tiny brains function in ways entirely foreign to us, a discussion of light penetration is probably still relevant.
Predicting a bass' reaction to different colors of reflected light amid the seemingly infinite other factors is a tough nut to crack, but aren't those kinds of questions really what it's all about? I, for one, am keen to experiment!
Cheers,
Dave
WRB reply :
On 12/25/2015 at 9:54 AM, RoLo said:Tom, I agree with 90% of what you submit, but your above statement doesn't make the cut
Merry Christmas!
Roger there at least 2 Toms, this Tom think the other Tom was asking for help in relying to bs (blue shift) without saying it.
Mery Christmas.
Tom
Turkey sandwich reply :
Sorry if this is covered, but a good and applicable read on this topic is Greg Vinall's Why Fish Don't See Your Lures
scaleface reply :
On 12/25/2015 at 10:26 AM, fissure_man said:RoLo,
With respect, it's not very correct to say that light behaves the same in Earth's atmosphere as it does underwater. Transmission, absorption, and deflection of different wavelengths of light depend very much on the composition of the medium or reflecting surface. Consider a simple case - different colors of stained glass. The composition of the glass determines which colors of light are transmitted. Likewise, 'air' and water do not share the same composition or state, and do not have the same effects on light transmission.
The daytime sky is not blue because red light is 'filtered' out; in fact, nearly the opposite is true. Earth's atmosphere is composed primarily of nitrogen and oxygen, both of which in gaseous form are effective at scattering short-wavelength blue and violet light, and less effective at scattering the longer waveforms of red, orange, and yellow light. During the day, 'rays' of sunlight containing the full visible spectrum (and more!) pass overhead through the thick atmosphere, having their blue-ish frequency waves preferentially scattered. When we look at the sky, some of these scattered waves find their way to our eyes, leading our brain to conclude that the sky is blue. This same effect explains why the sky often appears orange-red during a sunset. The light that reaches our eyes during a sunset has travelled on a longer trajectory through the atmosphere than the light that reaches us during the day, and as a result much of the blue-violet spectrum has been scattered away.
Clean, clear, liquid water is a different story, and it is true as you said that the shorter wavelengths of visible light (blue, violet) are able to penetrate further through this medium than the longer wavelengths (red). However, Scaleface's suggestion that other factors like turbidity, stain, and suspended particles can variably affect penetration depth of different colors of light seems plausible at least. Again, think of the stained glass. If red light can travel 50 ft (made up number) through crystal clear water, then changing the composition of the water probably won't make the red light travel any further, but it seems possible that it could selectively reduce the penetration of certain wavelengths more than others. Perhaps under certain conditions these effects can outweigh the progressive 'light filtration' effect of the clean water, creating a scenario where the normal hierarchy of penetration depth is shuffled.
Several have made the point that our observations tend to be grounded in our human perception of light and color, which may not match up with the 'perceptions' of a bass. And I would agree with that. But we know a few things about bass, namely that they have eyes, and that those eyes aren't entirely different from our own. If their eyes lend the bass some kind of light-based vision, and that ability to 'see' could be harnessed by the bass under certain conditions in the pursuit of food (or to locate targets for aggression), then I don't think the discussion of light penetration in water is off-base. Even if the spectrum of light a bass can detect is different from ours, and their tiny brains function in ways entirely foreign to us, a discussion of light penetration is probably still relevant.
Predicting a bass' reaction to different colors of reflected light amid the seemingly infinite other factors is a tough nut to crack, but aren't those kinds of questions really what it's all about? I, for one, am keen to experiment!
Cheers,
Dave
Wow , excellent writing skills .
HoosierHawgs reply :
On 12/25/2015 at 3:21 PM, Turkey sandwich said:Sorry if this is covered, but a good and applicable read on this topic is Greg Vinall's Why Fish Don't See Your Lures
Looks like you covered it here 
May have to pick up a copy myself.
Turkey sandwich reply :
On 12/26/2015 at 2:30 AM, HoosierHawgs said:Looks like you covered it here
May have to pick up a copy myself.
I don't think it's perfect, but he outlines the properties of the different wavelengths at different depths and water clarities and provides some pretty good outlines for choosing colors. I think it's a good read to help build confidence in colors/lures and not waste a whole lot of time on the water. And it's a fast read.
Paul Roberts reply :
On 12/24/2015 at 11:13 PM, Catt said:Rolo (Roger) you are so much more eloquent at this than I am!
Where's Paul Roberts?
Just watching. 
I've a bunch to add to the discussion, but am trying to get it into a book chapter... before I die.
Catt reply :
On 12/27/2015 at 2:02 AM, Paul Roberts said:Just watching.
I've a bunch to add to the discussion, but am trying to get it into a book chapter... before I die.
I'be often said someone could write a book using the information contained in this site!
Raul reply :
On 12/25/2015 at 3:21 PM, Turkey sandwich said:Sorry if this is covered, but a good and applicable read on this topic is Greg Vinall's Why Fish Don't See Your Lures
The real catch is ......... bass don't need to see your lures in order to hit them. That's the beauty.
WRB reply :
While I agree bass have the ability to locate prey without seeing, they can't catch and eat it effectively blind, they need at least 1 eye.
We don't know what we don't know and we don't know how the bass brain works regarding various wave lengths of light.
Can bass see infrared or ultra violet spectrums that we can't see with the unaided eye?
Some fish and birds have a far broader color spectrum because of the eye construction.
When you bass fish at night or in very deep water over 50' and experience specific color preferences from bass you realize they see colors or contrast of colors in very low light conditions.
Tom
Turkey sandwich reply :
Bass are primarily visual predators, so I think understanding the basics of what is and isn't seen at depth is super useful. Even outside of shallow water species, the book has a ton of great information that has application for fishing deep water species as well as saltwater.
Paul Roberts reply :
Well, although bass are primarily visual (tons of evidence indicating just how visual they are), they also have other skills too. These other senses and the software to back them up can take center stage in visually challenging environments. Bass adapted to turbid waters can hunt effectively using the other senses.
How far can this go? I once discovered a fully blind bass (due to cataracts) in a very clear water pond that, surprisingly, was in excellent body condition. I had a discussion with Ralph Manns about it and he believed that that bass could not be fully blind. Looking at all the evidence for the major role vision takes in bass, one could certainly think that. But I was able to see that bass enough times, in a bunch of contexts, to be pretty convinced she couldn't see much, if at all. She was fat and happy, although a social dolt.
I also once caught a very large small-stream brown trout (22") that was fully blind from cataracts completely grown over his eyes. He, too, was in excellent body condition.
Molay1292 reply :
"The importance of vision for bass was examined in a series of experiments where bass were made artificially blind through the use of opaque eye shields. blind bass in the tanks had little difficulty eating, establishing territory, or fighting off other bass. Blind bass were able to locate and eat minnows, crawfish, shrimp, and worms in a matter of seconds after they were dropped into tanks. Researchers noted that the blind bass appeared to become more aggressive. These bass were able to identify almost immediately which bass in the tank were larger or smaller than themselves. For these bass, a well adapted system of smell and sense of vibration appeared to compensate for a lack of vision."
wnspain reply :
This thread is strong evidence that it's fishing "off season" 
K_Mac reply :
On 12/29/2015 at 12:09 AM, Molay1292 said:"The importance of vision for bass was examined in a series of experiments where bass were made artificially blind through the use of opaque eye shields. blind bass in the tanks had little difficulty eating, establishing territory, or fighting off other bass. Blind bass were able to locate and eat minnows, crawfish, shrimp, and worms in a matter of seconds after they were dropped into tanks. Researchers noted that the blind bass appeared to become more aggressive. These bass were able to identify almost immediately which bass in the tank were larger or smaller than themselves. For these bass, a well adapted system of smell and sense of vibration appeared to compensate for a lack of vision."
The quotation marks indicate this is a quote. Who said this, and who did the research? I would like to examine the data. It sounds good, but an anonymous internet quote isn't enough to persuade me. I have found that contrary to popular belief, not everything you read on the internet is true. 
roadwarrior reply :
On 12/29/2015 at 1:39 AM, K_Mac said:I have found that contrary to popular belief, not everything you read on the internet is true.
C'mon...If it's on the internet it must be true.
Molay1292 reply :
On 12/29/2015 at 1:39 AM, K_Mac said:The quotation marks indicate this is a quote. Who said this, and who did the research? I would like to examine the data. It sounds good, but an anonymous internet quote isn't enough to persuade me. I have found that contrary to popular belief, not everything you read on the internet is true.
Not sure you will find it on the internet, may have to buy the book. What Fish See: Understanding optics and color shifts for designing lures and flies. Pg. 160
Colin J. Kageyama, O.D., F.C.O.V.D.
K_Mac reply :
On 12/29/2015 at 5:52 AM, Molay1292 said:Not sure you will find it on the internet, may have to buy the book. What Fish See: Understanding optics and color shifts for designing lures and flies. Pg. 160
Colin J. Kageyama, O.D., F.C.O.V.D.
Thanks for the info. I will get a copy. I think it is an interesting subject, and it's too nasty to fish right now.
Molay1292 reply :
On 12/29/2015 at 7:26 AM, K_Mac said:Thanks for the info. I will get a copy. I think it is an interesting subject, and it's too nasty to fish right now.
Kind of a tough read but has some very interesting information. Worth while read.
herbu reply :
On 12/24/2015 at 12:33 AM, senile1 said:Nephelometry is used to determine turbidity
Isn't that against the law in some states?
WRB reply :
Post a study that a bass read and agrees with!
Tom
Molay1292 reply :
On 12/30/2015 at 12:49 PM, WRB said:Post a study that a bass read and agrees with!
Tom
9 out of 10 bass agree this post is silly
PitchinJigz reply :
The only thing I can think of with the UV deal is the company Tightlines-UV. They claim their baits are easier to see in stained water. If UV waves are the first to be filtered out in stained water, then their company literally has no purpose other than deep, clear water. Unless I'm interpreting this wrong.
HoosierHawgs reply :
On 12/31/2015 at 4:34 AM, PitchinJigz said:The only thing I can think of with the UV deal is the company Tightlines-UV. They claim their baits are easier to see in stained water. If UV waves are the first to be filtered out in stained water, then their company literally has no purpose other than deep, clear water. Unless I'm interpreting this wrong.
I think they advertise they see it better in general, not just stained water. I think there whisker designs are neat, although I've never tried them
overmywaders reply :
One of the reasons that (some) fish. e.g., bass, find black such an appealing color is the contrast it offers against a background of ultraviolet light. The images below were taken in salt water with a camera converted to accept UV wavelengths. You can see the dark fish well against a bright UV background.
Interestingly, as a percentage of solar light, UV increases rapidly at dusk. Thus a black fly, which reflects very little UV, is effective. OTOH, most chartreuse dyes are very UV reflective, so a chartreuse fly is bright at night.
Regarding attenuation of UV light in turbid water, it all depends on the particles in suspension. SCUBA divers go to great depths in turbid water, yet the fluorescent patches on their gear glows brightly -- it is the (high energy) UV light being absorbed by the fluorescent patches and instantly emitted as lower energy visible light that produces this phenomenon.
I don't know whether black bass all have UV vision, studies have shown that sunfish do. This article on Ultraviolet Vision in Trout might be of interest to some here.
soflabasser reply :
Bass don't need to see a lure in order to attack it.An example of this is night fishing for bass in the middle of the night on a new moon in a area with no city lights.Bass have a lateral line that allows them to sense a lure/baitfish from a good distance alway.
Choporoz reply :
On 1/16/2016 at 12:47 AM, soflabasser said:Bass don't need to see a lure in order to attack it.An example of this is night fishing for bass in the middle of the night on a new moon in a area with no city lights.Bass have a lateral line that allows them to sense a lure/baitfish from a good distance alway.
Certainly, it is well established that the lateral line allows bass to sense vibration in the water. It is less well established what a bass might see on a dark night. Even at my advanced age with crappy night vision, I am always surprised at how well I can see after an hour or two outside on a moonless night....so, I wouldn't be surprised if their eyes serve them well on even the darkest nights.
soflabasser reply :
Yes bass have several amazing senses that allow them to track their prey in pitch darkness.Another fish that does this well is the snook. You can catch snook on the darkest night since they rely on their lateral line to find forage in these conditions.
janeandsteve60@yahoo.com reply :
Dr. Loren Hill spent years on studies on how fish see colors in water that's what the color collector was based on the three types of water clear stained and muddy from the top of the water column to the bottom and how light is seen in the water in different conditions that is proven science.
HoosierHawgs reply :
Saw an old video of Jimmy Houston using the Color C-Lector from the 80's and couldn't help but think of this thread.
janeandsteve60@yahoo.com reply :
If you ever have ever seen the color collector you be amazed at all the wild colors.
related General Bass Fishing Forum topic
previous topic
most viewed General Bass Fishing Forum topic
© 2024 - fishing.qciss.net. All Rights Reserved.