Uhhh, yep, you are overthinking it, if you want to follow the "natural" approach good for you, doesn 't guarantee success. Why I say it ? cuz many moons ago I used to be just like all the guys who followed that approach and throughout the years experience has shown me that the bait doesn 't has to imitate the pattern of what the fish has available as forage.
In my neck of the woods the forage would be: mirror carp, tilapia which exhibit gazillion color variations, bluegill, baby bass, frogs and toads, tadpoles, a ciprinidont similar to a golden shiner and an aeterinid similar to a minnow. So based upon what the fish have available to eat I should use patterns. Guess what ? bass don 't seem to mind what it looks like, shad painted baits work just as well as chartreuse or orange or firetiger and there 's nothing that looks like shad around here, rainbow trout works and bass where I fish most of the time have never seen a trout.
Oh yeah, I 've fished for ages with hot fluorescent colors in crystal clear water and with natural colors in muddy water, what is more important for me is not how the bait is painted but the body shape, size, wiggle or wobble and sound ( or the lack of it ) the bait has.
For clearer waters where the fish can see the bait I prefer tight wiggling, thinner, flatter, shaped baits, for muddy/stained and deeper waters I prefer rounder, wider wobbling, noisier baits.
Let me show you an example, here 's my friend Ulises with a fish he caught on a bait I lent him, see how muddy is the water, he caught that fish and several others with a shad painted Rapala Rattling Fat Rap, shad would not be one of the colors you would use for water that muddy, yet the other characteristics of the bait overcame the importance of the bait pattern.