Light waves underwater

[scaleface]

 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]

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]

1 minute ago, 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

4 hours ago, 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]

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]

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]

Yes , us are humans .

 

It makes no difference how good a bass can see , they cant change the laws of physics 

[scaleface]

1 hour ago, 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]

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]

44 minutes ago, 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]

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]

On 12/22/2015 at 4:04 PM, 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]

52 minutes ago, 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]

2 hours ago, 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]

9 hours ago, 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]

13 hours ago, 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]

Quote

Succhi (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]

7 minutes ago, 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]

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]

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]

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