Light waves underwater

[scaleface]

1 hour ago, 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]

On December 22, 2015 at 9:31 AM, 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]

2 hours ago, 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]

9 hours ago, RoLo said:

 

[scaleface]

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]

Rolo (Roger) you are so much more eloquent at this than I am!

Where's Paul Roberts?

[RoLo]

10 hours ago, 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]

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]

3 hours ago, 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]

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]

11 hours ago, 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]

11 hours ago, 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]

5 hours ago, 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]

On 12/24/2015 at 8:13 AM, 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]

19 hours ago, 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]

On 25 de diciembre de 2015 at 1:21 AM, 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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

This thread is strong evidence that it's fishing "off season" 

[K_Mac]

1 hour ago, 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]

34 minutes ago, 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]

4 hours ago, 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]

1 hour ago, 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.