Yuku free message boards

saddo that I am, I was thinking about this today. no expert, but there are a couple of scientific principles that may come into play here.

firstly, we see line in the water looking down - ie with the light source (sun/sky) behind us. hence what we see of the line is reflected light bouncing back to us from the line's surface/core. any colour we see in the line is caused by that colour being preferentially reflected by the line's chemistry, and its interaction with the optics of the water between it and our eyes.

whereas, fish will by and large see the line from below, in other words backlit by the light source. in this case, any colour they see in the line will be the opposite of the first case - it will be the light frequencies (which our eyes interpret as colour) which are NOT absorbed or reflected by the line. If all light is reflected by a particular line, we will see it as white, but fish will see it as black, in other words a straight, black line through their line of vision.

So, as an extension of this, any light absorbed by the line (ie any apparent colour to us) will make that line show up as a darker feature against the relative clarity and neutral 'colour' of the water.

Therefore, it would seem that having any colour in the line or even reflectivity(?) of the line, will make that line visible to the fish.

One further element: it would seem obvious that the thicker the line, the more visible it is to us, and the fish. To an extent that is true. But there is a complication.

Since line has a circular cross-section, it acts as an effective lens in two dimensions. So that, even if all light passes through the line, ie it is totally transparent, the light path can be distorted.

It has been well understood for many (hundreds?) of years that, the tighter the curve on the lens (ie the smaller the radius of the circle), the more magnfication or distortion it creates - try looking at a raindrop on a window. Early microscopes used tiny bead lenses, since the radius was as small as possible. Can you see where I'm going with this?

In my opinion, it would appear that thinner line can actually distort light more than thicker! Hence to a fish that is looking upwards, that increased distortion could make a thin line just as visible as a thicker one (anyone seen the Schwarzenegger film 'Predator'?).

Since the water surface is uneven, there is always distortion of the image of objects above the surface, since that image must pass through the surface layer (seen from the fish's point of view) but anything below the surface, ie anything actually in the water, will be part of a pretty uniform liquid, and hence any distortions will be quite unusual, and probably quite visible, especially at close range.

So, to conclude my argument, given that, especially in the late day, red light is the most prominent in the sky, a thin red fishing line will be seen to fish below as a distinct, black line, with further light-distorting qualities the nearer they get to it!

Matt Hayes is an intelligent, successful, experienced angler. He is also sponsored.

The scientific deduction above is my own, and proves quite clearly that the best fishing line is in fact a thin, flat sheet of cling film.

You work it out!

dan

even in 'cloudy' water, fish visibility is possibly better than we think.

the 'cloudiness' is probably more apparent to us, since the opacity and dark bottom coupled with refraction at the surface boundary, cause a mirror effect, reducing our ability to see down into the water. polarising lenses cut this down some. looking up through the water towards the light is much easier.

consider the perceived difference in water visibility between a swimming pool and garden pond, even though the water can be 100% clear.

If the fish could not see well (at least, better than surface predators) even in cloudy water, they would be at a distinct disadvantage, even given their other sensory capabilities.

when was the last time you saw a fish 'frozen' in cloudy water when hooked? or run headlong into the bank?

walk towards the light, little fish. sob.

regards

dan

ps: as most will be aware, the surface refraction, or straw-in-a-glass-of-water effect, means that fish can effectively see round corners in the vertical plane, hence the importance of staying low, even away from the water's edge.

pps: fish eyes are optimised for visibility within the optical environment of water. wonder if things look different when we put them on the bank? do they have to readjust when we return them to the water?

re: matt hayes / yellow line.

I would imagine that for good tv, matt would use knicker elastic if necessary! doesn't mean that that's what he uses to catch the fish for the programme though, or even that the knicker elastic is his own.

tv is tv - it ain't fishin'.

if he's making a programme, he'll do what is necessary to make good tv. if, like us, he gets a day on the bank for his own pleasure, he'll use what works.

robbo,

I don't think anyone is saying fish can't see red - quite the reverse. personally swear by red maggits.

the gist of the thread is that the line companies are saying that red line 'disappears' in water, since red is absorbed quicker than other colours.

what we are suggesting is that, yes, the red eventually is scattered or absorbed, but that doesn't leave nothing - it leaves black.

so red line doesn't disappear, it becomes black line.

in the same way that you see a red sunset, because that colour gets scattered by the atmosphere, I'm guessing that the red bait reflects/scatters light better than other colours, hence making it more visible to fish - much better logic.

hope this clarifies the point.

dave

the point I'm making is that if, as a viewer, you are watching a guy playing a fish and you can't see the line (which in coarse fishing is part of the line design, not so important at sea) then it takes away some of the visual 'keys' you need to understand and appreciate the action.

so perhaps some of the fishing is done with the bright line, and no doubt fish caught with it, to ensure good visuals on the tv. but it may be that, to get the good catches, line that is great for fishing but poor for tv will be used to ensure decent fish are caught, so that both parts of the fishing prog equation are met. the sequences are then cut together to make the best of both. no tv company has the budget to put half a dozen cameras on an angler for hours. how do you reckon they get action from multiple angles?

.......or not. it's just a suggestion!

some of this is meant to be tongue-in-cheek dave, and is not a criticism of anybody!

all the behind-the-scenes programmes on telly now make it fairly obvious that, to get good footage of 'real' action, you have to use some tricks of the trade. not unreasonable, as long as what comes out is a fair reflection of what actually happened?

maybe matt believes what several of the guys have said here - that the fish are going to see it whatever the colour, and so he concentrates on other aspects of bait presentation.

just in case of any further confusion, here is matt to speak for himself: "get a life, you lot!"