The Color Orange

[overmywaders]

wayneb,

I found by photographing many threads, flosses, furs, feathers, etc. in the UV that it makes a tremendous difference. Undyed materials are predictable, though.

Reed

[Otter]

Okay, I'll give it a try. Jim, when you think of some Skue questions, let me know.

All fly tying material is UV material. This is true because everything you put on a hook reflects ultraviolet light - some a little, some a lot.*

To illustrate:
The Partridge and Peacock(P&P) is a great fly. Why? Well, the iridescence of the peacock herl and its broken outline closely resemble the hairy iridescence of the chitin layers of many insects. [Chitin is the material which composes the outer skeleton of insects. It can be grown in many thin layers and often these have been grown to refract - bend - light in patterns according to species. This layering can produce iridescence.]

In bright daylight the P&P performs quite well - outperforming the Brown Hackle which is often over-dressed - but in shade and at sunrise and sunset it is a real winner. IMO, this is because under these conditions the ultraviolet reflection dominates the visible light. The background of the surrounding water, from the trout's viewpoint, is a bright UV haze. The peacock herl absorbs almost all of the UV striking it, so it appears black against the bright background; while the white bars of the partridge hackle reflect most of the UV, so they appear as bright bars surrounding the fly. A very tantalizing morsel, IMO. [Note: I took UV photos of these materials, so I know these matters to be true.]
.

Hi Reed

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

You are basically suggesting that as the UV dominates the visible light that the Trout will have to predominantly rely on seeing in the UV spectrum to detect prey. If they can indeed see in the UV spectrum then this would seem plausible enough. As you suggest they can see the sillouette of the peacock body. I dont get the bit about the bright bars of the partridge, for how can these bright bars of UV reflectance be seen against "background of the surrounding water, from the trout's viewpoint, is a bright UV haze".

IMHO, all this is all explainable within the visible spectrum. In low visible light conditions, the peacock body will also be seen as a dark silouette, as will the barring on the partridge hackle - all this seen in the visible spectrum.

The age old conundrum of orange quill vrs red quill at dusk when BWO spinners are on the water - working with your UV theory why would the orange quill work and the red quill or any other quill for that matter not work as well as the orange quill - bearing in mind off course we are referring to dries on/in the meniscus.

Can you offer any explanation for this Reed. In my opinion , if your theories are to stand up to scrutiny, then this needs to be addressed.

My mother always told me I was as thick as a plank, I fear she may be right for I cannot grasp the logic of your theory.

[overmywaders]

Hi Otter,

I'm not one of those who would question a mother's wisdom; that would be churlish. Further, I have never seen any evidence to disprove her insight.

You find that an Orange Quill works better than other flies at dusk. Is the following the pattern of the Orange Quill?:
ORANGE QUILL
Thread: Hot orange
Tail: Natural red cock hackle fibres
Body: Orange quill
Rib: None
Hackle: Natural dark red cock
Wing: Pale Starling

and is this the tie of the Red Quill?:
RED QUILL
Thread: Black
Tail: Natural red cock hackle fibres
Body: Stripped peacock quill from eye feather
Rib: None
Hackle: Natural red cock
Wing: Starling

Since these are dry flies, fished at dusk, they have the sky as a background, but not sufficient light in the visible range for the visible colors to be visible.

As regards the UV, I cannot tell what the dyed orange will reflect in the UV, it depends entirely on the chemical makeup of the dyes. However, I can tell you immediately, that the pale starling wing of the Orange Quill is highly UV reflective. Since the Red Quill lacks the pale starling, that is possibly one reason for the supremacy of the Orange Quill under the conditions you stated. The wings of the natural BWO are highly UV reflective.

Here is the bit about the bars standing out against a light background. For illustrative purposes I will use photos I have which are of an Adams dry.
First visible light -


then in the UV


then lighten the background and set to greyscale (so you don't see the bars because they are a different color)


So the barring of the Grizzly hackle and hackle tips is still high contrast against a light background. Just so the partridge.

Regards,
Reed

[gingerdun]

Hello Reed,

This is my first comment on your topic. Jim Slattery gave me a copy of your excellent book. The content that was the most interesting to both of us was the UV reflectance photography of trout flies—like the shot you just posted here of the Adams Dry. What was interesting, in practical rather than theoretical terms, was the contrasts that sometimes show up in UV but are less pronounced in visible light. It is these hidden contrasts that would stand out to those beady little trout eyes.

For a forum of hands-on fly tiers like this one, comparative photography of our most famous and productive fly patterns in both visible and UV light would be fascinating. Flyfishers known to spend ridiculous amounts of time on the water, like Skues and Leisenring, published notes about the patterns that they knew to be the most attractive to trout. And there are certain combinations of materials that have survived centuries of trial and error because the trout target those flies more than others.

So, a dream project would be to make a selection of say, the twenty flymphs and wingless wets known to be the most irresistible to trout, and do the comparative UV photography of them, and see what shows up. That would take the discussion away from pure theory, and into the practical arena that our forum members thrive on. Then we would have something solid to ponder.

I did a little Google research on the filtering requirements for the UV reflectance photography, and it looks feasible for some of us amateurs to try. The trickiest part seems to be the filtration over the light source or flash. Have you published specific instructions on recommended techniques and filtering gels if we want to try this UV photography ourselves? This would spare us the embarrassment of getting down on bended knee to beg you to photograph the flies we select for this experiment—assuming that the premise of the experiment has any merit.

By the way, I live not too far from you, near Amesbury , Mass, on the NH border. A little over an hour, I think.

Lance

[tie2fish]

Now we're getting somewhere! I sure hope this experiment gets carried out ...

[William Anderson]

Many hands make the burden light. How about a quick discussion of said materials, create a list of patterns, being specific. We could divide the tying tasks and send them to a single source, whoever that might be. Doesn't have to be a massive labor of love for any one person, and we'd certainly have a thread not found anywhere else.

Just a thought. I'll start.

Peacock, seal, snowshoe, hare's mask, glassy hackle, starling. These are a list of questions rather than absolute statements.

Care to add or name patterns?

w

[DUBBN]

Would the pictures be taken out of the water? At depth? Put me down as a volunteer to add a pattern. I am a UV skeptic, as I personally have never noticed UV materials increasing my catch rates. That being said, I dont want to be considered as one with my head in the ground. I'm willing to be convinced.

[gingerdun]

Among flies that Leisenring used the most were the Brown, Red, and Dun Hackle, all of which use the bronze peacock herl for bodies. I'd like to compare the UV characteristics of the standard green, the genetic bronze, and the dyed magenta herls. Leisenring and Hidy recommended the bronze over the other two, and I wonder if it is just that the visible bronze color looks more like a beetle, or is there some hidden UV phenomenon that makes the bronze more exciting?

[overmywaders]

gingerdun,

Thanks for the kind words about the book. It is refreshing to hear from someone who has actually read it.

I already did that very experiment for dry flies, as you saw in the book. Wet flies and flymphs would be more difficult since the photos should be underwater (and everyone would disagree what the clarity of the water should be, how deep the fly must be, etc.) which means using a watertight camera - that gets pricey. [Aquarium glass would greatly diminish the UV; thus the camera must be in the water with the fly or the UV filter must be set into the side of the aquarium.]

Here is a good primer on UV photography - http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/photo-ir-uv4.htm
As for a filter, I would suggest one of my Andrea 'U' filters, but I am biased. In fact, for your research on this subject I will donate a 30mm Andrea 'U' filter; the rest is up to you, I am in a time/health crunch. On second thought, as you are near, you may borrow a Nikon D40 camera which is UV sensitive and an Andrea 'U' 52mm filter; I probably have a spare lens you may use; but you will need a tripod as well.

Your hardest task will be choosing those flies which use only natural, not dyed, materials, so that you can get a definitive answer. Two different dyes will give two different UV reflections.

Good luck.

Regards,
Reed

[flyfishwithme]

That's it, I just order your book Reed.