FLYMPH FORUM

Since this was touched on recently and something that is within our grasp and probably goes to the very core of many flymphs.

From a practical viewpoint how does one go about determining the translucent colour and thus matching it on our patterns.

Obviously we can look at a backlit natural or fully lit natural , is it necessary to do so under various light conditions.. and compare the artifical under similar conditions. Obviously our artifical needs to be submerged and similarily lit.

Any pitfalls here than one should be aware of. And any opinions on how accurate the translucent colour needs to be,

I hope many of u flymphers can join in this conversation.

Otter, Howdy;

Here we go, once more into the breech my friend ...

Maybe my question of the translucency and reflectance in stream/lake/pond or even canal water,
with the debris, and other bits and pieces in current that give us turbidity. How does all of this effect what Trout see ? Does this negate the translucency and reflectance ?

I know I’m starting to sound like a broken record …

hank

Hank, I dont have a clue how turbity, depth, sun angle or cloudy weather effect translucensy. I am sure they all have an effect, I just dont know what it would be.

In stained water, I worry more about the size of the pattern and shade. I try to make the patterns a bit bigger, and the color a bit darker than the natural. For me this is just a rule of thumb that I go by, and also regularly break.

These are from my own personal observations, and I dont have a lick of data to back them up. Sorry I couldnt be more help hank.

Howdy Hank,
I would think that that you have to tie your fly as you see it in the sunlight. Now if you can determine the UV properties of the material you are using ( if you believe in such) you can use it accordingly (AS LONG AS IT FITS IN THE OVERALL COLOR/EFFECT YOU ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE). Once you have achieved the proper translucence and color you are trying to obtain you can assume that the fly will be effected much in the same way that the naturals you are trying to imitate are effected by the turbidity. So in the end, my guess is that the variables do not matter much.
Now I'm no scientist or expert but I would think that a creamy tan bug in the water would be effected the same as a fly tied to imitate that same bug. I guess I mean to say is that I wouldn't loose sleep over it
Jim

DUBBIN, Howdy;

Hi-jack alert...

I find your signature to be more and more fitting these past few days.

Now how am I supposed to do my vicarious Bar-B -Quein' if ya don't post
pix of the critters as they are bein' incinerated ????? Dag Nabbit !

hank

Jim S. Howdy;

Read my signature ... sez fairly accuratly how I go about most (not all, just most), things.
My approach to fishing may seem hap-hazard to most, sometimes even to me. As far as fly fishing goes
I am a raw beginner, so hap-hazard is still a ways to a means for me right now. Should change at the
speed with which it will. I know I can not rush it nor can I stem it... it will just happen as it is ment to be.
ommmmmm.

hank

hank,

When the area you fish is dark-bottomed, silty or muddy, like a beaver pond; I have found that the brookies there will be very dark. Also water with lots of tannin. OTOH, trout living on bright bottoms, like the trout of the Manistee headwaters, can be almost silver in color.

What does the color of trout have to do with flies? Well, if you are going to fish nymphs on a muddy bog pond, the local nymphs will probably have adapted to their background as well. So, you should tie your nymphs for that fishing darker in color - but translucent - than those of the same species living in a clear river. It doesn't take long for animals to adapt to their surroundings. Insects go through generations a lot faster than we do, so adaptation through genetic modification can be rapid.

Just some thought, not original, but supplemented by experience.

Regards,
Reed

Otter wrote:Since this was touched on recently and something that is within our grasp and probably goes to the very core of many flymphs.

From a practical viewpoint how does one go about determining the translucent colour and thus matching it on our patterns.

Obviously we can look at a backlit natural or fully lit natural , is it necessary to do so under various light conditions.. and compare the artifical under similar conditions. Obviously our artifical needs to be submerged and similarily lit.

Any pitfalls here than one should be aware of. And any opinions on how accurate the translucent colour needs to be,

I hope many of u flymphers can join in this conversation.

If you look at the natural fairly brightly backlit but under such conditions that the total ambient light does not prevent you from seeing the translucence, ( under very bright backlight you will only see a silhouette, and if too much light falls directly on the fly then you will only see the reflected light), then you have a good guide to the translucence colour you want in the artificial. Usually this will then work well under any conditions where it will work at all, because it then automatically emulates the natural under those conditions. What you then have is basically a "broad spectrum" fly.

Flymphs, and palmered patterns like "Stewart" or "Baillie" style semi-palmered "spiders" are probably the best "general" wet flies extant, and are also often very good indeed as "match-hatchers" when appropriately dressed and fished.

I think there are a number of reasons for this. First of all, contrary to popular opinion ( What a surprise! ), I don't think trout can see very well at all, or interpret what they see very accurately. This is why fly-fishing as such works as well as it does. If trout could see well and interpret what they see correctly then nobody would catch any as they would immediately detect the fraud. Even the best flies are only poor imitations of naturals, basically caricatures, and "exact-imitation" simply does not work very well in the majority of cases even when achievable as a workable fly.

The diffuse, but still similar to the natural, outline of many of these flies suffices to fool trout. In a lot of cases the subtle movement of such flies also suggests life. There is always at least minimal drag on sub-surface flies in moving water and this causes movement in mobile hackles. ( This is because surface water invariably moves faster than the water beneath it, and the leader or line is on the surface, this causes drag, which causes pressure on the fibres and thus movement), the deeper you fish the flies the more drag occurs, ( This of course applies to floating lines and "conventional" methods of fishing). The hackle and dubbing on such flies also appears translucent, as long as it is properly applied, and this also suggests the translucence of the naturals.

Finding the right translucence colour is merely a matter of looking at a natural in the right conditions from the appropriate angle. Some observations are surprising when one first sees them. The bright orange appearance of a Blue Winged Olive when backlit, although it looks green/olive in direct light, is especially surprising. Obviously this is what the fish see too, as an orange quill is usually quite deadly in a BWO hatch while olive bodied imitations either don't work at all or only poorly.

This "orange theme" is quite common, especially among terrestrials, and is usually caused by the presence of carotene * in the carapace of the insect. Such insects may appear to be black when viewed from above in normal light, but appear orange or brown toned when backlit. This is especially evident in the cases of some beetles, but is not confined to them. Many other insects appear to be a different colour when viewed from a different angle. I think this also explains why silk works so well for quite a number of flies, It is either translucent, or gives the appearance of being so ( Waxed silk).

The angle of light incidence also affects the translucence, Especially noticeable at dawn and dusk.

So all you really have to do is change your point of view!

' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carotene

TL
MC

Mike,
Iksnay on the orange-ay .
Jim

overmywaders, Howdy;

Adaptability is something I am very comfortable with, in my own life as well as the activities I've
engaged in during my life upon this Earth.
If, when you read my reply to Jim S., you took note of the passage;
" As far as fly fishing goes I am a raw beginner, so hap-hazard is still a ways to a means for me right now."
That doesn’t mean that I am a novice fisher. I'm no champion, But I know my way around a farm pond, lake,
and some fairly large streams and rivers. I have been more inclined to chase after panfish, or LMB and the
occasional catfish as I've lived mostly in the warm water regions of the U. S. of A. I realize that fly gear is good
for them as well as trout and have used it for such 2 summers ago when I first started this way of fishing. I was
fortuniate to use my fly gear for trout last Summer in central Utah where I reside when the weather is kinder.
I am learning as much as I can about which flies to use and when. The language barrier is dwindling (I'm learning
the language of the fly fishers).

I was only inquiring about how others view the affect that the various bits and chunks of dirt and debris that float in the water of a stream,
lake, pond or canal can affect the reflectance and perceived translucence of the' bug de jour' or the fly that is
offered in its stead.

hank