smokepoles
Well-known member
There can not be much doubt that pink works, but why, especially at depth?
Pink and Fish:
True pink is NOT a pale variation of red diluted with white, although certainly some people call it pink. Rather, true pink is a shade of magenta, as is purple. Following are some thoughts on PINK, and why it may indeed be a good choice for use at depths if it is the true pink variation of magenta.
First, the primary colors of LIGHT that produce a color response in humans are red, green, and blue (longest to shortest wavelengths, respectively).
Second, the primary PIGMENTS that produce color (in other than fluorescent lures) are cyan, magenta, and yellow. These pigments act by absorbing (removing) one of the primary colors of light - red, green, and blue, respectively.
Pink is a variation of magenta. Note that pink is NOT a primary color of light, and is NOT a dilution of red!!! Pink pigment absorbs green light, but reflects red and blue light, and humans interpret this as pink.
We understand that the red light in sunlight is relatively quickly removed with increasing depths, but pink lures should continue to reflect any blue light. How a fish perceives this is another question, but it is clear that pink will be reflecting blue light at any depths to which blue light penetrates.
As to other primary pigments -- Cyan pigment absorbs red light, but reflects green and blue light. Thus, it would be interesting to have a true cyan lure in at depths. Yellow pigmented lures would seem to be poorest choice to reflect any light at greatest depths because yellow absorbs the blue light which penetrates farthest, but might be great a moderate depths because of the green it reflects.
Of the primary pigments, it can be noted that pink is unique in that it reflects red and blue light that are at the farthest ends of the spectrum, and would be expected to have distinct 'color' shifts as red light is absorbed at depths. In contrast, cyan and yellow pigments reflect light of contiguous wavelengths, and any color shifts with depth may be obscure.
The other possible lure colors are produced by mixing the primary pigments. For example, blue/violet color is not from a single primary colorant, but is produced by mixing magenta and cyan to absorb green and red, respectively, leaving only blue phases of light to be reflected. This might be expected to perform well at depths, but in practice the combination might not reflect as much light as just pure pink/magenta.
As to UV lures, water absorbs UV light more than light of visible color. So why big push to UV lures? Of course, maybe fish are extremely responsive to UV light making up for its lack of penetration through water.
Just some thoughts. But clearly, pink should not be viewed in as anyway associated with red light, but as possibly very visible at great depth.
Tight lines,
Chuck
Pink and Fish:
True pink is NOT a pale variation of red diluted with white, although certainly some people call it pink. Rather, true pink is a shade of magenta, as is purple. Following are some thoughts on PINK, and why it may indeed be a good choice for use at depths if it is the true pink variation of magenta.
First, the primary colors of LIGHT that produce a color response in humans are red, green, and blue (longest to shortest wavelengths, respectively).
Second, the primary PIGMENTS that produce color (in other than fluorescent lures) are cyan, magenta, and yellow. These pigments act by absorbing (removing) one of the primary colors of light - red, green, and blue, respectively.
Pink is a variation of magenta. Note that pink is NOT a primary color of light, and is NOT a dilution of red!!! Pink pigment absorbs green light, but reflects red and blue light, and humans interpret this as pink.
We understand that the red light in sunlight is relatively quickly removed with increasing depths, but pink lures should continue to reflect any blue light. How a fish perceives this is another question, but it is clear that pink will be reflecting blue light at any depths to which blue light penetrates.
As to other primary pigments -- Cyan pigment absorbs red light, but reflects green and blue light. Thus, it would be interesting to have a true cyan lure in at depths. Yellow pigmented lures would seem to be poorest choice to reflect any light at greatest depths because yellow absorbs the blue light which penetrates farthest, but might be great a moderate depths because of the green it reflects.
Of the primary pigments, it can be noted that pink is unique in that it reflects red and blue light that are at the farthest ends of the spectrum, and would be expected to have distinct 'color' shifts as red light is absorbed at depths. In contrast, cyan and yellow pigments reflect light of contiguous wavelengths, and any color shifts with depth may be obscure.
The other possible lure colors are produced by mixing the primary pigments. For example, blue/violet color is not from a single primary colorant, but is produced by mixing magenta and cyan to absorb green and red, respectively, leaving only blue phases of light to be reflected. This might be expected to perform well at depths, but in practice the combination might not reflect as much light as just pure pink/magenta.
As to UV lures, water absorbs UV light more than light of visible color. So why big push to UV lures? Of course, maybe fish are extremely responsive to UV light making up for its lack of penetration through water.
Just some thoughts. But clearly, pink should not be viewed in as anyway associated with red light, but as possibly very visible at great depth.
Tight lines,
Chuck
