The Lab · How bass see
Fish The Spectrum
Built for the pond.
Most baits are built for clear lakes. VOJTECH is built for the pond down the street. That means designing color for what actually happens a few feet down in green, stained water, not for how a bait looks under the store lights. This page is the reasoning behind it, with sources, and with the limits stated plainly.
Field note from Alan: In the Dallas city ponds I fish from the bank, I usually lose sight of a bait at 2 feet or less. That’s my own experience, not a measurement, but it’s the water I’m designing for.
A bass sees in two colors, not three
You have three types of color cones. Largemouth bass have two. Researchers measured individual cells in bass retinas and found one cone type tuned to green (~535 nm) and one tuned to orange-red (~614 nm), with no short-wavelength (blue) cones (Mitchem et al. 2019; free full text). Earlier retinal recordings also showed a high sensitivity to red (Kawamura & Kishimoto 2002).
- Red and green stand out. Trained bass picked out red and green targets easily (Mitchem et al. 2019).
- Blue reads dark. Without a scent cue, the same bass couldn’t tell blue from black. Blue still matters, but as dark contrast.
- Chartreuse reads bright. Bass in the study confused chartreuse with white. To a bass it’s a brightness cue, not a unique color. A 1937 study found the same pattern (Brown 1937).
Pond water is a different filter
Pure, clear water absorbs red and orange faster than blue and green (Pope & Fry 1997). That’s where the angler rule about red fading first comes from, and in clear water the direction is right.
Green and stained ponds flip it. Tannins (the tea-colored stain) and algae soak up blue hardest, which pushes the light that’s left toward yellow-green, orange and red. Across 127 lakes, the deepest-reaching light shifted from yellow-green toward red-orange as the stain got heavier (Ahonen et al. 2025). Shallow, algae-rich lakes show orange-to-red light reaching deepest (Reinart et al. 2004). Algae-green water also shifted light toward longer wavelengths and cut it more than muddy sediment did (Nieman et al. 2018). What’s clouding the water matters, too: algae, clay and chalky particles each change light differently (Garcia et al. 2026).
Stained water also gets dark fast. A few feet down in a green pond, you’re working with a dim, narrow, warm-tinted band of light.
Where the spectrum meets the bass
Put those two facts side by side. The light that survives in green and stained pond water leans yellow-green, orange and red, and that’s the range covered by the bass’s green (~535 nm) and red (~614 nm) cones.
That overlap is the idea behind Fish The Spectrum. Each VOJTECH colorway is designed for how it should read at its depth in green or stained water, using hues in the range bass are most sensitive to, plus a strong light-vs-dark outline.
To be clear: this is design intent and inference. It comes from published cone measurements and light measurements. Nobody has yet tested how bass perceive specific lure colors in ponds like ours, and we haven’t either.
Why “black and blue” works, and where we take it
In murky water, the pros say “throw black and blue.” The research backs the logic: blue reads dark to a bass (Mitchem et al. 2019), so black and blue makes a strong silhouette. In Lake Erie walleye charter data, black was the most successful lure color in algae-green water (Nieman et al. 2020, walleye, not bass).
Turbidity makes it harder for a bass to find food. In tank tests, every bass caught its prey in clear water, but only 15% did in very muddy water (Huenemann et al. 2012). Murky water can raise or flatten the contrast between prey and its background (Utne-Palm 2002). So outline and contrast do a lot of the work.
Black and blue is a good answer. It’s also one-size-fits-all. We keep the contrast, then design the hue for the depth and the water.
Color is one factor
We’ll say it straight: color isn’t magic. When researchers rotated six soft-plastic worm colors for largemouth, catch rates came out about the same across colors, though the bright colors caught somewhat bigger fish (Moraga et al. 2015). In a large controlled test on perch, fluorescent lures didn’t out-catch matched regular ones (Radinger et al. 2026). Light level also matters. Bass fed well from daylight down to moonlight in one study, but far less in total darkness (McMahon & Holanov 1995).
Where you fish, how deep, and the bait’s profile, vibration and fall all matter as much as color, or more. That’s why every VOJTECH listing calls out all five:
Two lines, built for the depth
SHALLOW · 0–4 ft
Colors designed for the brighter light near the surface, where more of the spectrum still reaches the bait.
MID-DEPTH · 4–10 ft
Colors designed for the dimmer, warmer light a few feet down in green or stained water, with a strong dark-or-bright outline.
There’s no deep line, because most ponds are 10 feet or less. Every colorway carries a depth + water label:
Lake series coming later.
Quick clarity check (angler rule of thumb)
Lower your bait on a short line and note where you lose sight of it. Scientists use the same idea with a Secchi disk. Rough angler cutoffs: gone within ~1 ft is muddy, ~1–3 ft is stained or green, and more than ~3 ft is clear. In muddy water, try a MID-DEPTH color even in the shallows.
Our honest status
These colorways are designed around the published science above. We don’t claim they catch more fish. We’re testing every colorway in Dallas ponds, and we’ll post the results, good or bad, on Instagram @vojtechfishlab. Camera view, not a bass’s eye.
Sources
- Mitchem, L.D. et al. (2019). Seeing red: color vision in the largemouth bass. Current Zoology 65(1): 43–52. doi:10.1093/cz/zoy019
- Kawamura, G. & Kishimoto, T. (2002). Color vision, accommodation and visual acuity in the largemouth bass. Fisheries Science 68(5): 1041–1046. doi:10.1046/j.1444-2906.2002.00530.x
- Brown, F.A., Jr. (1937). Responses of the large-mouth black bass to colors. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 21(2). INHS
- Pope, R.M. & Fry, E.S. (1997). Absorption spectrum (380–700 nm) of pure water. II. Applied Optics 36(33): 8710–8723. doi:10.1364/AO.36.008710
- Ahonen, S.A. et al. (2025). Phytoplankton absorb mainly red light in lakes with high chromophoric dissolved organic matter. Limnology and Oceanography 70(5): 1359–1374. doi:10.1002/lno.70034
- Reinart, A., Paavel, B. & Tuvikene, L. (2004). Effect of coloured dissolved organic matter on the attenuation of photosynthetically active radiation in Lake Peipsi. Proc. Estonian Acad. Sci. Biol. Ecol. 53(2): 88–105. doi:10.3176/biol.ecol.2004.2.02
- Nieman, C.L. et al. (2018). Visual detection thresholds in two trophically distinct fishes are compromised in algal compared to sedimentary turbidity. Conservation Physiology 6(1): coy044. doi:10.1093/conphys/coy044
- Garcia, A. et al. (2026). A sensory approach to turbidity. Royal Society Open Science 13(7): rsos252333. doi:10.1098/rsos.252333
- Huenemann, T.W., Dibble, E.D. & Fleming, J.P. (2012). Influence of turbidity on the foraging of largemouth bass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 141(1): 107–111. doi:10.1080/00028487.2011.651554
- Utne-Palm, A.C. (2002). Visual feeding of fish in a turbid environment. Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology 35(1–2): 111–128. doi:10.1080/10236240290025644
- Nieman, C.L. et al. (2020). You can’t just use gold: Elevated turbidity alters successful lure color for recreational Walleye fishing. Journal of Great Lakes Research 46(3): 589–596. doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2020.03.002
- Moraga, A.D., Wilson, A.D.M. & Cooke, S.J. (2015). Does lure colour influence catch per unit effort, fish capture size and hooking injury in angled largemouth bass? Fisheries Research 172: 1–6. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2015.06.010
- Radinger, J. et al. (2026). Effectiveness of fluorescent angling lures on catch outcomes in European perch under ambient light conditions. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 83: 1–16. doi:10.1139/cjfas-2025-0084
- McMahon, T.E. & Holanov, S.H. (1995). Foraging success of largemouth bass at different light intensities. Journal of Fish Biology 46(5): 759–767. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.1995.tb01599.x