Do you think the fancy photorealistic paint schemes of modern hard baits make them more productive that the much simpler mostly solid color or simplistic paint jobs like wooden lures had 40-50 years ago?

 

I bought some blank lure bodies and I'm wondering if it's worth the effort to try to paint them realistically or just give them a coat of paint and then maybe add a stripe or two? Do you think it makes a big difference in how effective they are?

I think it depends on a couple of factors:

1. Topwater or subsurface, on topwater they see the bottom of the lure and maybe the sides depending on conditions. Subsurface depends on the speed of retrieve, if it zips past they do not get a good look and often just react.

2. Sky conditions, bright or overcast will change how well they could see the paint job and colors change with light conditions and depth.

3. Wind, wind and waves will break up outlines and reflect differently near the surface.

4. Water clarity, colors and flash are different in clear, stained or muddy water.

 

I really like your question and am interested in what others have to say.

 

I may be in the minority, but I sure don’t.  They are second-to-none in catching the buyer’s eye, though.

Think about the speed of a lure and determine the “site value” of it.

I think appropriate color is all thats required for any bait imitation. Fine details are lost on speed, water clarity and depth.
Although they do catch many a fisherman!

I pretty much went old school and keep it pretty simple. It worked then why not now?

 

Although, if you look at what our talented members are doing in the tackle making forum you’d in in awe like me. You’ll be saying to yourself; “I want that!”

 

it doesn’t make a difference. Fish with confidence not the color scheme.

I believe the realistic patterns catch the fisherman more than the fish. My collection of Megabass jerkbaits support my statement. Case in point, most say the Mat Shad Megabass color is the most productive.

Many claim that a dull finish is more productive than a shining finish and dull their lures. I feel this way. I have some 40 year old Shad raps and they get bit better than the newer ones that shine. Same colors.

I fish a highland lake with deep clear water. Fishing a slow moving lure such as a jerkbait you’ll don’t want the fish to see the lure so good as to identify the lure is fake. Hence a translucent finish is usually more productive in clear water.

The opposite is true in low light, heavy wave action and dingy water.

But man those realistic colors look so good I want to eat them.🤪

Bagley came out with the Small Fry series balsa lures that had photo Quality replica finish and shape of Bluegill, Crappie, Shad, LMB, Small mouth bass, Walleye etc. The most realistic lures ever on the market.

They caught more fisherman then fish.

The paint you use is very important and contrast helps the lure standout to the predators.

Tom

I think 90% of the time it doesn’t matter. How much do you value the other 10%?

21 hours ago, WRB-2.0 said:

Bagley came out with the Small Fry series balsa lures that had photo Quality replica finish and shape of Bluegill, Crappie, Shad, LMB, Small mouth bass, Walleye etc. The most realistic lures ever on the market.

I still have some of those, hanging in the den. I never caught much with them. They were good looking baits though. 

 

Lazy Ike made a Natural Ike out of a hard foam with some good looking finishes. Never caught much with them either. They are hanging with my Bagleys Small Fry lures.

 

I dont think it was the finish of these lures that turned bass off  because I have done well with traditional shapes like Deep Wee R's in natural patterns.

Given the limitations of a bass’s color vision and their poor visual acuity, it would be very likely that there are numerous examples of expensive, elaborately painted baits appearing to a bass as very nearly identical to the same bait of same color(s) with a basic, less detailed paint job.  Give me a dark color, a light color and sometimes a spot, and I’m good to cast.  I don’t need representations of nares, opercula, scales and pectoral fins.  And I’m pretty sure bass don’t either. 

Sometimes yes but more importantly is that the bait runs correctly. 

I can remember when all Rapala lures only came in 4 colors.  Silver with a black back, Silver with a chartreuse back, gold with a black back, and gold with an orange back.  These colors caught numerous species of fish all over the world and still do.  Add a red, brown to imitate crayfish, a fire tiger color for dirty water and  a mostly white color to imitate shad everything else is fluff.

When these baits were featured.  There was more emphasis on the retrieves than the color patterns.

I'm not a big fan of the realistic paint jobs. I still rely on the old school colors in all my crankbaits.

 

I should also point out the Cordell Big O shown in the lower left of the picture posted by Columbia Craw is still one of the best colors I have used in the Atchafalaya Basin since the mid 70's. 

I use both old colors and modern imitation colors. I think they both have their place. I lean more towards the imitation. Back in the day when the Fat Free Shad came out, I was hooked. 

When painting I go overboard with most lures. That being said the crankbait I painted that has caught the most fish was brown over orange rattle can painted. Didn't even know what clearcoat was and the eyes I used a sharpie.

 

Allen