Well Uland and I were able to get out again this weekend. The weather was beautiful even though 7am is much earlier than I am used to. We started out hook and line fishing in the Kankakee River. We caught several nice Walleye's all about 12" long. After spending a few hours there we decided to try a couple creeks nearby we had never sampled before and were quite impressed. The first creek had an abundance of Fantail darters. We must have caught at least four to six in every seineing attempt.
First creeks catch
Campostoma anomalum
Nocomis bigguttatus
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Lythrurus umbratilis
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Pimephales notatus
Catostomus commersoni
Lepomis cyanellus
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma spectabile
At this second creek the list was way more impressive and we caught several I had never seen before. So to say the least Uland and I had a very productive day. Uland as always took several hundred pictures and will post some of them later on.
Second creeks catch
Campostoma anomalum
Nocomis bigguttatus
Cyprinella spiloptera
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Notropis ludibundus
Notropis rubellus
Pimephales notatus
Catostomus commersoni
Hypentelium nigricans
Ambloplites rupestris
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis megalotis
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma spectabile
Etheostoma zonale
Etheostoma maculata
So needless to say Uland and myself had a very good day of fishing.
22MAR09 Southern Will County
Started by
Guest_airbrn1187_*
, Mar 23 2009 12:42 PM
43 replies to this topic
#5
Guest_blakemarkwell_*
Guest_blakemarkwell_*
-
- Guests
Posted 23 March 2009 - 07:27 PM
Nice report Mark and a great list of species, especially for ol' Illinois. Have you guys found that the darters are getting close to great color, or do they still have a little time to go? I believe ludibundis is now stramineus, correct? I look forward to Uland's consitantly great photos that I have come to take for granted! 
We need to get back out in the water soon, prime time is just around the corner.
Blake
We need to get back out in the water soon, prime time is just around the corner.Blake
#6
Guest_Uland_*
Guest_Uland_*
-
- Guests
Posted 23 March 2009 - 09:03 PM
It was a great day for sure since he temps again were in the 60's, the sky was clear and we were in the water. Mark and I met at the local lowhead dam to see of we could find a large toothy darter or two. We caught them on 1/16 oz. jigs and twister tails in less than a foot of water. Conditions were high, swift and somewhat turbid which prevented us from seining. This dam is locally known for a decent walleye run so there were a few people, none of which were fishing the only slack water in sight. This tiny bit of slack water was full of forage and males were in taking advantage. Oh yeah....His walleye might have been 12" but I'm sure the walleye I caught were larger 
Below photo is Mark with a fish.
Blake, I think it will be a little while before colors are good up here but the E. spectabile are getting close. I'll get to work on the fish photos and I'd love opinions on the backdrop. Mark brought along black, vlour-ish material which I think helped getting the black better and I also used a light gray backdrop with each fish. I think it will be an interesting comparison.
Below photo is Mark with a fish.
Blake, I think it will be a little while before colors are good up here but the E. spectabile are getting close. I'll get to work on the fish photos and I'd love opinions on the backdrop. Mark brought along black, vlour-ish material which I think helped getting the black better and I also used a light gray backdrop with each fish. I think it will be an interesting comparison.
#8
Guest_Uland_*
Guest_Uland_*
-
- Guests
Posted 24 March 2009 - 12:04 AM
Here's a pan shot of the first creek.
Below are the same Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner on different backgrounds, one light gray and one with Mark's black vlour-ish material.
Next are Etheostoma spectabile Orangethroat Darter.
I think the black background worked much better and I'll also have to try darker gray next time out.
I'll get more photos up tomorrow.
Below are the same Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner on different backgrounds, one light gray and one with Mark's black vlour-ish material.
Next are Etheostoma spectabile Orangethroat Darter.
I think the black background worked much better and I'll also have to try darker gray next time out.
I'll get more photos up tomorrow.
#9
Guest_farmertodd_*
Guest_farmertodd_*
-
- Guests
Posted 24 March 2009 - 07:13 AM
I am loving these panoramas of the habitat Uland, great idea!
My vote is for the gray. I was always unimpressed with the photos Noel and Larry had of dead fish on that color, so if you told me I would prefer it two weeks ago, I would have said no way. But their pictures were never cropped to the subject, nor were they actually in life color (formalin does something to the slime coat that looks wrong). With the gray, you get the subtle light coloration in the finage. Black just seems too stark and bulky to me. That's my half a penny, anyway
Todd
My vote is for the gray. I was always unimpressed with the photos Noel and Larry had of dead fish on that color, so if you told me I would prefer it two weeks ago, I would have said no way. But their pictures were never cropped to the subject, nor were they actually in life color (formalin does something to the slime coat that looks wrong). With the gray, you get the subtle light coloration in the finage. Black just seems too stark and bulky to me. That's my half a penny, anyway
Todd
#10
Guest_Uland_*
Guest_Uland_*
-
- Guests
Posted 24 March 2009 - 10:27 AM
Thanks Todd, I'm looking for all of the half pennies I can get 
With these modern cameras, pan shots are so easy and helps tie the sampling together for myself and others.
I think the gray are a bit better but I'm very pleased with the progress of the black. I believe if I continue with black, I can tweak my camera settings and get much better shots. With my current technique I see a trade off in clear fin detail vs. body detail with the two backgrounds. Perhaps a darker gray will allow me to compromise the two? I hope to find out soon.
I'll get a few more photos up tonight.
With these modern cameras, pan shots are so easy and helps tie the sampling together for myself and others.
I think the gray are a bit better but I'm very pleased with the progress of the black. I believe if I continue with black, I can tweak my camera settings and get much better shots. With my current technique I see a trade off in clear fin detail vs. body detail with the two backgrounds. Perhaps a darker gray will allow me to compromise the two? I hope to find out soon.
I'll get a few more photos up tonight.
#11
Guest_blakemarkwell_*
Guest_blakemarkwell_*
-
- Guests
Posted 24 March 2009 - 11:09 AM
I love both of them. However, I choose black, just because I love the color black (I know its the absence of color....). I love the fact that you do a different background, if everyone did black on this forum, well, then it would be boring. The gray definitely gives a new perspective to the fish, however, I am a favor of uniformity, so choosing two different colors just would not be an option for me. It actually annoys me when looking through a state fishes book and I see a variety of backgrounds. I am rather OCD anyways. Mabey try to meet in between, the dark, dark gray is rather sharp! I love your Hybopsis background in the gallery. So, there is another half cent!
Blake
Blake
#12
Guest_farmertodd_*
Guest_farmertodd_*
-
- Guests
Posted 24 March 2009 - 11:25 AM
Yeah, you're going to have to really play with the camera to get it to quit overexposing the fish's body, esp on the silver jobbies. It's like etching (gray) vs relief (black). I think etching is going to have more definition.
I played with my contrast and various screen angles etc, and in all cases, I could see the detail of the fish's body best in the gray. Perhaps a darker gray, yes, would be the compromise.
So which Luxilus are you calling that one?
Todd
I played with my contrast and various screen angles etc, and in all cases, I could see the detail of the fish's body best in the gray. Perhaps a darker gray, yes, would be the compromise.
So which Luxilus are you calling that one?
Todd
#13
Guest_Uland_*
Guest_Uland_*
-
- Guests
Posted 24 March 2009 - 12:05 PM
Yeah, you're going to have to really play with the camera to get it to quit overexposing the fish's body, esp on the silver jobbies. It's like etching (gray) vs relief (black). I think etching is going to have more definition.
I played with my contrast and various screen angles etc, and in all cases, I could see the detail of the fish's body best in the gray. Perhaps a darker gray, yes, would be the compromise.
So which Luxilus are you calling that one?
Todd
I'm sure there is an easy way to get this right, I just need to play around with it a bit more. I've not been able to fix the exposure in post processing either. I've been taking most of my photos using aperture priority to obtain depth of field and I suspect this is the cause of the exposure problem.
That Luxilus would still key out as chrysocephalus using every reference I own but there are plenty of reference materials I lack. I hope to get nice, adult L. cornutus from the Apple river this year and I'll likely get some decent L. chrysocephalus shots in Kentucky this year.
I'm going to hunt for more backdrop supplies this evening
#16
Guest_blakemarkwell_*
Guest_blakemarkwell_*
-
- Guests
Posted 24 March 2009 - 01:05 PM
I would call that a striped shiner. Sure, Illinois Luxilus is messed up and I am sure we have our intergrades, however you could make that argument for Campostoma sp. and the whole entire Etheostoma spectabile group. Nevertheless, I know in Illinois where I can get L. cornutus and L. chrysocephalus according to distribution. If I took the intergrade deal into play, every species I catch would be an "intergrade". The variation within each species is so great, that is why I never jump the gun to call something a hybrid. There are guys that will jump in the water of a different state and just because the species looks different from their home state representation they write it off as a hybrid/intergrade.
With regard to the formalin, I agree it can mess up the slime coat and give "off" colors. However, it can be done right, if Tom Near never would of told me he used formalin on his specimens I would not of believed or assumed it, yet he does. Every time I stick an Ammocrypta, Ulocentra, Cottus, or Noturus in a phototank, I start to realize more and more why those guys use formalin. In my experience most genus' and subgenus' pose quite well without formalin, but there are some that just won't do it! Assuredly, I would of doubled the photos from my Tennessee trip if I would of had formalin to fix just one of each and then they go to a museum. Now that's a constructive use if you ask me!
The photos are looking great as always Uland, you will settle with a background soon enough! I really like your Moxostoma with the black background. The Luxilus with the gray looks better to me, but it looks like you used an auto flash for the gray background and no flash for the black background, so I am having a hard time comparing.
Best,
Blake
With regard to the formalin, I agree it can mess up the slime coat and give "off" colors. However, it can be done right, if Tom Near never would of told me he used formalin on his specimens I would not of believed or assumed it, yet he does. Every time I stick an Ammocrypta, Ulocentra, Cottus, or Noturus in a phototank, I start to realize more and more why those guys use formalin.
In my experience most genus' and subgenus' pose quite well without formalin, but there are some that just won't do it! Assuredly, I would of doubled the photos from my Tennessee trip if I would of had formalin to fix just one of each and then they go to a museum. Now that's a constructive use if you ask me! The photos are looking great as always Uland, you will settle with a background soon enough! I really like your Moxostoma with the black background. The Luxilus with the gray looks better to me, but it looks like you used an auto flash for the gray background and no flash for the black background, so I am having a hard time comparing.
Best,
Blake
#17
Guest_farmertodd_*
Guest_farmertodd_*
-
- Guests
Posted 24 March 2009 - 01:54 PM
I wasn't talking about an intergrade and definitely not a hybrid. Uland's fish there is clearly a common shiner from my point of view with those compressed nape scales. You just don't see that on a striped shiner. Remember, I live in the "intergrade" zone as well here in the southern Lake Erie drainages, and we will have either species (clear examples) depending on the stream, even at times in different tributaries of a major stream, or even in the case of Swan Creek here in Lucas county... Both. The Maumee and Sandusky are particularly complex, the striped shiner seem much more tolerant of disturbance, perhaps indicative of a historic expansion where the striped shiner was a prairie remnant species, the common shiner were in the woodlands on the moraine slopes in oak maple forest (interesting hypothesis to test). Its been my observation that I typically find common shiner where there's heavy groundwater influence, particularly in the morainal portions of the Sandusky and eastward. See the same thing heading west into the moraines in western Fulton and Williams county, and northward in Michigan on the upper Raisin and to the point of exclusivity for the common shiner in the Huron.
Todd
Todd
#18
Guest_blakemarkwell_*
Guest_blakemarkwell_*
-
- Guests
Posted 24 March 2009 - 02:12 PM
Its been my observation that I typically find common shiner where there's heavy groundwater influence, particularly in the morainal portions of the Sandusky and eastward. See the same thing heading west into the moraines in western Fulton and Williams county, and northward in Michigan on the upper Raisin and to the point of exclusivity for the common shiner in the Huron.
Todd
That is an interesting idea, do you find L. cornutus at the Tippecanoe?
Blake
#19
Guest_farmertodd_*
Guest_farmertodd_*
-
- Guests
Posted 24 March 2009 - 02:32 PM
Every time I've been there, I've been focused on the big river, and I don't think I've found a common shiner yet. However, that would be a PERFECT system in which to test this hypothesis. In fact, the St. Joseph would be the real deal too. We should definitely do that
FWIW I don't have full confidence IL DNR or Smith's records/ID's, because I think one is propagating the other. If you want to see the most hilarious distribution map, take a look in your Peterson at the mimic shiner distribution. I'd love to hear the back story on that one, coz I don't think Larry or Brooks did either lol
Todd
FWIW I don't have full confidence IL DNR or Smith's records/ID's, because I think one is propagating the other. If you want to see the most hilarious distribution map, take a look in your Peterson at the mimic shiner distribution. I'd love to hear the back story on that one, coz I don't think Larry or Brooks did either lol
Todd
Edited by farmertodd, 24 March 2009 - 02:33 PM.
Reply to this topic
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
NANFA Youtube Channel 
