There was a little latent humor (pun intended) in this message from the start. After all fluorocarbon material is marketed by its disappearance underwater. The refracting index of this material they say is very close to water. Obviously the first impression was to laugh at this underwater photo. It appears that the fly is very very sparsely dressed.
Those of us much deeper into fly design note - That what appears to us under the tying lamp, often does not look the same under water conditions. Some people may look at this photo and say the material is missing. I say it's there, but latent in nature. What one person sees in a photograph, others might not see. Images of what I see in a fishing situation might be positive to me or a few others. Others might not notice the same experience. Than again, others might see what I may have missed. Our positive images and ideas in fly construction might be negative to others too. Their negative ideas might be positive to me or a few others. The experience is important here. How others view the situation depends on the proficiency to understand the problem. My philosophy here, is to help others analyze a proper thought process, decoding information and collimating visual perceptions in the design of flies. This will produce a more educated and talented fly tier in tuned with reading the water.
Is there an advantage using this stuff or not, or is it all just hype? Try this, tie an all fluorocarbon fly without using any flash material than fish it. It might answer some very interesting questions about this material. You'll be surprised of your findings. Discovery should be part of the formula for a successful fly pattern.
My head hurts now!!!