[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:58:56 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
I once bought a "daylight" bulb with a bright blue tint, thinking it
would be better than normal bulbs. It was back in its box within a
day. Lower colour temperatures are now what we consider right for the
evening. The same goes for any indoor lighting - approaches to
daylight for indoor lighting are always received poorly.

I have daylight fluorescent lighting in my home workshop which also has a
degree of natural lighting. Wouldn't have any other.

Workshops are a different thing - they aren't really a domestic
environment.

Mine is. ;-) It is really a bedroom.

And when mixed with natural daylight, I can see the
point.

Quite. Good domestic lighting supplements or replaces that provided by
god. ;-)

--
*Xerox and Wurlitzer will merge to market reproductive organs.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Don Klipstein]

In article , Mr.T wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
4500K is still somewhat blue for most peoples' taste.

You must really hate daylight then!

Most domestic lighting is used after dark and the colour temperature last
thing in the day is nothing like 4500k.

By that reasoning you should really match the color temperature of
moonlight, which is greater than 4500K.

Moonlight's color temperature at its highest is about 4000. It is
usually even less. It is less than that of sunlight because the moon is
not white or gray, but brownish.

Meanwhile, at illumination level so low that color vision does not work
well, color temperature matters less. At illumination levels an order of
magnitude or two or three above that of moonlight, most people like it
warm (lower color temperature).

- Don Klipstein )

[Don Klipstein]

In article , Mr.T wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
approaches to
daylight for indoor lighting are always received poorly.

No argument there, people ARE conditioned to incandescent lights at night,
at the moment.
(which of course are not so different to the lamps and candles that came
before.)
I wonder whether that will be so a hundred years from now though, when very
few people will even remember seeing one. Whether we will always demand to
emulate what we now have, or whether we will accept a gradual change to
something else, IF it is more efficient.
And of course the eyes sensitivity is not it's highest at the red end
either.

Lumens per watt of the portion of blackbody radiation that is in the
400-700 nm range is maximized in the upper 3,000's at about 263 lumens per
visible radiated watt. Apparently, getting into the 5,000's K causes blue
content to increase faster than red content decreases, decreasing the
percentage of the visible light spectral content that is in the
yellow-green range.

This figure is down about 1% at around 3300 and around 4600 K. There is
a lot of freedom in color temperature of a whitish artificial light source
without compromising luminous efficacy much.

- Don Klipstein )

[Don Klipstein]

In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
No argument there, people ARE conditioned to incandescent lights at
night, at the moment. (which of course are not so different to the lamps
and candles that came before.)

You've never seen gaslight, then?

Correlated color temperature generally mid 3,000's, and sometimes looks
a bit cold and spookyish. It's also a bit greener than light from a
blackbody, but usually looks only slightly so in my experience.

- Don Klipstein )

[Don Klipstein]

In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Have you never wondered why most prefer the colour temperature of tungsten
for domestic lighting?

Personally, I like more like 3500K at most brighter indoor lighting
levels, closer to 3,000 for dimmer indoor lighting.

Higher color temperature often appears "dreary" unless illumination
level is very high.

People often find it "dreary" outdoors under overcast conditions with
color temperature around 6000 K, especially when illumination level gets
under several thousand lux.

Things can look dreary at dusk and dawn, though people can be in a less
dreary mood outdoors then. At dawn things are brightening, and at dusk
people are likely to be on their way home from work or towards
entertaining activities.

As for why higher color temperature can make things "drearier" at lower
illumination levels:

1. The spectrum is richer in wavelengths favorable to scotopic vision,
which lacks ability to see color. Higher color temperature favors things
looking grayish when illumination level is down to several lux or less.

2. More light of wavelengths favorable to scotopic vision can make your
eye's pupil smaller than otherwise for a given illumination level. 100
lux at 5000 K can make your pupil smaller than 100 lux at 3000 K. (The
lux and other photometric units are defined in terms of photopic vision
and not scotopic vision.) That can make things appear dimmer. This can
also have an effect on color vision if illumination level is down to a few
lux or less, by depriving the color-sensing cones of light.

3. Reds look darker at higher color temperature, and can "drop out to
black" when color temperature is high and illumination level is low enough
to start making photopic vision marginal.

- Don Klipstein )

[Albert Manfredi]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Have you never wondered why most prefer the colour temperature of
tungsten
for domestic lighting?

It's not tungsten we prefer, I don't think, but rather a color
temperature that's close to that of a flame. That's what the human race
used for artificial lighting for the very vast majority of its
existence. It shouldn't be surprising that we still find it more comfy
than cold lighting, at night.

My warmest CFLs are now 2700 K. Not bad, but I'd still prefer a little
warmer. The 4100 tube fluorescents we have are not in the least
attractive.

Don Pearce posted this:

Nice chart here

http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/l...colortemp.html

Candlelight is 2000 K
60W incadescent bulbs are about 2500 K.
100W are slightly cooler, but still well under 3000 K.
Photofloods, which seem quite cool, are around 3500 K.

Nor surprising that something up around 6000 K would be annoying.

Bert

[Lostgallifreyan]

(Don Pearce) wrote in
:

Workshops are a different thing - they aren't really a domestic
environment.

Mine is. And the variety of lights I use in it amazing, at times.
Usually incandescent though, when resting.

[Lostgallifreyan]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
:

Have you never wondered why most prefer the colour temperature of
tungsten for domestic lighting?


Familiarity, and because it embodies a kind of neat simple magic, a safe
capturing of fire in an idealised form. It's a scientific form that almost
everyone can grasp. It's as iconic as the wheel, it's just not been around
as long.

I guess the truth of 'natural daylight' emulations is that they make people
feel agoraphobic if they can't withdraw from that light. Bring on LED
colour mixing. Or at least a nice emulation of firelight.

[GregS]

In article , "Albert Manfredi" wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Have you never wondered why most prefer the colour temperature of
tungsten
for domestic lighting?

It's not tungsten we prefer, I don't think, but rather a color
temperature that's close to that of a flame. That's what the human race
used for artificial lighting for the very vast majority of its
existence. It shouldn't be surprising that we still find it more comfy
than cold lighting, at night.

My warmest CFLs are now 2700 K. Not bad, but I'd still prefer a little
warmer. The 4100 tube fluorescents we have are not in the least
attractive.

Most CFL's I have used are too orange for me. I have one of those bargain dollar store
blue ones, and those suck. I bought one at The home Depot many years ago.
paid $20 for a dimmable type. It ended up being the best color I have seen, in my
opinion. They quit selling dimmable lamps. I hate when stores change stocks all
the time, especially Wal Mart.

greg



Don Pearce posted this:

Nice chart here

http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/l...colortemp.html

Candlelight is 2000 K
60W incadescent bulbs are about 2500 K.
100W are slightly cooler, but still well under 3000 K.
Photofloods, which seem quite cool, are around 3500 K.

Nor surprising that something up around 6000 K would be annoying.

Bert

[Lostgallifreyan]

(Don Klipstein) wrote in
:

1. The spectrum is richer in wavelengths favorable to scotopic
vision, which lacks ability to see color. Higher color temperature
favors things looking grayish when illumination level is down to
several lux or less.

2. More light of wavelengths favorable to scotopic vision can make
your eye's pupil smaller than otherwise for a given illumination
level. 100 lux at 5000 K can make your pupil smaller than 100 lux at
3000 K. (The lux and other photometric units are defined in terms of
photopic vision and not scotopic vision.) That can make things appear
dimmer. This can also have an effect on color vision if illumination
level is down to a few lux or less, by depriving the color-sensing
cones of light.

3. Reds look darker at higher color temperature, and can "drop out to
black" when color temperature is high and illumination level is low
enough to start making photopic vision marginal.


All true, but balanced perfectly, whatever the explanations might be, by
the sense of utter dinginess that a dim incandescent or red-heavy CFL
makes. Whether a spectrum favours photopic or scotopic vision, it looks
dire if we have to make an effort to perceive colour and space with it. I
think that the drain on our effort is partly what causes drear. That and a
lack of contrast, which might account for the feeling even in high daylight
illumination. I like LED's better than CFL's because they allow more
natural contrasts, if shone on white paint they are like sky, if direct,
they are like sunlight (though lacking in colour balance). CFL's don't
manage either convincingly at all, I find.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Albert Manfredi wrote:
Have you never wondered why most prefer the colour temperature of
tungsten
for domestic lighting?

It's not tungsten we prefer, I don't think, but rather a color
temperature that's close to that of a flame.

Err, isn't that what I wrote? It's the colour temperature that matters
rather than the source.

--
*Some days you're the dog, some days the hydrant.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[David Harmon]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:10:28 +0000 (UTC) in sci.electronics.basics,
(Don Klipstein) wrote,
Personally, I like more like 3500K at most brighter indoor lighting
levels, closer to 3,000 for dimmer indoor lighting.

Higher color temperature often appears "dreary" unless illumination
level is very high.

Do you put orange gels on your windows?

[Albert Manfredi]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Albert Manfredi wrote:

It's not tungsten we prefer, I don't think, but rather a color
temperature that's close to that of a flame.

Err, isn't that what I wrote? It's the colour temperature that matters
rather than the source.

Well, you wrote may things, including this:

"Lighting which is used to replace daylight - like that most of us have
at home for use when daylight fades - ideally shouldn't give such a
sudden change in temperature that it is noticeable. In the same way as
lighting used to supplement daylight - like in say an office - should
also be an approximate match to that daylight. It's common sense,
really."

I do agree that if we are supplementing daylight, e.g. in work spaces
with large windows during the day, rather than providing lighting at
night, a cooler light (hotter temp) is probably preferable. But for
night time lighting, I think what we are looking for is the color of
flame.

I'm saying, it's not that we are conditioned to the color of tungsen,
it's that we are looking for something close to 2000 K at night. Much
cooler cooler light than that (higher temp) is stark and generally
unpleasant.

By the way, this also applies to xenon headlights in some cars. They are
superbly obnoxious at night, to other drivers. Even if they aren't
brighter than halogens, the bluish color is very distracting.
Fortnunately, there seem to be fewer of the really annoying ones around
these days. Maybe the auto makers got too many complaints.

Bert

[Don Klipstein]

In article , David Harmon wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:10:28 +0000 (UTC) in sci.electronics.basics,
(Don Klipstein) wrote,
Personally, I like more like 3500K at most brighter indoor lighting
levels, closer to 3,000 for dimmer indoor lighting.

Higher color temperature often appears "dreary" unless illumination
level is very high.

Do you put orange gels on your windows?

No, I don't.

But if the light level is neither in kilolux nevels nor a recent uptick
from something lower, I find daylight to usually have no warmth or "cheer".

If the ceiling is dark but the windows are bright, then things can look
cheerful - sometimes - for some reason.

- Don Klipstein )

[Lostgallifreyan]

"Albert Manfredi" wrote in
:

I'm saying, it's not that we are conditioned to the color of tungsen,
it's that we are looking for something close to 2000 K at night. Much
cooler cooler light than that (higher temp) is stark and generally
unpleasant.


It is conditioning, but it's worth thinking about what the conditioning is.

First, how can a hotter temperature be cold?? The only way to account for
that is to look at the environment. Blue sky accepts radiant heat from the
earth so nights chill faster on clear evenings, pale light from the moon or
stars accompanies those same conditions within hours, and those sources are
so pale that we have scotopic vision to cope with them.

The whole thing is based on comfort. There is one exception to the usual
perception of cool faint lights. The whole midsummer night's dream idyll is
based on this, the almost magical inversion that allows a warm night to
make perception of these 'cold' lights seem something other than
threatening to our health.

I bet we could get used to 'cold' light plenty fast so long as we weren't
actually cold ourselves. Conversely, Dickens and many others have commented
on the bleakness of a small flame when there isn't enough heat to warm the
people who need it. It really has to do with our ambient conditions, not
direct colour perceptions at all.

[Lostgallifreyan]

(Don Klipstein) wrote in
:

But if the light level is neither in kilolux nevels nor a recent
uptick
from something lower, I find daylight to usually have no warmth or
"cheer".

If the ceiling is dark but the windows are bright, then things can
look
cheerful - sometimes - for some reason.


I mentioned contrast earlier, and I wonder if it might be this. I have an
odd colour scheme on my monitor, a kind of inversion of usual practise. I
call it 'panel lights'. It has black window objects, white and orange text
on them, the text backgound is a blue-biased mid grey, text black. Desktop
is deep blue with a pattern like dark water seen from a boat at twilight,
but saturated strongly, icon text there is like blue flame. Title bars are
green like plastic backlit by fluorescent light with red text. I like
programs with buttons that use colours well and illuminate like lights on
the black toolbars. Menus are yellow on a grey brown background. When
working on a full-screen text edit, it looks like a monochrome TV framed by
illuminated panels.

What I'm getting at is that this thing has both kinds of colour, 'hot' and
'cold', and most of all, strong contrasts. Some would find it as garish as
a fairground. I find it comforting the same way I find firelight
comforting. It keeps me calm yet aware for long periods while working.
Similar lighting tricks keep air pilots awake on night flights. (That's
partly the basis of the name I give that scheme).

Most colour schemes I see on computers are varieties of dark text on pale
backgrounds. I don't care if they're warm flamelike backgrounds or cool
fern greens and icy blues, I find them ALL distracting, stressful, and the
executive class adlanders white pages and thin grey text and pastel shades
are the very worst.

Ok, so I'm weird, but that's still a natural take on lighting. It shows
that there's a lot more to this than colour temperature. Contrast is
important too, as is the ratio of light to dark, and of object to space,
and suggestion plays a big part. It's very hard to be scientific about such
things, so maybe we shouldn't be trying too hard.

I'm still having a hard time adjusting to the fact that an SI unit, the
Lumen, is based on a statistical consensus, yet is placed alongside
hallowed units like the amp and the volt and the watt which seem as
immutable as 2+2 equalling four. Trying to get objective about what colours
are 'right' for us to accept and discussing it as if it is a hard science
is more weird to me than suggesting that the lightbulb is a form of magic.

[Arfa Daily]

"Albert Manfredi" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Albert Manfredi wrote:

It's not tungsten we prefer, I don't think, but rather a color
temperature that's close to that of a flame.

Err, isn't that what I wrote? It's the colour temperature that matters
rather than the source.

Well, you wrote may things, including this:

"Lighting which is used to replace daylight - like that most of us have at
home for use when daylight fades - ideally shouldn't give such a sudden
change in temperature that it is noticeable. In the same way as lighting
used to supplement daylight - like in say an office - should also be an
approximate match to that daylight. It's common sense, really."

I do agree that if we are supplementing daylight, e.g. in work spaces with
large windows during the day, rather than providing lighting at night, a
cooler light (hotter temp) is probably preferable. But for night time
lighting, I think what we are looking for is the color of flame.

I'm saying, it's not that we are conditioned to the color of tungsen, it's
that we are looking for something close to 2000 K at night. Much cooler
cooler light than that (higher temp) is stark and generally unpleasant.

By the way, this also applies to xenon headlights in some cars. They are
superbly obnoxious at night, to other drivers. Even if they aren't
brighter than halogens, the bluish color is very distracting.
Fortnunately, there seem to be fewer of the really annoying ones around
these days. Maybe the auto makers got too many complaints.

Bert


Don'cha just hate the way they swing from blue through stark white to green,
when they come round a bend in front or behind you ... Also, having sat
behind some, the perceived ability to light the road, does not seem to be
any better than halogens, which may again come down to colour temperature
and the human vision comfort zone.

Arfa

[Mr.T]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
That's more to do with the relative sensitivity of film color layers
etc.
They are specifically balanced for Daylight or Tungsten, and are wildly
innacurate when used with the wrong light source.

In which way are they 'inaccurate'? They will look wrong to the eye on a
'cut' but as with real life if all shots are matched the eye will
accommodate.

Not so. They ARE wrong. The relative densities of the individual film layers
will be quite innacurate when exposed with the wrong light.

The monitor you're reading this on is unlikely to match
*exactly* another one in colour temperature but will look ok to the
individual. The eye compensates, as I said, as it must do given that
daylight changes. Unless it has a reference to match to.

Which is everything else within your field of view. Only if *everything*
changes will the *brain* correctly compensate.

Err, yes. That's what I said. But it doesn't react instantly. Hence it
notices a sudden change in colour temperature. Like switching on 4500K
lights in a house when it gets dark.;-)

So a couple of minutes readjustment is abhorent to you?
Doesn't bother me too much.

Have you never wondered why most prefer the colour temperature of tungsten
for domestic lighting?

No, as I already stated it was simply conditioning from fires, candles, oil
lamps and tungsten filament globes.
Have you ever wondered why people aren't bothered by the change from
daylight, or in fact are able to wear coloured sun glasses, but can readily
pick an off balance color photo?

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
Moonlight's color temperature at its highest is about 4000.

I haven't seen a reference for this, but even assuming it is so, it's still
higher than many people here prefer it would seem.

Meanwhile, at illumination level so low that color vision does not work
well, color temperature matters less. At illumination levels an order of
magnitude or two or three above that of moonlight, most people like it
warm (lower color temperature).

Which is my point. People simply prefer something, then try to introduce
pseudo scientific rationalisation to claim anybody who disagrees with them
is wrong.

MrT.

[Don Klipstein]

In article , Mr.T wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
That's more to do with the relative sensitivity of film color layers
etc.
They are specifically balanced for Daylight or Tungsten, and are wildly
innacurate when used with the wrong light source.

In which way are they 'inaccurate'? They will look wrong to the eye on a
'cut' but as with real life if all shots are matched the eye will
accommodate.

Not so. They ARE wrong. The relative densities of the individual film layers
will be quite innacurate when exposed with the wrong light.

The monitor you're reading this on is unlikely to match
*exactly* another one in colour temperature but will look ok to the
individual. The eye compensates, as I said, as it must do given that
daylight changes. Unless it has a reference to match to.

Which is everything else within your field of view. Only if *everything*
changes will the *brain* correctly compensate.

Err, yes. That's what I said. But it doesn't react instantly. Hence it
notices a sudden change in colour temperature. Like switching on 4500K
lights in a house when it gets dark.;-)

So a couple of minutes readjustment is abhorent to you?
Doesn't bother me too much.

Have you never wondered why most prefer the colour temperature of tungsten
for domestic lighting?

No, as I already stated it was simply conditioning from fires, candles, oil
lamps and tungsten filament globes.
Have you ever wondered why people aren't bothered by the change from
daylight, or in fact are able to wear coloured sun glasses, but can readily
pick an off balance color photo?

An off-balance color photo has its surroundings as a color reference.
It would be like having colored sunglasses coloring only a small portion
of your field of vision.

- Don Klipstein )

[Mr.T]

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
Unless it has a reference to match to.

Which is everything else within your field of view.

snip

An off-balance color photo has its surroundings as a color reference.

Which is what I said already. That was my point.

MrT.

[Lostgallifreyan]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in
u:

Moonlight's color temperature at its highest is about 4000.

I haven't seen a reference for this, but even assuming it is so, it's
still higher than many people here prefer it would seem.


Nice way to test: Take a camera and tripod, do a long exposure shot of a
moonlit scene. Then view the phtot on a monitor in a context you know. I
haven't done this but I think it will bear out the claim that the moon's
light is brownish, as it looks when you look directly at it. The blue comes
from a combination of scattered light and scotopic sensitivity to the blue
part of its spectrum.

[Arny Krueger]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article ,
Albert Manfredi wrote:
Have you never wondered why most prefer the colour
temperature of tungsten
for domestic lighting?

It's not tungsten we prefer, I don't think, but rather a
color temperature that's close to that of a flame.

Err, isn't that what I wrote? It's the colour temperature
that matters rather than the source.

There many kinds of preferences. One is the preference for that which is
traditional and familiar, and another is the preference for that which is
most effective for the purpose at hand.

I've found that if the goal is reading accurately with limited light, then
higher temperatures even 5000 degrees and up, can be preferable. I've read
far into many a dark fall or winter evening in a tent, using a pretty blue
LED headlamp.

I did some tests of people reading Bibles and hymnals which tend to small
print, in a congregational setting with fairly high light levels, and found
that my readers were most comfortable with color temperatures in the 3200
degree range.

I suspect that preferences for color temperatures below 3200 degrees are
heavily influenced by tradition and past experience.

[Lostgallifreyan]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article ,
Albert Manfredi wrote:
Have you never wondered why most prefer the colour
temperature of tungsten
for domestic lighting?

It's not tungsten we prefer, I don't think, but rather a
color temperature that's close to that of a flame.

Err, isn't that what I wrote? It's the colour temperature
that matters rather than the source.

There many kinds of preferences. One is the preference for that which
is traditional and familiar, and another is the preference for that
which is most effective for the purpose at hand.

I've found that if the goal is reading accurately with limited light,
then higher temperatures even 5000 degrees and up, can be preferable.
I've read far into many a dark fall or winter evening in a tent, using
a pretty blue LED headlamp.

I did some tests of people reading Bibles and hymnals which tend to
small print, in a congregational setting with fairly high light
levels, and found that my readers were most comfortable with color
temperatures in the 3200 degree range.

I suspect that preferences for color temperatures below 3200 degrees
are heavily influenced by tradition and past experience.





Yes. Been saying similar stuff here last night. Also, quite apart from
preference and convention and all that, there is a stark fact that we use
shortwave light to resolve fine detail without strain. That's a basic
physical fact. So it makes NO sense at all to suggest that reading is best
done in a low colour temperature. Same goes for any other detailed small
scale activity such as most indoor hobbies involve.

The only reason we need bright incandescent to read by is that it is the
ONLY way we can get enough shortwave light. I've found that so long as you
have a decent continuum such as the newer Cree Xlamps have, and a tint that
favours the long end, such as the WG tint, you can be comfortable with much
lower lumen counts than when using low colour temperatures. This is exactly
what many here said was 'dreary' or similar, but I tried it last night. I
went outside to see the orange light in the clouds over the city, the many
tungsten lamps all around in windows, waited till I was thoroughly
adjusted, then went inside. Far from looking dreary, it was invitingly
bright and easy to see things by, and this was ONE single emitter aimed at
the ceiling. It had the same cosy quality that a pressurised paraffin
(kerosene) lamp has in a country kitchen during a power cut. I remember
that well enough, and this new light was similarly pleasing, if a little
different, sharper perhaps.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Mr.T MrT@home wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
That's more to do with the relative sensitivity of film color layers
etc.
They are specifically balanced for Daylight or Tungsten, and are
wildly innacurate when used with the wrong light source.

In which way are they 'inaccurate'? They will look wrong to the eye on
a 'cut' but as with real life if all shots are matched the eye will
accommodate.

Not so. They ARE wrong. The relative densities of the individual film
layers will be quite innacurate when exposed with the wrong light.

You conveniently snipped the part about video. And a daylight film can
also look 'wrong' when taken in daylight of the wrong colour temperature.
Which can be corrected by filters when taking the pic or processing it.

The monitor you're reading this on is unlikely to match
*exactly* another one in colour temperature but will look ok to the
individual. The eye compensates, as I said, as it must do given that
daylight changes. Unless it has a reference to match to.

Which is everything else within your field of view. Only if *everything*
changes will the *brain* correctly compensate.

Not so - do you change the colour temperature of your TV or monitor
according to the ambient light? The brain focuses on the important part
after time - within reason.

Err, yes. That's what I said. But it doesn't react instantly. Hence it
notices a sudden change in colour temperature. Like switching on 4500K
lights in a house when it gets dark.;-)

So a couple of minutes readjustment is abhorent to you?
Doesn't bother me too much.

Fine - but you're in a minority if you like cold domestic lighting.

Have you never wondered why most prefer the colour temperature of
tungsten for domestic lighting?

No, as I already stated it was simply conditioning from fires, candles,
oil lamps and tungsten filament globes.

Fluorescent lights have been around for a long, long time. And early ones
were all cold compared to tungsten. People could easily have got used to
them for domestic light, but very few chose to.

Have you ever wondered why people aren't bothered by the change from
daylight, or in fact are able to wear coloured sun glasses, but can
readily pick an off balance color photo?

Can they? Depends on their skills. Have you never noticed how many people
are happy with a TV where the grey scale is miles out?

--
*Sometimes I wake up grumpy; Other times I let him sleep.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
I suspect that preferences for color temperatures below 3200 degrees are
heavily influenced by tradition and past experience.

Perhaps if it were only working light. But at home it's usually comfort
light.

--
*Who is this General Failure chap anyway - and why is he reading my HD? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Lostgallifreyan]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
:

Have you never noticed how many people
are happy with a TV where the grey scale is miles out?


Actually that kind of refutes a point that many including you claim. People
WERE happy for the most part with b/w TV's when that's all they had, and
with colour they liked a sharp clean white and a bright vivid image, and
they were happy, and they'd even fall asleep in front of them with the
other lights out, at times, it's an iconic movie thing, often seen, often
shared. Funny behaviour don't you think, given the high colour temperatures
involved?


People tell themselves they don't like stuff the way kids tell themselves
they don't like their greens, or the way they tell themselves they need
heavy clothes on winter days even when those days are warmer and drier than
many summer ones. They even tell themselves that what they read in the
newspapers must be true.

Back to lights: I refer again to the point that reading and detailed indoor
hobbies need shortwave light to avoid eye strain, and the only reason
people turn up the tungsten is because that's the only way they actually
get enough of the shortwave light they need.

[Mr.T]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Not so. They ARE wrong. The relative densities of the individual film
layers will be quite innacurate when exposed with the wrong light.

You conveniently snipped the part about video.

Substitute CCD/CMOS sensor levels for cameras balanced to the wrong color
temperature then. The problem is usually more acute for film however.

But you do admit problems with film color are not just imagined then?

The monitor you're reading this on is unlikely to match
*exactly* another one in colour temperature but will look ok to the
individual. The eye compensates, as I said, as it must do given that
daylight changes. Unless it has a reference to match to.

Which is everything else within your field of view. Only if *everything*
changes will the *brain* correctly compensate.

Not so - do you change the colour temperature of your TV or monitor
according to the ambient light?

For critical work, yes. There are even devices to do it for you
automatically. Why do you think they exist?

So a couple of minutes readjustment is abhorent to you?
Doesn't bother me too much.

Fine - but you're in a minority if you like cold domestic lighting.

Never said otherwise.

Have you never wondered why most prefer the colour temperature of
tungsten for domestic lighting?

No, as I already stated it was simply conditioning from fires, candles,
oil lamps and tungsten filament globes.

Fluorescent lights have been around for a long, long time. And early ones
were all cold compared to tungsten. People could easily have got used to
them for domestic light, but very few chose to.

They chose not to, exactly what I said.

MrT.

[Albert Manfredi]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Fluorescent lights have been around for a long, long time. And early
ones
were all cold compared to tungsten. People could easily have got used
to
them for domestic light, but very few chose to.

They chose not to, exactly what I said.

I think everyone is saying the same thing, yet there seems to be
disagreement. I'd only add to this that when people predominantly
"choose to" behave in a particular way, rather than in some other way,
there's probably a good reason why.

For example, if people "choose to" dislike food that smells like decay,
there is probably a good reason why. Yes, even though there may be some
individuals who actually like decaying food.

There are other examples. Movies use deep bass sounds to put the
audience on edge. It conveys a sense of foreboding and alarm in people.
Again, one might suspect that if the reaction is close to universal,
there's probably a good reason why. Not merely, "They choose to react
this way. They could just as easily react a different way."

Others and I have speculated the "why" people might prefer "warmer"
lighting. There's nothing wrong with speculation. That's what leads to
stating a hypothesis and then trying to prove it, and possibly ending up
with a physical law.

Bert

[Lostgallifreyan]

"Albert Manfredi" wrote in
:

Others and I have speculated the "why" people might prefer "warmer"
lighting. There's nothing wrong with speculation. That's what leads to
stating a hypothesis and then trying to prove it, and possibly ending up
with a physical law.


It's a physical law that shorter wavelengths render finer detail. To read
or do fine work or hobby activity we need that. People read when relaxing,
and they might use low colour temperatures while doing it, but need a lot
of that light to get enough shortwave light to comfortably avoid eyestrain.

If they use a higher colour temperature they will find the same comfort as
with lower colour temperatures, and at lesser expense.

That's founded in laws of physics, anatomy, and economy. You can stick to
the stated preferences for low colour temperatures to try to assert that
there might be a law that somehow contrdicts all these, but such effort
doesn't seem very likely to succeed.

[Mr.T]

"Albert Manfredi" wrote in message
...
I think everyone is saying the same thing, yet there seems to be
disagreement. I'd only add to this that when people predominantly
"choose to" behave in a particular way, rather than in some other way,
there's probably a good reason why.

Sure, what that reason is, and even how rational it is, may be open to
debate.
Mostly people choose what is readily available at an affordable price. The
manufacturers/marketing people have as much to do with this as any absolute
superiority.
And market timing plays a big part in whether something becomes widely
established, and how superior something else must be to supercede it.

For example, if people "choose to" dislike food that smells like decay,
there is probably a good reason why. Yes, even though there may be some
individuals who actually like decaying food.

Yes, blue vein cheese is quite popular. Even well aged meats.

There are other examples. Movies use deep bass sounds to put the
audience on edge. It conveys a sense of foreboding and alarm in people.
Again, one might suspect that if the reaction is close to universal,

Or not, discotecques use deep pounding bass to give their customers a dance
beat. Doesn't seem to drive them away

there's probably a good reason why. Not merely, "They choose to react
this way. They could just as easily react a different way."

Exactly.

Others and I have speculated the "why" people might prefer "warmer"
lighting. There's nothing wrong with speculation. That's what leads to
stating a hypothesis and then trying to prove it, and possibly ending up
with a physical law.

Or more likely just ending up with another example of the irrational
behaviour patterns of humans.

MrT.

[Albert Manfredi[_2_]]

On Jul 15, 4:21 am, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

Mostly people choose what is readily available at an affordable price.

Universal dislike for something counts as more than just "what is
readily available at an affordable price." Sorry.

Or not, discotecques use deep pounding bass to give their customers a dance
beat. Doesn't seem to drive them away

Yes, but there's a big difference between *prolonged* bass and
periodic bass, perhaps at approximately 1 Hz or so. Which is
reminiscent of a heartbeat, therefore natural and presumably pleasing.

Or more likely just ending up with another example of the irrational
behaviour patterns of humans.

I don't think it's irrational to expect humans to be put off by
sources of articial light whose color temp is not what they evolved
with. Defense mechanisms typically work that way, matter of fact.

Anyway, this has to be one of the longest threads in usenet history
(probably not, actually).

Bert

[Lostgallifreyan]

Albert Manfredi wrote in
oups.com:

Universal dislike for something counts as more than just "what is
readily available at an affordable price." Sorry.


Damnit, will you quit that, you're annoying! I let it pass when you
dismissed my argument, because it wasn't that important, you were 'only'
claiming to speak for a huge populace on matters of preference, as if you
had such a mighty insight into so many. Now, you claim 'universal dislike'!
You're not content to settle for mere hubris, you need omniscience.

Just stick to some science and let the preferences take care of themselves.

[Lostgallifreyan]

Hmm, sorry, the dismissal came from someone else, so I shouldn't be
berating you for that. Even so, it's not appropriate to make claims for
such universality. If you don't like it, say so, but don't try to claim for
a universe! Most of it has ideas of its own.

[Mr.T]

"Albert Manfredi" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mostly people choose what is readily available at an affordable price.

Universal dislike for something counts as more than just "what is
readily available at an affordable price." Sorry.

IF we were talking *universal* dislike then I might agree.

Or more likely just ending up with another example of the irrational
behaviour patterns of humans.

I don't think it's irrational to expect humans to be put off by
sources of articial light whose color temp is not what they evolved
with.

No *proof* though that artificial light MUST be different from natural
light.
Only the preferences of many accustomed to it being so.

Defense mechanisms typically work that way, matter of fact.

I'm interested to know what's the "defence mechanism" that benefits from low
color temperatures?

Anyway, this has to be one of the longest threads in usenet history
(probably not, actually).

A hell of a long way from it actually.

MrT.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Albert Manfredi wrote:

Anyway, this has to be one of the longest threads in usenet history
(probably not, actually).


It has to hit over 10,000 posts to even be in the running.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

[Mr.T]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
Albert Manfredi wrote:
Anyway, this has to be one of the longest threads in usenet history
(probably not, actually).


It has to hit over 10,000 posts to even be in the running.

Yes, he must be a "newby" I think. :-)

MrT.

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Mr.T" wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
Albert Manfredi wrote:
Anyway, this has to be one of the longest threads in usenet history
(probably not, actually).


It has to hit over 10,000 posts to even be in the running.

Yes, he must be a "newby" I think. :-)

MrT.


Just wait till he stumbles into a thread like that big one on
news.sci.electronics.design . There were still over 6,000 messages on
the server from the 10,000 or more. It took my news reader software
three hours to mark that thread as read, because of all the cross
posts. I was about ready to kill the program when it finally finished.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

[Lostgallifreyan]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in
u:

Defense mechanisms typically work that way, matter of fact.

I'm interested to know what's the "defence mechanism" that benefits
from low color temperatures?


I doubt there is one. The reason prolonged bass might be unsettling is that
any animal is wary of a conspicuous expenditure of energy, and that really
IS about as close to a 'universal' 'preference' as we can get. Any agency
that can conspicously expend energy is potentially a serious risk, either
because it's a source of elemental power, or because it's aware of its
power and feels no need to hide it from the world around it.

The animals with a defensive relation to colour temperature are likely to
be those that fear fire, or are wary of us because we have learned to use
fire. That won't likely be evolution (might need an actual genetic record
to establish that), but it is conditioning, adaptation.

I don't think we have any imperative that makes us need low colour
temperatures. We do have an imperative for warmth, and while that comes
from flame it is possible to connect the two things, but as soon as we get
warmth some other way, all bets are off.

It's interesting to look at how other animals relate to tungsten lighting.
(Crude generalisation alert!) Cats and dogs like it, rats and snakes do
not. That surely shows that it really doesn't matter half as much as how
they react to us.

Preference for higher colour temperatures might be likely based on
efficient shortwave light making things easily visible. Preference for low
colour temperatures is mostly symbolic. The purely functional
basis of the preference for low colour temperatures is itself symbolic,
many people find 'functional' to be almost a synonym for 'bleak' or
'dreary'. Possibly because of an aversion to work (which I can understand),
or more likely because having to ration energy usage implies discomfort.
There's no reason it should do so though, as in this case we're talking
about limiting energy expenditure by choice. That's the whole point of
these new kinds of lamp. Being able to choose leaves us open to new kinds
of conditioning.

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Mr.T" wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
Albert Manfredi wrote:
Anyway, this has to be one of the longest threads in usenet history
(probably not, actually).


It has to hit over 10,000 posts to even be in the running.

Yes, he must be a "newby" I think. :-)

MrT.


Maybe even new enough that his computer will melt down when he hits a
real 10,000 post flamefest. ;-)


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida