"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
4...
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in
:

William Sommerwerck wrote:

It's amazing that, despite their generally poor color rendering,
tubular FLs have long been tolerated in kitchens and workspaces.

maybe color rendering isn't that important compared to seeing what you're
doing.The eye/brain manages to compensate,excpet under low light levels.

Besides,tungsten lighting(2700K or 3200K) isn't all that "color accurate"
itself. That's why color photo film came in tungsten variety,for better
color rendering for that color temp lighting. Even digital cameras have a
setting for color temp(my cheapo Polaroid does),not that people use them
as
they should.

I can't quantify it, but I have a much brighter tubular floursecent
lamp over my head because of the color problems. It seems I need a lot
more light to read with them than an incadescent one.

Geoff.

you need color rendering accuracy to READ?


--
Jim Yanik


I don't know about 'colour rendering accuracy', Jim, but I too find it
extremely difficult to read under CFLs as opposed to incandescent light
sources. I imagine that it is just some characteristic that my eyes have
developed as I've gotten older, and my sight overall, has declined compared
to when I was young. Perhaps I am in a minority of people that suffer in
this way, but trust me, it is very real. Oddly enough though, I have no
trouble at all reading or working under linear flourescent light,
irrespective of the quoted colour composition (eg warm white, daylight etc)
of said tubes.

Arfa