Lets Talk Tints

107 posts / 0 new
Last post
everydaysurvivalgear
everydaysurvivalgear's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 hours 49 min ago
Joined: 07/31/2015 - 10:25
Posts: 3461
Location: sydney australia (GMT+10)

I am torn between output and pretty tints so i would say maybe a 5000k tint.

But all tints have there places WE DON’T JUDGE hahaha except for me i hate really blue tints! why not just use a laser?

jon_slider
jon_slider's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 45 min ago
Joined: 09/08/2015 - 12:20
Posts: 2306
Location: Crowdifornia

Boaz wrote:
The Nichia 219A is the standard for all good tints IMHO it’s not all about cri

I dont see what you mean. The Nichia 219 is ALL about CRI. It just happens to have a 4500k “tint” but the same 4500k in a Zebralight, which does NOT use a Nichia, is not high CRI and is not as nice a “tint”

maybe show some beamshots of what you consider a good “tint” that is not also High CRI?

WalkIntoTheLight
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 7 min ago
Joined: 12/05/2015 - 10:26
Posts: 1929
Location: Canada
jon_slider wrote:
Incandescent bulbs (non-LED) are full spectrum, so 100 CRI

Just a slight nit-pick. Incandescent bulbs are not full-spectrum. They are black-body sources of light. Full-spectrum includes the entire spectrum of visible light, plus infrared and near ultraviolet. While incandescent lights are good sources of infrared, they are generally poor sources of blue wavelengths and anything shorter (like violet and ultraviolet).

jon_slider wrote:
if we dont specify the type or color of the energy it may seem like a light with more lumens has more energy but a light with more red, even though it produces less lumens, has more Red Light,

Lumens is not a measure of energy of the light. Lumens is an approximation to how bright the human eye perceives light. Since our eyes are most sensitive to green wavelengths, then a light source with a lot of green light in it will have more lumens, given the same energy. A blue light source, even if it has a bit more energy, will have less lumens. Same for red. And, of course, outside the visible spectrum the light will have zero lumens, even though it may have lots of energy.

Sometimes you’ll see light intensity given in terms of milliwatts per square centimeter, or something like that. That’s describing the energy intensity, rather than lux.

jon_slider
jon_slider's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 45 min ago
Joined: 09/08/2015 - 12:20
Posts: 2306
Location: Crowdifornia

WalkIntoTheLight wrote:
Incandescent bulbs are not full-spectrum.

Thank you. I welcome the education.

Is it accurate to say that Incandescent bulbs are 100CRI?
Is it accurate to say that Incandescent bulbs are Full Visible Spectrum?

or are those also misuses of terminology?

sidecross
sidecross's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 3 months ago
Joined: 10/31/2015 - 18:55
Posts: 711
Location: North America

WalkIntoTheLight wrote:
Lumens is not a measure of energy of the light. Lumens is an approximation to how bright the human eye perceives light. Since our eyes are most sensitive to green wavelengths, then a light source with a lot of green light in it will have more lumens, given the same energy. A blue light source, even if it has a bit more energy, will have less lumens. Same for red. And, of course, outside the visible spectrum the light will have zero lumens, even though it may have lots of energy.

Sometimes you’ll see light intensity given in terms of milliwatts per square centimeter, or something like that. That’s describing the energy intensity, rather than lux.


Thank you.

It is interesting that there is a difference between light and the what the human eye and brain perceive. Much of the Electromagnetic Spectrum is not visible to the human eye.

“You must have a plan, if you don’t have a plan, you will become part of someone else’s plan.” Terence McKenna

sidecross
sidecross's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 3 months ago
Joined: 10/31/2015 - 18:55
Posts: 711
Location: North America

“Color rendering index, or CRI, is a measure of the quality of color light, devised by the International Commission on Illumination (CIE). It generally ranges from zero for a source like a low-pressure sodium vapor lamp, which is monochromatic, to one hundred, for a source like an incandescent light bulb, which emits essentially blackbody radiation. It is related to color temperature, in that the CRI measures for a pair of light sources can only be compared if they have the same color temperature. A standard “cool white” fluorescent lamp will have a CRI near 62.’

CRI is a quantitatively measurable index, not a subjective one. A reference source, such as blackbody radiation, is defined as having a CRI of 100 (this is why incandescent lamps have that rating, as they are, in effect, blackbody radiators), and the test source with the same color temperature is compared against this.’

http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com/cri_explained.htm

I found this on a search and cannot verify as to the accuracy.

“You must have a plan, if you don’t have a plan, you will become part of someone else’s plan.” Terence McKenna

WalkIntoTheLight
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 7 min ago
Joined: 12/05/2015 - 10:26
Posts: 1929
Location: Canada
jon_slider wrote:
Is it accurate to say that Incandescent bulbs are 100CRI?

Yes. However CRI can be a poor standard to base accurate color rendition on.

First, CRI is by definition 100, regardless of the CCT (temperature or tint of the light), if it matches a blackbody source of light (such as an incandescent light). But a CRI 100 with a CCT of 1500K is vastly different than a CRI 100 with a CCT of 10000K. The former is heavily weighted in red light, while the latter is more saturated in blue light. Things are going to look very different under those lighting conditions, and colors will not be accurately identified in either.

Second, the CRI standard uses a limited number of test colors to determine the CRI of a light source. I think it’s around 14, IIRC. Usually, that’s good enough. But, it under-represents deep red as a color.

I really need both the CRI and the CCT (which is even more important to me), when figuring out what kind of LED lighting I want. Tint (green or magenta) is also very useful. I like tints on the magenta side (like Nichia 219 LEDs), not the green side (like most Cree LEDs).

Quote:

Is it accurate to say that Incandescent bulbs are Full Visible Spectrum?

or are those also misuses of terminology?

I think that’s sort-of misusing the terminology. Incandescent lighting can be full spectrum, but you’d have to get the filament glowing much hotter than the typical ~2500K. 5500K would get you a spectrum similar to the sun, which is full spectrum. I’m not aware of materials that can take that kind of temperature, but I’m sure there must be some.

But generally, incandescent lighting is very poor in blue wavelengths. It’s there, but not very much of it. That’s why it’s hard to distinguish deep blue and black, or blue and violet colors under standard incandescent lighting, unless it’s bright.

sidecross
sidecross's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 3 months ago
Joined: 10/31/2015 - 18:55
Posts: 711
Location: North America

There is much to know beyond a CRI number.

It reminds me of a quote by Denis McKenna: ‘The bigger the bonfire, the more darkness is revealed.’. Smile

“You must have a plan, if you don’t have a plan, you will become part of someone else’s plan.” Terence McKenna

will34
will34's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 2 hours ago
Joined: 12/18/2012 - 00:12
Posts: 3616

I have never paid much attention to CRI and neutral/warm tints, always been a big fan of CW but after so many XP-L HI V2 1A mods I admit it starts to get boring. Made a triple Nichia 219C and ordered a 5A BLF D80 some time ago but it was definitely too warm for me, it looked “dirty”.

Decided to try my luck again and got a 3C EagleEye X2R http://www.gearbest.com/led-flashlights/pp_411562.html. I was blown away by the tint!! Everything looked so much vibrant and the temperature was simply pleasing to the eyes. I don’t even know what bin this 3C tint is or if it is high CRI of any kind, it looks a lot like my armytek wizzard XHP50 “CW” which is actually more like 5000k, but somehow the tint of this 3C is prettier, and wherever I shine it to it gives a better sense of depth. Not sure how to explain it…

After playing a bit more with the light I decided to built my first ever high CRI light. I’m looking for a emitter which is not warmer than this 3C but with higher CRI. It can be XP or XM as I have both centering rings. Looking for maximum brightness as well with a FET driver so no nichia… Any recommendations?

Thanks!

Aggressor
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: 07/23/2016 - 08:00
Posts: 171

will34 wrote:
I’m looking for a emitter which is not warmer than this 3C but with higher CRI. It can be XP or XM as I have both centering rings. Looking for maximum brightness as well with a FET driver so no nichia… Any recommendations?

Thanks!

Cree XHP35 is available with 90+ CRI even at 5000K and 5700K CCT (your 3C is supposed to be between 4750K and 5000K CCT). Note that it is a 12v emitter.

power911
power911's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 58 min ago
Joined: 05/12/2014 - 02:14
Posts: 803
Location: Malaysia

I remember I had one Osram LED (not golden dragon) that has one main white LED and a red diode on the side to compensate the tint

When it’s in moonlight mode the LED goes really pinkish warm but gets really blue when on max 120 lumens

It makes me wonder if adding red would change the perception of fake CRI? It surely didn’t work when I tried an XML2 1A tint with an XRE red emitter but the reddish tint is somewhat pleasant

Which makes me wonder if this is why dive lights needs lots of red in their searchlights

“Have you forgotten about all those who called you a Bringer of Woe and hunted you like an animal?”
“Normal humans don’t go around killing people and burning towns!”
“Don’t worry. I’ll go with you! So you just follow me and no arguing, okay?”
“Humans m

WalkIntoTheLight
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 7 min ago
Joined: 12/05/2015 - 10:26
Posts: 1929
Location: Canada
power911 wrote:
Which makes me wonder if this is why dive lights needs lots of red in their searchlights

Longer wavelengths (warmer) scatter less light, so are better at cutting through fog, humid air, and water. Perhaps that’s why diving searchlights use warmer tints with more red in the light.

sidecross
sidecross's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 3 months ago
Joined: 10/31/2015 - 18:55
Posts: 711
Location: North America

will34 wrote:
I have never paid much attention to CRI and neutral/warm tints, always been a big fan of CW but after so many XP-L HI V2 1A mods I admit it starts to get boring. Made a triple Nichia 219C and ordered a 5A BLF D80 some time ago but it was definitely too warm for me, it looked “dirty”.

Decided to try my luck again and got a 3C EagleEye X2R http://www.gearbest.com/led-flashlights/pp_411562.html. I was blown away by the tint!! Everything looked so much vibrant and the temperature was simply pleasing to the eyes. I don’t even know what bin this 3C tint is or if it is high CRI of any kind, it looks a lot like my armytek wizzard XHP50 “CW” which is actually more like 5000k, but somehow the tint of this 3C is prettier, and wherever I shine it to it gives a better sense of depth. Not sure how to explain it…

After playing a bit more with the light I decided to built my first ever high CRI light. I’m looking for a emitter which is not warmer than this 3C but with higher CRI. It can be XP or XM as I have both centering rings. Looking for maximum brightness as well with a FET driver so no nichia… Any recommendations?

Thanks!


+1

I am too rather new to understanding tints as you can read from my comments on this thread, but like yourself I have grown fond of a 5000K 3C tint. I now know better the reasons why. Smile

“You must have a plan, if you don’t have a plan, you will become part of someone else’s plan.” Terence McKenna

KeepingItLight
KeepingItLight's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 58 sec ago
Joined: 06/15/2015 - 14:52
Posts: 652
Location: California

Thanks to jon_slider and WalkIntoTheLight for the outstanding explanations they posted.

  • "Neutral" tints are those found along the black-body radiator line.
  • At a given CCT, above the black-body radiator line you will find "greenish" tints. Below are magenta tints.

Sidecross also shared this gem from FullSpectrumSolutions:

  • "[CRI] is related to color temperature, in that the CRI measures for a pair of light sources can only be compared if they have the same color temperature."
  • Thus, a 100 CRI (Ra) source with a CCT of 2750K will not do as good a job rendering the visible color spectrum as a 100 CRI (Ra) source with a CCT of 5200K.

A good for-instance is the new Nitecore TIP CRI. It uses a high-CRI Nichia 219B emitter. Although there is talk of a 5000K version, for now all that is available is the 3500K version. At 3500K, the TIP CRI can advertise 90+ CRI, but that is not the same thing as 90+ CRI at 5000K.

WalkIntoTheLight
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 7 min ago
Joined: 12/05/2015 - 10:26
Posts: 1929
Location: Canada
KeepingItLight wrote:
  • “[CRI] is related to color temperature, in that the CRI measures for a pair of light sources can only be compared if they have the same color temperature.”
  • Thus, a 100 CRI (Ra) source with a CCT of 2750K will not do as good a job rendering the visible color spectrum as a 100 CRI (Ra) source with a CCT of 5200K.
  • A good for-instance is the new Nitecore TIP CRI. It uses a high-CRI Nichia 219B emitter. Although there is talk of a 5000K version, for now all that is available is the 3500K version. At 3500K, the TIP CRI can advertise 90+ CRI, but that is not the same thing as 90+ CRI at 5000K.

    Unless you’re doing work that specifically requires you to accurately see all colors (such as an electrician), I wouldn’t get too hung up about 5000K temperatures. It’s true that 3500K isn’t going to show you much color that is blue or violet, but it will do a very good job showing you reds and oranges.

    Emphasizing reds may be a better thing to do, in certain circumstances. If you’re looking at human skin, for example. Or if you’re walking in the woods. Or if you just enjoy warmer tints because you find them more pleasing and less tiring on the eyes.

    There isn’t much blue or violet color in the natural world (except for the sky). So you’re not missing out on much if you use warmer tinted lights. Getting a better separation of colors in the reddish bands may let you see better.

    sidecross
    sidecross's picture
    Offline
    Last seen: 2 years 3 months ago
    Joined: 10/31/2015 - 18:55
    Posts: 711
    Location: North America

    WalkIntoTheLight wrote:

    Longer wavelengths (warmer) scatter less light, so are better at cutting through fog, humid air, and water. Perhaps that’s why diving searchlights use warmer tints with more red in the light.

    +1

    “You must have a plan, if you don’t have a plan, you will become part of someone else’s plan.” Terence McKenna

    jon_slider
    jon_slider's picture
    Offline
    Last seen: 3 hours 45 min ago
    Joined: 09/08/2015 - 12:20
    Posts: 2306
    Location: Crowdifornia

    These are pics from a Nitecore Tip and TipCRI

    Tip: Low CRI 6000K.. look how green the yellow cards look. I dont “see” any advantage in the blue from the Low CRI, and imo it makes the Silver look too blue.

    TipCRI: look how much more realistic the High CRI 3500K makes the yellow card. Look at the Red, Gold and Silver too.

    Aggressor
    Offline
    Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
    Joined: 07/23/2016 - 08:00
    Posts: 171

    What was White Balance camera setting when you took these pictures? It is very difficult to make color accurate photographs under such light sources, i.e. make the photograph show the same colors you saw with your eyes.

    jon_slider
    jon_slider's picture
    Offline
    Last seen: 3 hours 45 min ago
    Joined: 09/08/2015 - 12:20
    Posts: 2306
    Location: Crowdifornia

    Aggressor wrote:
    What was White Balance camera setting when you took these pictures?

    I dont know, not my pics, I assume they are from an auto white balance cell phone
    you could ask the OP here*2016*-New-Nitecore-TIP&p=4961842&viewfull=1#post4961842
    in my limited experience, auto white balance works well enough to show the difference between the two beams, particularly when you have all the colored items to compare in the photo.

    Is there any doubt from the pics that the Low CRI is doing a worse job of rendering color?

    Aggressor
    Offline
    Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
    Joined: 07/23/2016 - 08:00
    Posts: 171
    jon_slider wrote:
    Is there any doubt from the pics that the Low CRI is doing a worse job of rendering color?

    There is real doubt these pictures show colors how they were seen by the human eyes. Just a note, setting “correct” white balance in camera under such irregular light sources as LEDs is not enough either. One needs to take a picture of Color Reference Chart under the same light and then adjust colors in post processing. When working with light sources which follow Black-body radiation curve more or less closely, like Sun or incandescent bulb, selecting correct white balance setting maybe sufficient. But when working with light sources like LEDs, whose spectral energy distribution curve looks nothing like Black-body radiation curve, a separate measurement at many different points is required to represent colors correctly.

    jon_slider
    jon_slider's picture
    Offline
    Last seen: 3 hours 45 min ago
    Joined: 09/08/2015 - 12:20
    Posts: 2306
    Location: Crowdifornia
    Aggressor wrote:
    jon_slider wrote:
    Is there any doubt from the pics that the Low CRI is doing a worse job of rendering color?

    There is real doubt these pictures show colors how they were seen by the human eyes

    you did not answer the question and imo you are making things way too complicated and creating FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt), to discredit a test that clearly shows the difference in color rendering between low CRI and High CRI

    the comparison imo is totally valid, whatever discrepancy may exist to what the human eye sees is not relevant imo, the comparison clearly shows the difference between the two light sources..

    maybe post some of your own photos, instead of criticizing my contribution and calling the example invalid

    if you have a contribution to make to the original topic, please do so. Spare me your opinion about my contribution and just make your own contribution

    Aggressor
    Offline
    Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
    Joined: 07/23/2016 - 08:00
    Posts: 171
    jon_slider wrote:
    Aggressor wrote:
    jon_slider wrote:
    Is there any doubt from the pics that the Low CRI is doing a worse job of rendering color?

    There is real doubt these pictures show colors how they were seen by the human eyes

    you did not answer the question and imo you are making things way too complicated and creating FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt), to discredit a test that clearly shows the difference in color rendering between low CRI and High CRI

    the comparison imo is totally valid, whatever discrepancy may exist to what the human eye sees is not relevant imo, the comparison clearly shows the difference between the two light sources..

    maybe post some of your own photos, instead of criticizing my contribution and calling the example invalid

    if you have a contribution to make to the original topic, please do so. Spare me your opinion about my contribution and just make your own contribution

    Please don’t take this personally. I am not criticizing you or your contribution.

    I am just pointing out that “green” in the cards we all see in these pictures and dislike so much, might have been seen as perfect “yellow” to the human eyes when the picture was taken. Or perhaps some other color. These two pictures were taken under two different light sources and neither was color calibrated. There is nothing to compare.

    WalkIntoTheLight
    Offline
    Last seen: 9 hours 7 min ago
    Joined: 12/05/2015 - 10:26
    Posts: 1929
    Location: Canada

    I think those pictures likely show what the eye sees when it comes to color fidelity. Low CRI cool whites do make colors look false and washed out. High CRI warm whites really do make colors look more vibrant, especially reds, orange, and yellows.

    I’m not sure the green tint in the first picture is an accurate representation, though. In my experience, cameras really tend to over-emphasize the “ugly green” in Cree LEDs (both cool and neutral low-CRI tints). Cameras really do have a hard time getting the tint accurate in these cases, especially the balance between green and magenta.

    Aggressor
    Offline
    Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
    Joined: 07/23/2016 - 08:00
    Posts: 171

    The point is that CRI 100 at 2000K is very crappy light – a lot of colors are very poorly represented. While CRI 100 at 5000K is great light – all colors are represented properly. This subject is complex and poorly understood by many people. A lot of people here seem to think that CRI 100 means good color representation even at “warm” CCTs. It doesn’t.

    KeepingItLight
    KeepingItLight's picture
    Offline
    Last seen: 5 hours 58 sec ago
    Joined: 06/15/2015 - 14:52
    Posts: 652
    Location: California

    WalkIntoTheLight wrote:

    Unless you’re doing work that specifically requires you to accurately see all colors (such as an electrician), I wouldn’t get too hung up about 5000K temperatures.

    My interests are varied, but include photography. Most of the time, therefore, I have a strong preference for 5000K light sources over ones at 3500K. I have some interest in the 5000K Nitecore TIP CRI. I have no interest in the 3500K version.

    I am not a collector of flashlights. Since I do not wish to purchase a large number of flashlights, it is easy for me to limit my purchases (of small flashlights) to those with high CRI, CCT between, say, 4500K and 5500K, and neutral tint.

    That’s a relatively new policy for me, and it has served as a good brake for my PayPal account. Cash

    sidecross
    sidecross's picture
    Offline
    Last seen: 2 years 3 months ago
    Joined: 10/31/2015 - 18:55
    Posts: 711
    Location: North America

    KeepingItLight wrote:

    My interests are varied, but include photography. Most of the time, therefore, I have a strong preference for 5000K light sources over ones at 3500K. I have some interest in the 5000K Nitecore TIP CRI. I have no interest in the 3500K version.

    I am not a collector of flashlights. Since I do not wish to purchase a large number of flashlights, it is easy for me to limit my purchases (of small flashlights) to those with high CRI, CCT between, say, 4500K and 5500K, and neutral tint.

    That’s a relatively new policy for me, and it has served as a good brake for my PayPal account. Cash


    +1

    I follow the same principle in trying to keep my possessions to a minimum. Smile

    “You must have a plan, if you don’t have a plan, you will become part of someone else’s plan.” Terence McKenna

    teacher
    teacher's picture
    Offline
    Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
    Joined: 02/23/2016 - 19:04
    Posts: 9596
    Location: NE & SW Alabama

    [Pictures posted by jon_slider] Pictures are from a Nitecore Tip and Nitecore TipCRI

    Nitecore Tip / Low CRI 6000K

    Nitecore TipCRI / High CRI 3500K

    Aggressor wrote:
    What was White Balance camera setting when you took these pictures? It is very difficult to make color accurate photographs under such light sources, i.e. make the photograph show the same colors you saw with your eyes.

    jon_slider wrote:
    I dont know, not my pics, I assume they are from an auto white balance cell phone
    you could ask the OP here*2016*-New-Nitecore-TIP&p=4961842&viewfull=1#post4961842
    in my limited experience, auto white balance works well enough to show the difference between the two beams, particularly when you have all the colored items to compare in the photo.

    Is there any doubt from the pics that the Low CRI is doing a worse job of rendering color?

    Aggressor wrote:
    There is real doubt these pictures show colors how they were seen by the human eyes. Just a note, setting “correct” white balance in camera under such irregular light sources as LEDs is not enough either. One needs to take a picture of Color Reference Chart under the same light and then adjust colors in post processing. When working with light sources which follow Black-body radiation curve more or less closely, like Sun or incandescent bulb, selecting correct white balance setting maybe sufficient. But when working with light sources like LEDs, whose spectral energy distribution curve looks nothing like Black-body radiation curve, a separate measurement at many different points is required to represent colors correctly.

    Aggressor wrote:
    I am just pointing out that “green” in the cards we all see in these pictures and dislike so much, might have been seen as perfect “yellow” to the human eyes when the picture was taken. Or perhaps some other color. These two pictures were taken under two different light sources and neither was color calibrated. There is nothing to compare.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I am trying to understand this, so I have a question or two.

    jon_slider posted two pictures, each lit by a different tint. I can see that by looking at the pictures & (in addition he told us).

    Aggressor, are you saying the colors we see in the pictures now may not have been the same as the colors our eyes would have actually seen the moment the pictures were taken??

    And this could be adjusted, in a way the pictures would accurately represent what our eyes actually see at the moment the picture is taken; by setting ‘White Balance’ & adjusting colors with the Color Reference Chart???

    Am I anywhere close to semi-understanding this or am I still wandering around in “left field” lost??? Wink

    Thanks in advance………. Thumbs Up

    You never know how a horse will pull until you hook him up to a heavy load./"Bear" Bryant 

     .................................. "Slow is Smooth, Smooth is Fast" ...................................

           Texas Lumens Flashlights / M4D M4X Deals : sign up - save $$$$  

             Rudeness Level _ mΩ _ {width:70%} _ LightWiki _ LED Tint Chart  

          Xlamp size chart _ BatteryU _ Flashaholic? Need Professional Help???            TheOriginal _ TAB _ LightSearch _ BatterySearch _ 14500's _ DiCal 

     

                                                 

    sidecross
    sidecross's picture
    Offline
    Last seen: 2 years 3 months ago
    Joined: 10/31/2015 - 18:55
    Posts: 711
    Location: North America

    teacher

    Everything including time is relative; there is no absolute.

    Even if all cameras were calibrated and too the monitor you are viewing the pictures, there is no way to be certain that your viewing, done by your eyes and nervous system, would be an exact copy of anyone else.

    For most purposes ‘close enough’ is usually sufficient for making a decision on tints. Smile

    “You must have a plan, if you don’t have a plan, you will become part of someone else’s plan.” Terence McKenna

    Aggressor
    Offline
    Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
    Joined: 07/23/2016 - 08:00
    Posts: 171

    teacher wrote:
    Aggressor, are you saying the colors we see in the pictures now may not have been the same as the colors our eyes would have actually seen the moment the pictures were taken??

    And this could be adjusted, in a way the pictures would accurately represent what our eyes actually see at the moment the picture is taken; by setting ‘White Balance’ & adjusting colors with the Color Reference Chart???

    Am I anywhere close to semi-understanding this or am I still wandering around in “left field” lost??? Wink

    Thanks in advance………. Thumbs Up

    Yes, that’s exactly right.

    Except that simply adjusting white balance would have been good enough for light sources like Sun and incandescent bulb, while for light sources like LED using Color Reference Chart is required to get correct colors.

    teacher
    teacher's picture
    Offline
    Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
    Joined: 02/23/2016 - 19:04
    Posts: 9596
    Location: NE & SW Alabama

    Aggressor wrote:
    teacher wrote:
    Aggressor, are you saying the colors we see in the pictures now may not have been the same as the colors our eyes would have actually seen the moment the pictures were taken??

    And this could be adjusted, in a way the pictures would accurately represent what our eyes actually see at the moment the picture is taken; by setting ‘White Balance’ & adjusting colors with the Color Reference Chart???

    Am I anywhere close to semi-understanding this or am I still wandering around in “left field” lost??? Wink

    Thanks in advance………. Thumbs Up

    Yes, that’s exactly right.

    Except that simply adjusting white balance would have been good enough for light sources like Sun and incandescent bulb, while for light sources like LED using Color Reference Chart is required to get correct colors.


    OK, thank you Aggressor; I am beginning to understand what you are saying then. Thumbs Up
    I appreciate your reasoning & explanations.
    I have moved in from “wandering around lost in deep left field” to just semi-confused in shallow left. Smile

    You never know how a horse will pull until you hook him up to a heavy load./"Bear" Bryant 

     .................................. "Slow is Smooth, Smooth is Fast" ...................................

           Texas Lumens Flashlights / M4D M4X Deals : sign up - save $$$$  

             Rudeness Level _ mΩ _ {width:70%} _ LightWiki _ LED Tint Chart  

          Xlamp size chart _ BatteryU _ Flashaholic? Need Professional Help???            TheOriginal _ TAB _ LightSearch _ BatterySearch _ 14500's _ DiCal 

     

                                                 

    Pages