Exactly. There is no correct and same answer for all people. Just like a whole lot of other things in life, the answer depends upon many variables.
I have made the journey from “I must have the absolute most number of lumens possible and the color/CRO does not matter” to where I do look at the CRI and what the intended use is. I have a few very bright, low CRI lights that fulfill certain uses. Most of the lights I use frequently have high to very high CRI and I can see the difference. Seeing, or appreciating that difference, took some time to develop to where I gave it some serious thought.
“Different strokes for different folks” as we used to quip back in the 60’s. :laughing:
Walking in the forest was where I first really noticed how much better I liked the illumination qualities of my then-new high CRI light compared to the max lumens lights I had been using.
I used to be all about efficiency. But then I had a hike where a poor CRI made it hard for me to distinguish the details of the trail under my feet. This was slightly dangerous and made me much slower. And required my full attention to tread carefully.
Since then, I think that flashlights shall have high enough colour rendition. But so far I failed to determine what exactly is high enough.
Also, world in high CRI and below BBL just looks better. I like to live in a good looking world.
more Full Spectrum Quality, top pic with High CRI
more Lumen Quantity, bottom pic with Low CRI
if you just want to know if the pan is boiling over, a green light would suffice, and would use less battery power
since I use rechargeable batteries, runtime is not a priority for me. My priority is Spectrum Quality. I use my flashlights to illuminate things with Red in them.
Also, choosing a low CRI light over a high CRI light for walking around the woods at night is kind of like choosing to eat spaghetti with just a spoon. You may not realize it, but you’re just making more work for your eyes.
I dealt with Pantone color printing using high-end CYMK printing devices in my career.
People often didn't calibrate their (RGB) monitors; it's time consuming and the equipment is somewhat expensive. Then they whined about "the print doesn't match my monitor". Well... duh! This, under low CRI, cool white fluorescent lighting no less. Walk them outside into daylight & see how the colors on the same print change; the look on their faces was priceless.
I find low CRI/cool white acceptable for long distance throwers. I prefer warm-ish high CRI on my floody lights for closer use and will happily pay extra for it.
Low cri and cool LEDs are useless even harmful. They should be restricted by law. Proper search lights should be warm for better fog and dust penetration
I’d say lower CRI reduces the contrast, it also flattens the perspective. There are no upsides of low CRI high CCT light, it should be used for decorational purposes only.
I know this is only anecdotal, but when I walk the wooded paths or the dirt and gravel roads around us I found that the lights with the higher CRI leds seemed to make discerning objects off in the dark easier. Plus the foliage appeared more realistic. Much of what is said about the subject of CRI centers around red, the R9. But I first noticed that the greens of the grasses, leafy planys as well as the evergreens were easier to differentiate with 90+ CRI.
Inside our home the woodwork, the wood doors and trim, the cabinetry, etc. all reveal their true colors under 90+ CRI lighting. I must admit that it takes more effort for me to discern the differences between my 90 CRI flashlights and the couple I have with 98+ Optisolis leds. But the difference is there, though not as important.
I don’t even like the lower CRI cold, flourescent lighting in the barn any more. The tractor was not the right (correct) color at night.
Most of those are now 80+ CRI led’s now. Cost can be a factor.
