Absolutely, but it’s not about the level of light it’s about how we react differently to red light. You can have high levels of red and your pupils remain dilated and maintain night vision. It doesn’t take much green or blue to ruin night vision. The argument seems to be low level white vs higher levels of red. For me indoors at night low level 2700k, outdoors it’s red. I can see stars, light pollution and the moonlight like never before.
The level of light does have a direct influence on night vision, regardless of color. If a green light is used at the same intensity as red, then red is by far a better choice. What I am saying is that you can use a significantly lower level of green to achieve the same nocturnal clarity as a higher level of red. With this lower level of green, your eyes will adjust faster to night vision than the higher level of red needed to compensate for the lack of sensitivity in red.
Check the article below, I found it quite helpful in trying to answer the same question.
”
With mesopic vision, at minimum illumination levels, you will see a slightly greenish tinge of color from white or green objects, every thing else will look gray or black. Remember: If you can see color, then your night vision has been compromised! Since a much greater intensity of red (than green) light is required to see, you are compromising your night vision to a greater degree when using red.
”
source:
http://www.astromax.org/activities/members/kniffen.htm
Here’s a quote from a scientific peer reviewed .edu source. Red very much helps preserve night vision.
“Because the rods are less sensitive to red light, using a red flashlight helps to preserve night vision. ”
Here’s another regarding the effects of short-wavelength blue light.
“Blue light, especially at night, can cause more eyestrain and fatigue then other types of light and can cause halos around objects, because short wavelength light makes it harder for the eye to focus. Just as blue light scatters in our atmosphere, it scatters in our eyes as well, impairing night vision. ”
The popular XP-L HI 3D would be a poor choice for preserving night vision. The strong blue spike which you can see in the spectral power chart in the upper left, would also make it generate disproportionate levels of offensive glare to those around you who happened to be looking at it. The 2000K E21A ,on the other hand, would be a very sound choice if white light was still insisted upon. This would be because of its pronounced red content and suppressed blue/cyan. There you can see almost no blue spike.
I agree with you 100%. In real life practical terms where most are using an intensity of light high enough to suppress night vision, much better to go with a warmer CCT like that of the 2000K E21A. The minimal blue/cyan will also avoid interference with melatonin suppression. I do suspect that a 2000K led might still be visible by animals and insects.
That’s really interesting about your experience with dark adaptation with red vs very low white light. I keep seeing people post rebuttals against using red light for dark adaptation. I wonder if it’s across the board or person to person variation.
I personally use either red or 2000K (e21a) at night so it doesn’t jack up my sleep. I usually tend to use the 2000K light since I can see better and it doesn’t have a blue spike like most LEDs. I can blast the 2000K and not have any sleep issues… whereas something like the nichia sw45k (massive blue spike) will screw with my sleep for hours.
My experience testing red light versus sub-lumen white is that levels of white that allow me to perform tasks tend to be lower enough than levels of red suitable for the same tasks that it has less impact on my dark adaptation.
There are situations where that’s not the case, like viewing objects with very high contrast (e.g. black text on a white page) or instrument backlighting.
I think something that hasn’t been emphasized enough so far is luminous flux, as opposed to electrical or optical power. The lumen, and its derived units, lux and candela is calibrated to human visual sensitivity. 1 lumen of red light is much more radiant power than 1 lumen of green light. Much of the accumulated wisdom (not necessarily more robust scientific data) comes from decades of experience sticking filters on incandescent lights without dimming capabilities.
As an example, the Lee 106 primary red filter intended for entertainment lighting transmits 12.8% of the light from a 3200K tungsten-halogen incandescent source. I’m not actually sure if the transmission listed is luminous or radiant; if it’s radiant, the reduction in visible light is even greater.
Of course it’s no surprise to anybody that blocking most of the output of a light source mitigates its impact on dark adaptation and reduces its visibility to a faraway observer.
What would be interesting is a test involving extremely low-output light sources with very precise regulation in which subjects are given time to become dark-adapted, then gradually increase the brightness of their light source until they’re able to successfully perform some task, followed by a test of their dark adaptation.
I have some Osram 657nm “hyper red” emitters, when my eyes are dark adapted I can look directly at them (even on high), and it doesn’t reset my adaptation like a normal light would.
Based on that I’d say there’s some truth to it, OTOH you have no idea what any color is so if that matters at all then red isn’t a great choice.
If your goal is to just not trip over something then red is great. IF IT KEEPS THE BUGS AWAY THEN EVEN BETTER!
Why?
etc.
I put a 660nm LH351H in a Tool AA for a friend to use as a costume prop, but it didn’t occur to me to try staring directly into it. I have another, but no appropriate unused lights to stick it in.
Maybe I should offer it to people who do instrumented tests. maukka? djozz?
Well my gosh, you can grossly overpay for a red LED to treat oral herpes cold sores!
The Luminance RED Cold Sore Treatment Device
$349.00
I’ve always liked red light. Whatever the science, it always feels easier on my eyes. It doesn’t spark wakefulness either. I’ve used it for a lot of night activities, including not wanting to wake others while camping, caring for small children, etc. Going back to the last century, my favorite night lights around the house were high-quality 25W red incandescent bulbs. Unfortunately, those have gotten harder to find. I went without until finding some decent red LED night lights here and I had almost forgotten how much I love it around the house at night.
Deep red is even better. Sure, I might not be able to see the full output but I love what I can see. It’s pretty and almost magical. If it’s also good for my vision, even better. That little Sofirn has left me wanting it with more power. I’d love to see deep red choices in either 18650 or 21700 from Convoy, especially with the mode freedom of Biscotti.
People using red light ,because they newer had a flashlight with moonlight. 
thanks for the link it says:
“It has a stated power of 110mW/cm2 (milliwatts / cm squared) and a wavelength of 660 nm (nanometers). A 90 second treatment session delivers 10.0J of energy (a clinically proven, effective dose). ”
Im glad to see confirmation that the 660nm Red for 1.5 minutes speeds up healing of surface wounds…
can somebody translate the 110mW/cm2 to lumens?
or convert the output of the Sofirn C01R to mW/cm2?
Interesting thread, I think it’s one of those subjective things.
I’m not really a fan of my CO1R, I don’t get any of the positive feelings that are described here, I find it quite harsh and makes me feel uneasy, a bit like 2001 Space oddessy scenes lit in red…
Definitely prefer warmer tints, 5000k to 4500k to 4000k and lanterns at 2700k with me wondering what even warmer would be like 
Timeframe is early 20’s to early 30s, so I don’t think I can put it down to age
I feel the same way about using Red light for looking At things…
dont like it at all
otoh, I use red light on sore muscles and pimples. I like that the inflammation and pain go away more quickly when I use Red Light Therapy.
Here is a picture of a red emitting T6 flashlight mounted on the rear frame of a recumbent trike using a “360 degree flashlight holder” designed specifically for 18650 powered flashlights. This one has both a steady and flashing light with an output of about 800 lumens. The advantage over a bike store light is obvious. You can switch batteries in an instant. You select the battery instead of not knowing what the manufacturer used. It’s way cheaper than any 800 lumen bike light. The flashlight was $12, the flashlight holder currently priced at about $3, and a Panasonic 3,400 mAh battery about $6. Most commercial bike lights don’t allow you to change the batteries and if they do, the OEM batteries are way overpriced.
It does have stock optic, but ceiling bounced, the effect is even more uncomfortable, perhaps it’s just the nature of (almost) mono-chromatic light that I don’t like, I should order some other wavelengths to test 
I tend to use green light at night more nowadays. Seems I can read better under green light.
Green also allows for differentiation between colors that red does not and the magenta used on aviation charts, for example, is readily readable under green light, not always the case with red.
For spooky night walk 
For many years, BMW favored red lighting for illumination of car interiors—instrument cluster and various other control indicators for environment, stereo, accessories, etc. And there was a good reason why—they took a cue from the military. At first glance, sitting at night in a car bathed in red, it seems too much. But then, the eyes soon adjust. Red light IS easier on the eyes. And really, the best moonlight tint is red if you want to see without ruining your night vision or disturbing others. One just has to “get over” the premise of favoring white light.
And now, there’s studies showing that there are some inherent health benefits in utilizing red light. Huge topic in of itself.