Lighting - new laws about bulbs, etc

Create a Post
cjmst3k

cjmst3k

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Posts
4,414
I'm researching a move, and lighting is something of concern. We successfully sell expensive fine are, and have found the best lighting to be either those large 100 watt "flood light" type bulbs (with the soft diffused glass), or the smaller GU-10 smaller track lighting bulbs. I believe those may be outlawed or impossible to find in the near future... so, what's the alternative that doesn't involve fluorescent bulbs? ...those fluorescent we tried a few a couple of years ago, and they just looked horrible, and made an inviting landscape look purple instead.

Anyway - anyone know much about this, and find a bulb type which is extremely good for high end art, or should I stock up on 1,000 flood bulbs now?
 
Haven't heard anything about that.

But when my wife had her gallery we had great results from 35 watt PAR20 spotlights.

They have the standard old fashioned screw-in bases. They are smaller than the standard mushroom bulbs, so that when you place them in existing hooded light fixtures there is still plenty of room for air circulation. They were lasting several times longer than the wider angled 75 watt mushroom bulbs they replaced.

The fact that they were spots meant there was just as much light in the area they illuminated as with higher wattage floods, and the overall effect on the wall was notably more dramatic in terms of contrast between light and dark areas. The spot effect avoided illuminating the walls between the pieces so much, all the light went on the art.

The ones we liked the best were Sylvania "Capsylite" spot bulbs. Have very good color temperature, none of the ugly green cast you so often see from GU-10's, and none of the kind of rainbow fringes on the edges of the illuminated area that is common with most small bulbs like MR-16's etc.

Our local lighting companies didn't want to carry them. These guys seem to have them...

http://usalight.com/par-20-halogen-bulbs-name-brand.html?options=cart

edit, yeah those fluorescents are UGLY! I tried all kinds of so-called "daylight" and "high CRI" fluorescent bulbs and they are universally depressing. I sometimes do art fairs with rigorously limited wattage allocations, in which case I found my art looked best with the down&dirty yellowish bulbs from Lowes, HD, Walgreens, etc. But nothing does more for art than good old tungsten.
 
cjmst3k said:
I'm researching a move, and lighting is something of concern. We successfully sell expensive fine are, and have found the best lighting to be either those large 100 watt "flood light" type bulbs (with the soft diffused glass), or the smaller GU-10 smaller track lighting bulbs. I believe those may be outlawed or impossible to find in the near future...
Click to expand...

The only thing that is being phased out are INCANDESCENT lightbulbs. The shape of the bulb has nothing to do with it - it is the source of light that is a consideration.

There have been some excellent threads on this subject in the past month and a class at the WCAF. There is also an article on the PFM website that is a great resource.

http://www.thegrumble.com/showthread.php?54197-Please-splain-to-me...&highlight=lighting

Those "large 100 watt "flood light type bulbs" are most likely a PAR 38 or an R 40.

PAR stands for parabolic aluminum reflector. The "38" stands for the width of the bulb. All bulbs are measured in 1/8" increments so a PAR 38 is 4.75" across. A PAR 30 is 3.75" and a PAR 20 is 2.5"

The "R" designation is for a "reflector" type lamp. It puts out a softer beam than a PAR. the "40" designation means they are 5" across. R type bulbs are also available in other diameters just as the PAR bulbs are.

Nothing so far represents the type of light output or the energy consumed.

For those "large 100 watt "flood light type bulbs" - a more energy efficient lamp would be a 90 watt PAR 38 CAPSYLITE® that uses HALOGEN gas. At the lighting class, we demonstrated dozens of bulbs. This lamp (a halogen light source) puts out the most pleasing light for viewing artwork and meets all the standards for the new laws taking effect nationwide in 2012 and that have already started in California in 2011. There are also halogen R lamps - I use all halogen R lamps in my home for downlights and general illumination as the output is softer and less concentrated than a PAR lamp. I use PAR 38's in my gallery as they are more efficient in the ability to concentrate the light on a given area.

The height of my tracks are 12 feet from the ground. R type lamps would be a waste as the beam is too diffuse to provide a concentrated beam of light over the distance projected. If your ceiling height is closer, an R type light may be more pleasing, but a R 40 requires a larger fixture and the scale may be out of proportion for the space. (In the class, we showed lots of pictures of galleries using a light source that was inappropriate for the space being lit).

More efficient still are LED replacements that fit the PAR 38, 30, and 20 type fixtures (or R). The light output per lamp is still not as bright as the PAR type lamps and you need to be very specific about the color temperature of the LED (they can be very cold and blue/white which is not appropriate for showing art or designing framing.) We also demonstrated some new CFL (compact fluorescent) replacements that would change the opinion of the naysayers re: the appropriateness of CFL lamps. These looked REALLY good although again, they were not as "bright" on a lamp by lamp basis.

A GU-10 only refers to the two pin method of attachment at the base of a MR-16 lamp, and also indicates that the lamp operates at 110 volts and not at a stepped down 12 volts as most MR-16 lamps do. Again, the MR-16 uses halogen gas and is not an incandescent lamp so they also are not affected by the phase out. The drawback of a GU-10 base is that currently, bulbs with that kind of base do not come in the wide variety of beam spreads and wattages that standard MR-16 lamps do, so you are limited to "general" illumination. There are LED-GU10 replacements, though the light output of all MR-16 LED replacements that we demonstrated were really only appropriate for highlighting and just aren't there yet for general lighting.

A term that we all need to start using is LUMEN output. That is the true measure of how bright a bulb is. Wattage (meaning that many would think that a 100 watt bulb is "brighter" than a 90 watt bulb) is only an indication of the energy consumed to make the light work. What you need to look for is the ratio of the light output measured in Lumens compared to the Wattage used to produce the light. That is how one determines the efficiency of the bulb. A bulb that produces 700 Lumens at 60 watts is more efficient that another that produces 560 or 600 Lumens at 60 watts. A store like Home Depot will have 4 or 5 of the SAME SHAPE bulbs side by side. Looking at the labels will help determine which ones are more efficient.

Also, if you buy/use a bulb rated at 130 volts on a 110 volt line, it is true that is WILL last significantly longer....but it will burn dimmer that the same lamp rated for 120 volts and the CRI (color rendering) of the lamp will be "yellower" and not as white as the 120 volt lamp. I am not suggesting that this "cost savings" measure (for increased bulb life) is not a good idea, I just want people to know there are trade offs for doing so.
 
Chris, take a look at new "warm" or "soft" white CFL floods that fit your fixtures. My gallery had a second floor office and jarred the light fixtures with every step. If a halogen lasted 6 months, I was lucky plus it kept the shop rocket hot as the gallery was lit 24/7.

I started swapping them out with warm white cfls and rarely noted a difference in color compared to the halogens. Sometimes the brand new lamps were particularly white/blue but warmed up within a few days.

I think the bright white or "day light" florescent are a horrible color. My friend built a dream home and asked some pinhead electrician what kind of lights to use. He suggested the daylight cfls recalling some jibber jabber about "purest white for color perception"..... It made the careful selection of paint, counter tops, carpet, wood floors, paintings, furniture etc. completely pointless. It all looked bright bluish green and void of all warm colors. I think they got used to the color but it gave me a migraine.

No doubt his home looked much like you describe. I'll bet you would be satisfied with a warmer cfl.

Good luck.
 
Ive heard this both ways. scam... and then not a scam... just to sell more normal light bulbs...

i have warm CFL in all my light fixtures.. they aren't the prettiest things, but they do the job and no one really cares.

at HD they are the cfl's in the green packaging. 4 for 3 bucks sometimes.
 
Puppiesonacid said:
Ive heard this both ways. scam... and then not a scam... just to sell more normal light bulbs...
Click to expand...

Please explain? What is the "scam" part?

In reality, an incandescent light bulb is terribly inefficient. 95% of the energy used to create "light" is wasted as heat. The "banning" of incandescent lamps does not tell you what you have to use, it only says that incandescent lamps can no longer be sold after a certain date (and therefore the manufacturers will no longer make them for US distribution).

I am also not convinced that "no one really cares anyway" is good advice. In fact, having the incorrect lighting particularly in a design area can make/break sales and could result in customer returns because "it just doesn't look that way in my house." Color Rendering IS important and I would urge others to give it careful consideration when choosing the lighting for your businesses. If you were in the lighting class, there were OBVIOUS differences between the light bulbs demonstrated and we showed the light against a variety of mat and FABRIC choices. It was very interesting how different the same colors looked under different lighting conditions.

In addition, people SHOULD CARE re: compact fluorescents because they contain mercury and SHOULD NOT BE THROWN IN THE TRASH. Unfortunately, people go the way of least resistance and I predict that the next generation will face newspaper (or whatever news dissemination method is popular then) headlines that the water tables have become polluted with mercury due to disposal of CFL's by an uncaring public. In addition, CFLs do put out a significantly greater amount of UV which may cause a spike in cancers in the future. YOU SHOULD CARE.

We also had a great chance to see two stores at the Hilton using LED lighting side by side - one using 100% "white"LEDS and the other using "warm white". The store using white LEDS sold only silver jewelry. The store using the warm white sold photographic images. BIG differences between the two and yes, "people cared."

In reality, there are BETTER alternatives to the incandescent lamp that are also more energy efficient. Halogen, CFL, and LED (which in the two years between lighting classes at the WCAF have made HUGE improvements.)

We never even touched on the "A" type light bulb, which is what people normally think of when you say "light bulb." I am so sick of ignorant radio talk show hosts (and their call in guests) telling everyone how the "curlicue" compact fluorescent lamps are so bad....yada yada..when no one is saying that they are the ONLY alternative. In fact, Halogen "A" type lamps are also available and put out a prettier quality of light and are also more efficient. The new "eco"-A LED lamps are also an excellent alternative.

In the future, however we may need to adjust our thinking as to what "lighting" looks like. The major and newer stores will take the lead and then the new "look" will become more commonplace.

How many of you have been to Europe? They have been way ahead of the curve for a long time - and I know that there are many stores that have "ambient" lighting that is on all the time and "accent" lighting that is turned on when customers come into a store or walk into specific sections of a store and are "demand sensitive." We do that in our gallery today - most of the lighting is not switched on unless a customer comes into the store.
 
Rob Markoff said:
Please explain? What is the "scam" part?
Click to expand...

One day I heard that they are not really getting rid of the old lights, but it was a scam to sell more of them since the cfls are taking over...

I really don't know one way or the other

CFL's are bad for the enviroment... and your store if you break one... which i have had a few cause of stupidity on my part... and... they give my wife headaches if they are not placed right... meaning the refresh rate is not good enough... and not good for us really as humans... some can just take things better than others.

she got a migrane because of sitting under one one day. she made me buy well over 200 regular light bulbs incase they do go out of production.

other than they work and save electric.
 
JFeig said:
What about those picture lights replacement bulbs - also for aquariums.
Click to expand...

those are bad too... my ceilings are 11 feet here, so they are far enough away so they dont' bug my wife so much... but... if she sits down and faces one... it does bug her a lot.

i have all bad lights here for her. the lights don't bother me, but saves a lot in electric :)
 
Puppiesonacid said:
those are bad too... my ceilings are 11 feet here, so they are far enough away so they dont' bug my wife so much... but... if she sits down and faces one... it does bug her a lot.

i have all bad lights here for her. the lights don't bother me, but saves a lot in electric :)
Click to expand...

There is a "flicker" rate for some, inexpensive CFLs that do make some people dizzy or give headaches. Buy cheap, get cheap. FEIT brand lamps from Home Dept are cheap.
Lamps from someone like CR Crane are not but work better. Another great source is Outwater Plastics.

Also, are you relamping with an bulb designed to work with the fixture? A curlicue type CFL will fit into a fixture designed to hold an R or PAR lamp (the bases are the same and they will screw in and light up) but the light output is wasted as it is not properly directed and the lamp glass is not shielded or diffused which can also cause eye fatigue and headaches.

Before you discount all CFLS as being terrible, I would suggest looking at some of the better brands.

Yes, they will "cost" more, but less than the effects of a spouse having a migraine, especially at night before bed :).
 
Rob Markoff said:
There is a "flicker" rate for some, inexpensive CFLs that do make some people dizzy or give headaches. Buy cheap, get cheap. FEIT brand lamps from Home Dept are cheap. Lamps from someone like CR Crane are not but work better. Another great source is Outwater Plastics.

Before you discount all CFLS as being terrible, I would suggest looking at some of the better brands.

Yes, they will "cost" more, but less than the effects of a spouse having a migraine, especially at night before bed :).
Click to expand...

interesting. i just figured most lights were expensive cause they were... not cause they might be better... Like GE CFL's are like 8 dollars each... but, i do have some of those in my basement, and they have been there for 8 years, and not one has burned out... but if my wife sits behind one again that was near the tv, her head starts to hurt still... ugh... she only works here saturdays, so its not every day she is here.
 
The cheap CFL's have a high failure rate also. Upgrading just a buck or two per lamp will greatly increase the quality of the lamp. The cheapest one's not only fail and flicker but also take a full second or two to ignite.

Also the home improvement stores will take them back. I have only cfl's in my home (except on dimmers) and kept a few packages and receipts in a shopping bag under the sink. If I collect one package's worth during the warranty, then back to the store they go.

Regardless of what type of lamp you choose, I'd be thrilled if the whole world strikes the word "bulb" from it's vocabulary. It's a "lamp". My wife calls it a bulb on purpose to jab at me. The joke is on her because its scientifically impossible to say the word "bulb" and sound intelligent.
 
Puppiesonacid said:
but if my wife sits behind one again that was near the tv, her head starts to hurt still...
Click to expand...

OK - exactly what I was talking about. There is a "refresh" rate on a TV screen. It is not a static or continuous picture. Try taking a digital photo of your TV screen or a video and play it back. You will eventually capture a black/dark "bar" across the screen - which cannot be "processed" visually (be seen) by your eye but is there. The "flicker" of an inexpensive CFL relates to the cycles per second of AC power and may not be in sync with the flicker rate of the the TV (or computer screen) - which is imperceptible visually but processed by the brain causing eye fatigue and/or headaches.

Incidentally, there was a problem with some Halogen Capsylites made by one company some time ago that caused them to flicker as well (due to a diode problem) - it made the surface of our design counter appear to pulsate and drove us nuts! All is good now and we have not had the problem for some time.

Yes, Jay I agree completely re: bulb vs lamp, but every-time I use the word "lamp" to a novice crowd, they keep thinking I am referring to a "fixture" and not the "bulb."

Does this mean I am not the brightest bulb in the knife drawer?
 
Jay H said:
The cheap CFL's have a high failure rate also. Upgrading just a buck or two per lamp will greatly increase the quality of the lamp. The cheapest one's not only fail and flicker but also take a full second or two to ignite.

Also the home improvement stores will take them back. I have only cfl's in my home (except on dimmers) and kept a few packages and receipts in a shopping bag under the sink. If I collect one package's worth during the warranty, then back to the store they go.

Regardless of what type of lamp you choose, I'd be thrilled if the whole world strikes the word "bulb" from it's vocabulary. It's a "lamp". My wife calls it a bulb on purpose to jab at me. The joke is on her because its scientifically impossible to say the word "bulb" and sound intelligent.
Click to expand...

ok, when these cheapies burn out.. i will try some better ones... i do notice they take a bit to kick in fully, but it also takes a while for a customer to come in :)

BULB BULB BULB... LOL does sound funny now that you mention it.
 
Rob Markoff said:
There is a "refresh" rate on a TV screen. It is not a static or continuous picture.
Click to expand...

Long long ago in a galaxy far far away.

The old CRT type TV and computer monitors worked that way.

LCD and Plasma does not.

The image you see is a static image.

Today, the 'refresh rate' is how often the LCD or Plasma is able to make a change.
 
Hey Jerry. I had my Nikon sitting at arms reach. I shot a few dozen pics of my lcd tv at 200th of a second. All looked like what my eye sees.
 
Jerry Ervin said:
Long long ago in a galaxy far far away.

The old CRT type TV and computer monitors worked that way.

LCD and Plasma does not.

The image you see is a static image.

Today, the 'refresh rate' is how often the LCD or Plasma is able to make a change.
Click to expand...


Well, some of us are still using "old" technology for our computer screens and TV and newer technology for our lighting :)- but there is a correlation between the flicker rate of a CFL and the image on a newer LCD computer screen, especially when there is motion.
 
Jay H said:
Hey Jerry. I had my Nikon sitting at arms reach. I shot a few dozen pics of my lcd tv at 200th of a second. All looked like what my eye sees.
Click to expand...

Didn't mean to refer for LCD and Plasma but-

Try some slower shutter speeds. On a regular TV needs to be less than 24 cycles per second.
 
Hi Rob, sorry I missed your lighting booth at WCAF, it was near the top of the list and I ran out of time.

So what is the best non-tungsten alternative for lighting framed pieces on the wall in a gallery?

I have so far been very disappointed by the CFL and LED "gallery lights" I have seen. The CFL spots just aren't spotty enough for my tastes, it's impossible to get anything like the dramatic effect of hard-edged tungsten spots. But maybe I could learn to live with that.

However, coming at this from a photographer's point of view, the CFL and LED lights I have seen seem very "spikey" in their color response. I see certain colors turn almost dayglow, while others simply die. It's not a pretty picture to my self-invested eyes. The LED's are even worse, I almost withdrew a show from a gallery until they agreed to change their hi-tech LED lights to tungsten.

But maybe I have not seen the best CFL and LED lights!

I know for instance that the Philips F32 "50D" fluorescent tubes in some of the lighting troffers here are an excellent reference light for color prints. Maybe that's because they are reflecting off an off-white ceiling. So I know it can be done. But I have yet to see a compact fluorescent or LED light that has the same quality as the D50's or tungsten.
 
We're off topic. Sorry. I tried at 40th, 60th, and 80th. They all looked the same. I'm not sure what i"m looking for but there is no 1/2 black screen or black bar like a tube tv.
 
Now if any of you watch any older movies or tv shows where they have the old type monitors in the backround. you do notice a line going from top to bottom moving the whole time the tv camera is on it.

i know what you are talking about.
 
Jay- it won't work with LCD or Plasma - only CRT- BUT-

Jerry- help me out here-

A Plasma screen gets its colors from rapidly brightening and dimming the red, blue and green colors within a pixel which ignite the phosphors in the plasma gas.

An LCD screen gets it colors by electronically turning on and off a polarizing element so the red, blue or green colors within a pixel reflect the backlight shining through the crystal.

All of this happens REALLY fast, but the reality is that there is "motion" within the pixels that "pulsates" light and it may be at a different rate than the pulsations of a CFL lamp - thereby causing eye fatigue or headaches.

As a side note, Wizard was sharing the classroom with us at the WCAF and we were setting up at the same time. They were asking me about difficulties with some digital cameras used for visualization software/programs having trouble with "flicker" when the cameras were combined with a CFL light source that DID NOT happen when switched to an LED light source. So there is a correlation........

And, since both CFLs and Plasma and LCD's are temperature sensitive (ever notice how fluorescent lamps flicker more in cold/startup temperatures?) there also may be a correlation between the warm up rates and "flicker" of the two.
 
Flicker shouldn't be a problem with vis software - ever.

When I shoot in a gym or ice arena, the light flicker is a huge problem. Since hockey moves so darn fast I use the fastest shutter speed I can tolerate, usually about 200th/sec or faster. I pull the shutter and the camera fires off a dozen frames. Some frames will be lit perfectly and some dark because lights flickering that your eye doesn't notice.

But in a frame shop, you would want to shoot with a high aperture and lowest ISO for maximum sharpness. This would greatly slow the shutter speed eliminating the flicker problem no matter how bad it is.

I'm not totally sure about this but I believe the flicker rate should consistent based on the 60htz ac power. It may be more exaggerated in cold. Again that's just a guess. LEDs typically use power converted to DC or a faux DC eliminating the flicker completely or mostly respectively. They can run on AC but will flicker from completely lit to completely dark 60 times a second. Incandescent lamps are also subjected to this but the slow hot filament "absorbs" the flicker as it can't go from lit to dark quickly.
 
more_so said:
So what is the best non-tungsten alternative for lighting framed pieces on the wall in a gallery?
Click to expand...

Tungsten is your friend.....:)

It is not the filament (tungsten) that is the "problem" but the gas and envelope that an standard "incandescent" lamp uses. Not to get into a "pull down the chart and get out the pointer lecture" on how a halogen lamp works, but a halogen lamp is more efficient because the metal is redeposited to the filament and is reburned instead of depositing on the glass and darkening the lamp's output.

The best "alternative" to an incandescent (today - in my mind) is still a halogen light source. Though the new LEDS from Outwater Plastics are really so much better than what I had to demo two years ago.

But, be sure to sit down when looking at prices. A good quality LED PAR 38 will cost about $56-65 EACH - though the payback is about 14 months in energy savings.
 
In regard to older tvs taking longer to warm up: could be because when you shut them off they actually went "off". The new TVs go in to standby mode so that they are always on.

Off topic but isn't it ironic that we as a country are worried about the minor amount of energy of the light bulb yet we ignore the power needed to keep a 60" tv purring :)

I am glad that light bulbs are getting a makeover after remaining at a status quo since the 1800's. But TVs, transformers and home electronics are constantly drawing power waiting to be switched "on".
 
The simple answer is because they don't know how to use a camera.

A more specific reason is because they are using to high of a shutter speed, low of an aperture, and high iso - or all three. I'll bet these are the same people who then complain about color because they can't set the white balance.
 
Bob Doyle said:
...TVs, transformers and home electronics are constantly drawing power waiting to be switched "on".
Click to expand...

How about water heaters?

I live alone in a 4 bedroom house with a 60 gallon water heater that keeps the water hot 24/7 so that I can take 1 shower a day. Maybe 2 in the summer.


When it is time to replace it, I will be using a tankless.
 
Rob,

do you have a link to a good LED "flood". I picked up an led from a solar store and it was fine the first week and has steadily turned "blue". I would like a better option for efficient lighting in the shop.

Jerry,

I'm looking at a on demand water system as well. They have to be near the sink/shower to be best. In the shop I have a small 2 gallon heater. The landlord thought he was putting in an on demand unit, but really he was looking at price and not output :) Works fine most days, but when I have to fill the sink to reshape my baskets I run out of warm water fast.
 
Jerry, you may need to contact the electric company first. I think in NC the actual customer has to pay all of the fees to upgrade your transformer and/or wiring from the pole. The savings in electricity may take forever to be realized if you have to fork out a few thousand for a transformer and/or wiring.

Power companies are not enjoying these and are happy to fork over any costs they can for any problems caused by these water heaters.
 
Gas can be expensive also. You don't have any easy or cheap replacement. Still I'm opted out of the tankless for our new home because the savings just weren't ever likely to be realized for several reasons.
 
Puppiesonacid said:
i have warm CFL in all my light fixtures.. they aren't the prettiest things, but they do the job and no one really cares.

at HD they are the cfl's in the green packaging. 4 for 3 bucks sometimes.
Click to expand...

The local HD stores still have the GREEN contractor cases of SIX R30 2700k CFL bulbs for $0.89/case (15 cents per bulb) (14w power, gives off equiv of 65w 640 lumens) The box claims that each lamp will save $48 in energy.

We use these in all our tracks here, and they usually last for several years each.

While I was there 2 nights ago, I bought some LED bulbs for the home. One that I put into a decorative lantern only uses 2 watts and is supposed to last over 18 years. The light is just as attractive as Incandescent or CFL. LED is where we are heading, incan and CFL will go away, IMO.

I don't think there is an ideal gallery lighting for all. Every situation is different, but this works for us.
 
From the link posted by Doug:

The reason for this is simple, fluorescent lights flicker. Too fast for your eyes to see, but depending on your shutter speed, your camera may be able to pick up the fluctuations. If the light uses a magnetic ballast, it will flicker "off" 100-120 times a second (2 times for every cycle of the 50-60Hz line power). At high enough shutter speeds, one frame might be taken while the light output is at its peak, and another frame taken while the light is at its lowest resulting in significant exposure differences. At slower shutter speeds, the fluctuations end up being integrated together so you won't notice a difference between frames.

One interesting note is many people are noticing this phenomenon for the first time with digital cameras and think it's an issue with digital. This is a misconception of course because the same exact thing will happen with film. The only difference was back in the film days, we rarely shot with film above ISO 400 or 800 because the photos would look too grainy. Digital cameras now however have so little noise (some DSLRs like the Canon 5D Mk II or the Nikon D700 produce images at ISO 6400 that look better than some 400 speed film!) that people often shoot at high ISO settings all the time, which means higher shutter speeds that better reveal the flicker. Also with digital we shoot more frames because it doesn't cost anything and can instantly review the image so more people are noticing the problem. If you see it though, don't worry and don't return your camera, just follow the advice above and keep shooting.
 
This is loosely related to the topic. At least it's far more linked to the topic than TV screens.

Anyway I don't disagree with a single word of that article. I've experienced it when shooting in gyms. It just doesn't apply to frame shop vis setups.

If you will look at the photos he is shooting at 800th/sec. There will never be a need to photograph a design table at that speed. You would have to have an extremely bright design table to even capture an image. Even at 1.4f his photo is sorely under exposed exaggerating the different tints. Also you will have some focus issues shooting a design table at 1.4f. A more typical camera set up would be 1/20 - 1/60 at around 5f. At that setting there would be no way to capture the "flicker".

The most common problem that I've read from photographers who moved from tungsten lights to cfls are color related and not exposures. I do believe it's related to the 60hz AC cycle but isn't really captured as a "flicker" the way lights in a gym that I've noticed. I believe cfls have a longer "decay" time causing the light to change colors and not "pulse" the way other lamps do. Even in the link the problem is more the color shifts and not really exposure.

It's impossible for me to say why Wizard's clients are reporting this problem. It could be as simple as somebody shooting in "auto". If it's florescent lighting and they seek the advice of Wizard, then we can know they are lacking in the workings of a camera as that problem is easily repaired. I can't fathom Wizard then referring this question on as they are a rather sharp bunch.
 
Rob Markoff said:
A Plasma screen gets its colors from rapidly brightening and dimming the red, blue and green colors within a pixel which ignite the phosphors in the plasma gas.

An LCD screen gets it colors by electronically turning on and off a polarizing element so the red, blue or green colors within a pixel reflect the backlight shining through the crystal.

All of this happens REALLY fast, but the reality is that there is "motion" within the pixels that "pulsates" light and it may be at a different rate than the pulsations of a CFL lamp - thereby causing eye fatigue or headaches.
Click to expand...

I don't have any direct knowledge of this, but I can easily imagine it to be similar to the effect of a rotating wheel in a movie/video that appears to be moving too slow, backwards or not at all. Obviously in real life it is moving as perfectly smooth as anything can, but because of the chopped up "view" you are getting of it, you can be very disconcerted by the image.
 
Good analogy, David. That effect is caused by the spin rate of the spokes or struts of a spinning wheel relative to the frame rate of the camera. If you happen to see that effect "out in the real world", it's probably those "pimp my ride" spinning hubcaps. The first time I saw those I thought I really was going crazy.
:popc: Rick
 
Create a Post
Back
Top