# POLL ADDED: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?



## dealgrabber2002 (Dec 26, 2012)

At first I was going CW all the way. Then I found out NW is much better for color rendering. I don't live in an area that has lots of rain or fog therefore can't really test out the rain/fog cutting statements. 

I always wanted to give warm white a try but when I saw the tint on my old maglite incan.; it's too yellow. I hope warm white LED is not like that...

There are many discussions of warm vs cool or neutral vs cool. But I don't recall seeing a warm vs neutral.

Which do you prefer?


Thanks for voting!


----------



## neutralwhite (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

hi thanks, excellent topic this; was just this minute thinking about all this.
was reading that 4000K-4300k is actually better than 5000k, and upwards.
how true really is that statement ?.

i really like the neutral white of my PD32UE, but really, does being at 5000k make it much worse by say if this was a 4000k LED light?.
then why would fenix make it if it really werent good for eyes?.
i really do like the warm light too, and 4000 would be the lowest I would go.
anything over 5000, more likely no way, now that I have found neutral.

would like to see some shots though of the 4000k compared to higher neutrals.

thanks lots.
nice thread.

taken from the site ; 




*THE PROS OF 4000K LIGHT*

_For a short time during the day, at noon, when the sun is the brightest, the light is about +6000k. A human eye is designed to protect itself during this time of day because of the high level of UV light. There is more than enough light to see therefore the eyes over react towards this colour of light by reducing the aperture. This is not the reaction that you want at night. To improve the response and focus time more light needs to enter the eye, not less.
_
_The benefit of having 4000k light is that it does not appear bright/harsh to the eyes and more light can enter. Most people will say that a cold white (+6000k) looks brighter than a warm white light and this is true. It does "appear" brighter but it is not. The result is that the eye has difficultly to focus due to the reduced amount of light entering the eye. Also the blue sensitive cones are not in the middle of theretina(macula) which makes focusing on blueish objects difficult. _
*SUMMARY 
*

_We are at a point where adding more light does not improve night cycling safety. To get a better response from our eyes we need equipment to be designed for us. It should be clear from the facts, that warmer coloured lights are preferred for night cycling above colder lights. We have selected 4000k LED based on testing over the last year and so far have had positive feed back. We believe that you will notice the improvement. _


----------



## CyberCT (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

I really like neutral. I absolutely do not like warm white, and would prefer cool white to warm white (as long as the cool white isn't the purple white like on those cheap LEDs crappy flashlights have).


----------



## Vortus (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

I prefer cool over them both, but having to choose I'd take neutral.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



Vortus said:


> I prefer cool over them both, but having to choose I'd take neutral.



Get out ta here! I am just kidding buddy. Did you give both of them a try before coming to your conclusion?


----------



## twl (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

I prefer a cool white that is not heavily blue. I can take a little bit of blue in the beam.
The cool white that borders on the higher end of neutral is my favorite.
I can accept neutral tints down as far as 4500K, but that's as warm as I can stand. I actually feel that even 4500K is a little too warm for my taste, but I can tolerate it. I have one light that is 4500k, but I'm not too sure that I would buy another one that warm.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

I personally prefer warmer tints, partly because they tend to render colors more accurately but also because I find warmer tints simply more pleasing than cooler tints which appear harsh to my eyes. I will be absolutely thrilled the day someone introduces an LED with 3200K and a CRI of 100. That's the Holy Grail of flashlights as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



the.Mtn.Man said:


> I personally prefer warmer tints, partly because they tend to render colors more accurately but also because I find warmer tints simply more pleasing than cooler tints which appear harsh to my eyes. I will be absolutely thrilled the day someone introduces an LED with 3200K and a CRI of 100. That's the Holy Grail of flashlights as far as I'm concerned.



Doesn't warm tint makes things orange?


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



neutralwhite said:


> hi thanks, excellent topic this; was just this minute thinking about all this.
> was reading that 4000K-4300k is actually better than 5000k, and upwards.
> how true really is that statement ?.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the info neutralwhite


----------



## twl (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



neutralwhite said:


> hi thanks, excellent topic this; was just this minute thinking about all this.
> was reading that 4000K-4300k is actually better than 5000k, and upwards.
> how true really is that statement ?.
> 
> ...



Actually, the quote from whatever site that was, is mostly FALSE.


The "warm" LEDS actually ARE less bright than the cool ones of the same type and drive level, and in fact usually are significantly dimmer. Sometimes up to 40% dimmer. And this is because the LED manufacturer has to put coatings of phosphors on the emitting surface of the LED to give it this "warm" coloring, and that inherently blocks some of the light that comes out of the LED. This is widely known.

So, it actually doesn't have anything to do with any of that hocus pocus that was written on that site.
The warm LEDs are just dimmer than the cool ones, and that's all there is to it.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



dealgrabber2002 said:


> Doesn't warm tint makes things orange?


Not really. Do incandescent bulbs around your home make things look orange?


----------



## TEEJ (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



twl said:


> Actually, the quote from whatever site that was is entirely FALSE.
> 
> 
> The "warm" LEDS actually ARE less bright than the cool ones of the same type and drive level, and in fact usually are significantly dimmer. Sometimes up to 40% dimmer. And this is because the LED manufacturer has to put coatings of phosphors on the emitting surface of the LED to give it this "warm" coloring, and that inherently blocks some of the light that comes out of the LED. This is widely known.
> ...



Well, one is a general concept, and one is LED dependent. 

For example, on say a particular LED, if its white Bin was putting out ~750 L OTF, the warm bin might be putting out ~500 - 650 L...because it takes less POWER to send out bluer light. (Phosphors, etc...)

The way you would USE that info would be to FIRST decide on the needed lux on target/lumens in what beam angle...so you have an idea of what END RESULT you're after...and then buy a light that can DO THAT regardless of the tint, etc. So if you want a yellower beam because you find it makes your cockles toasty, etc...get one that puts out what you need in that tint.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



twl said:


> Actually, the quote from whatever site that was is entirely FALSE.
> 
> 
> The "warm" LEDS actually ARE less bright than the cool ones of the same type and drive level, and in fact usually are significantly dimmer. Sometimes up to 40% dimmer. And this is because the LED manufacturer has to put coatings of phosphors on the emitting surface of the LED to give it this "warm" coloring, and that inherently blocks some of the light that comes out of the LED. This is widely known.
> ...


I don't think you understand what the information is saying. If all other things are equal, a cool source will appear to be brighter. That is a cool white emitter at 200 lumens will appear brighter than a warm white emitter at 200 lumens.


----------



## neutralwhite (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

thanks, so is 5000k still good enough for our eyes, or is 4000-4300k better ?.
why has like BMW LED ADAPTIVE lighting use 5500k then?. strange.

thank you again...



twl said:


> Actually, the quote from whatever site that was, is mostly FALSE.
> 
> 
> The "warm" LEDS actually ARE less bright than the cool ones of the same type and drive level, and in fact usually are significantly dimmer. Sometimes up to 40% dimmer. And this is because the LED manufacturer has to put coatings of phosphors on the emitting surface of the LED to give it this "warm" coloring, and that inherently blocks some of the light that comes out of the LED. This is widely known.
> ...


----------



## twl (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



the.Mtn.Man said:


> I don't think you understand what the information is saying. If all other things are equal, a cool source will appear to be brighter. That is a cool white emitter at 200 lumens will appear brighter than a warm white emitter at 200 lumens.



I understand his contention.


----------



## TEEJ (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



neutralwhite said:


> thanks, so is 5000k still good enough for our eyes, or is 4000-4300k better ?.
> why has like BMW LED ADAPTIVE lighting use 5500k then?. strange.
> 
> thank you again...



Just to clarify...the Kelvin temperatures are not really the color of the beam and/or its color rendition per se...there are other factors, such as CRI, CCT, SPD, etc.



So, for that one LED, in two flavors....the yellower one IS dimmer/has fewer lumens.

For two completely different LEDs...the whiter one will LOOK brighter even if they are both pumping out the same lumens.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



the.Mtn.Man said:


> Not really. Do incandescent bulbs around your home make things look orange?



yeah it does. I already know I am colorblind cus I took a colorblind test.


----------



## TEEJ (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



dealgrabber2002 said:


> yeah it does. I already I am colorblind cus I took a colorblind test.



Dang, I never heard of a TEST making someone color blind.



PS - If you are color blind...what does orange LOOK like?


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



TEEJ said:


> Dang, I never heard of a TEST making someone color blind.
> 
> 
> 
> PS - If you are color blind...what does orange LOOK like?



lol.. That test lets you know if you're colorblind or not.

some colors are fine, it's mostly mix colors that throws me off..


----------



## TEEJ (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



dealgrabber2002 said:


> lol.. That test lets you know if you're colorblind or not.
> 
> some colors are fine, it's mostly mix colors that throws me off..



LOL

Just joshing.

If your (YOUR) eyes see colors a certain way...some things will simply be different for you than for others here.

Think of it like those florescent glowing orange safety vests a hunter might wear, a other HUNTERS will see it as a glowing orange...but, the color blind deer DON'T see it as any different from the leaves you are hiding in, etc.

The DEER says, hey...I don't see any vests...and the hunters say hey...look, a DEER!


----------



## neutralwhite (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

so all this talk on that site about anything higher than 4300k is bad for our eyes. 
is that really correct?.

can't our eyes be OK with 5000k or CW.?
thanks.


----------



## markr6 (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

I recently got a neutral white and found out what I've been missing all along. Warm is usually a bit too much for me, but compared to cool white I'll take it. Cool white is simply a blue joke anymore. I'll gladly take a reduction in lumens for real light.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

sorry misread


----------



## jorn (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

yes


----------



## Lithium466 (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

As far as I'm concerned, I prefer warmer tints. But I think this is mainly related to CRI, I got lights with XP-G High CRI 85+, and love them because of their tint and color rendition. I also have Nichia 219 4500°K lights, and found them by far superior to my other NW flashlights 
Maybe it's also a bit of nostalgia from the old times of incan !


----------



## neutralwhite (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

thanks, where could I buy these Nichia 219 lights?.
thanks.



Lithium466 said:


> As far as I'm concerned, I prefer warmer tints. But I think this is mainly related to CRI, I got lights with XP-G High CRI 85+, and love them because of their tint and color rendition. I also have Nichia 219 4500°K lights, and found them by far superior to my other NW flashlights
> Maybe it's also a bit of nostalgia from the old times of incan !


----------



## TEEJ (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



neutralwhite said:


> thanks, where could I buy these Nichia 219 lights?.
> thanks.



You could have Vinh make you whatever you want.


----------



## twl (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

The Nichia 219 being used by most people have a CRI of 92. That's very high CRI that gives very natural color rendition.
It's more than just being 4500k tint. The Nichia 219 is a high CRI type of LED.
There are other 4500K tint LEDs that are not high CRI. There is a difference.


----------



## neutralwhite (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

a difference in say the MCE LED at 4500k? what CRI is that one?.

which one would be better?
thanks.




twl said:


> The Nichia 219 being used by most people have a CRI of 92. That's very high CRI that gives very natural color rendition.
> It's more than just being 4500k tint. The Nichia 219 is a high CRI type of LED.
> There are other 4500K tint LEDs that are not high CRI. There is a difference.


----------



## twl (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



neutralwhite said:


> a difference in say the MCE LED at 4500k? what CRI is that one?.
> 
> which one would be better?
> thanks.



I don't know about the MCE and their CRI ratings.
But the CRI will be listed in the specs for the LED, and there are often different CRI selections that can be bought, depending on how much CRI you want, and how much you want to pay, and whether it is available.
Not all LEDs are available with a high CRI. Most of them are low CRI, or moderate CRI, and you have to select. If you don't specify, you likely get below 70 CRI as a standard low-cost selection.

Neutral or warm does NOT necessarily indicate that it has high CRI. However, you will have some very warm LEDs which have high CRI, and some neutral LEDs with high CRI.
Also, the CRI is a relative figure based on the CRI for that particular color temperature. So, if you have an XPG with a 95 CRI at 3200K color temp. it has one of the highest CRI for any LED that is at 3200K. Not necessarily better than a Nichia 219 with 92 CRI at 4500K color temp, on an absolute scale.
So, it can get tricky.


----------



## neutralwhite (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

thanks lots for that. 
would send off my PD32UE for maybe a 4000 / 4500k Nichia 219, but posting from the UK, then $33USD shipped. 
wish someone in the UK could do the same. 
still thinking on this.

thanks.



twl said:


> I don't know about the MCE and their CRI ratings.
> But the CRI will be listed in the specs for the LED, and there are often different CRI selections that can be bought, depending on how much CRI you want, and how much you want to pay, and whether it is available.
> Not all LEDs are available with a high CRI. Most of them are low CRI, or moderate CRI, and you have to select. If you don't specify, you likely get below 70 CRI as a standard low-cost selection.
> 
> Neutral or warm does NOT necessarily indicate that it has high CRI.


----------



## twl (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



neutralwhite said:


> thanks lots for that.
> would send off my PD32UE for maybe a 4000 / 4500k Nichia 219, but posting from the UK, then $33USD shipped.
> wish someone in the UK could do the same.
> still thinking on this.
> ...



It all depends on what you want.
I have 4500K and also cool white in the 5500K-6000K range, and I prefer the cooler white over the neutral in every application that I use a light for.
I frankly don't think this whole neutral and high CRI thing is all it's "cracked-up" to be. I prefer my lights to not have either of it.
I like cool white much better.
Maybe if the high CRI was available at the 5500-6000K range, I'd like it better.
I don't like yellow/brown/peach colored lights, personally.


----------



## neutralwhite (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

thanks twl. don't even know if I would notice the difference with my now PD32UE 5000kLED to a Nichia 4500 replaced anyway.


----------



## twl (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



neutralwhite said:


> thanks twl. don't even know if I would notice the difference with my now PD32UE 5000kLED to a Nichia 4500 replaced anyway.



It wouldn't hurt to buy a light with a 219 in it, to see what you think about it. 
Maybe you'll like it better than I do.

I bought a 4500K light(a very expensive one, too), and the truth is that it is the only light that I own that I'm thinking about selling.
I prefer all my cool white lights more.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



twl said:


> I don't like yellow/brown/peach colored lights, personally.



We tint snobs hate you!


----------



## neutralwhite (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

hi - true, i like Jason's Alpha Light at darksucks.com



twl said:


> It wouldn't hurt to buy a light with a 219 in it, to see what you think about it.
> Maybe you'll like it better than I do.
> 
> I bought a 4500K light(a very expensive one, too), and the truth is that it is the only light that I own that I'm thinking about selling.
> I prefer all my cool white lights more.


----------



## shane45_1911 (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

Without getting into the whole CRI dynamics, generally anything around 4500K is perfect. For ME.


----------



## oKtosiTe (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



dealgrabber2002 said:


> yeah it does. I already I am colorblind cus I took a colorblind test.


Agreed. Regular incandescents around the house make me unable to see blue, or distinguish between red and green, while I can see all that just fine with a neutral white LED. When I need to check a color, I grab my Quark. Then again, 75% and counting of my home is illuminated by LEDs by now.


----------



## twl (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

The bottom line is that you have to pick what you like.

Just because I like cool, or somebody else likes warm, doesn't mean you are going to like it the same way.


----------



## mvyrmnd (Dec 26, 2012)

*Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



twl said:


> The bottom line is that you have to pick what you like.
> 
> Just because I like cool, or somebody else likes warm, doesn't mean you are going to like it the same way.



Absolutely +1


----------



## markr6 (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



twl said:


> The bottom line is that you have to pick what you like.Just because I like cool, or somebody else likes warm, doesn't mean you are going to like it the same way.


But neutral...everyone has to love that! Just kidding...but not really


----------



## Lithium466 (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



neutralwhite said:


> thanks, where could I buy these Nichia 219 lights?.
> thanks.


I had mine modded by a local modder (you can also swap emitters yourself), and twl is right, they are 92+ CRI.
I think the L3 illumination L10 is also available with Nichia 219 (don't know the CRI, I guess 92+ too). I ordered two, these small AA lights alwaye make great gifts


----------



## burntoshine (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

I prefer High CRI, but I have a few neutral white lights. Although I wish my neutral lights were High CRI. I feel like it's not worth having them modded because they're used for throwing and not so much for close up work. I have a Zebralight H501w that I'd like to be warmer with a higher CRI. Otherwise I'm quite happy with my almost-all High CRI collection of lights.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



neutralwhite said:


> so all this talk on that site about anything higher than 4300k is bad for our eyes.
> is that really correct?.
> 
> can't our eyes be OK with 5000k or CW.?
> thanks.


Read it again. The site never said that 5000K was bad for your eyes.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



dealgrabber2002 said:


> yeah it does. I already know I am colorblind cus I took a colorblind test.


Interesting, because 3200K looks neutral to me. That is I can easily identify colors under a a 3200K source. Maybe it comes from years of working in television where we use high intensity 3200K lamps.

My current flashlight of choice is an HDS Rotary with a 3700K high CRI emitter which is an absolutely gorgeous beam.


----------



## jomox (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



twl said:


> The bottom line is that you have to pick what you like.
> 
> Just because I like cool, or somebody else likes warm, doesn't mean you are going to like it the same way.




Yup, it's like allot of things, it comes down to personal taste.


----------



## Glock 22 (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

I like both but my preference between the two are 3500K in the Warm and 4000K in the Neutral. I have a few in both tints.


----------



## LGT (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

I prefer warm. In my eyes, it just seems to have an effect of colors blending together with no hard drawn distinction between one color or the other.


----------



## Rod911 (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

Posted this in another forum: 

These set of photos are certainly not the best (especially the H502c), but I hope to illustrate the difference in tint temperatures starting from 3000k all the way up to 6500k. The lights used were as follows (included type of LED, bin, colour temperature along with CRI where applicable in that order): 
• L2T with Linger Special drop-in, XP-G Q2 3000k 7A3, ≥ 90 CRI 
• Modded Thrunite Catapult v1, XM-L T4 4000-4200k 5A 
• DRY 3XCREE, XM-L T4 4000k 5A • Zebralight H51c, LUXEON 4000k, ≥ 85 CRI 
• Zebralight H502c, LUXEON 4000k, ≥ 85 CRI 
• Zebralight SC51w, XP-G 4200k 
• DQG AA, XP-G R4 4200k 4C 
• MG P-Rocket, SST-50 4500K 
• EagleTac M3C4, XM-L cool white 
• UltraFire C2, MC-E cool white 
• EagleTac T10L, XR-E cool white 

The pics can be found here (downsized, but you have the option to view the full version): 

http://imgur.com/a/8fm0R#0 

Note that, the pictures are in the same order as per the above list.


----------



## baterija (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



the.Mtn.Man said:


> Not really. Do incandescent bulbs around your home make things look orange?


I always thought they made things look hazy and deeply yellow when I paid enough attention to notice. 

As to the OP question I am all about neutral for CCT. It's closer to sunlight color temp. Best CRI I can get in a light in the neutral to neutral side of cool white is my preference. Warm may have higher CRI but that just means it compares well to other poorly colored light.


----------



## markr6 (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

Just got my PD32UE, wow...amazing tint! (LOL @ *"COOL"* WHITES!!)


----------



## neutralwhite (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

NEUTRAL WHITE is the new COOL WHITE !. 



markr6 said:


> Just got my PD32UE, wow...amazing tint! (LOL @ *"COOL"* WHITES!!)


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



baterija said:


> I always thought they made things look hazy and deeply yellow when I paid enough attention to notice.


It depends on the intensity, I suppose, because a low intensity incandescent source will have a lower color temperature than a high intensity source. That is a 15 watt bulb will appear more orange than a 100 watt bulb. In other words, not all incandescent sources are 3200K.



baterija said:


> Warm may have higher CRI but that just means it compares well to other poorly colored light.


"Poorly colored light"? Now them's fightin' words!


----------



## miket458 (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

I prefer neutral white. It is brighter and I like the color of it.


----------



## neutralwhite (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

there are so many types of neutral, it's crazy good!. 


miket458 said:


> I prefer neutral white. It is brighter and I like the color of it.


----------



## baterija (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



the.Mtn.Man said:


> It depends on the intensity, I suppose, because a low intensity incandescent source will have a lower color temperature than a high intensity source. That is a 15 watt bulb will appear more orange than a 100 watt bulb. In other words, not all incandescent sources are 3200K.



Not really a less intense bulb at a lower CCT issue for me. Well driven 100W incan bulbs are yellowish and dingy to me. It gets worse from there as color temp goes down.




> "Poorly colored light"? Now them's fightin' words!


I've survived the incan/LED wars. The LED tint border skirmishes aren't much. I can dislike it all though till we get something closer to 5500K CCT with 90+ CRI and a smoother distribution.


----------



## orbital (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

+

Anything between 4000~5000K w/o any hint of green, I really prefer rosy/amberish? tints...

Get some tint filters anyway, fun projects & it's like getting a new light when finished. 
{gotta be able to access the lens though}}


----------



## LG&M (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

Neutral for me but I have not tried a high CRI yet. Wish more lights were offered in neutral.


----------



## Oztorchfreak (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



dealgrabber2002 said:


> At first I was going CW all the way. Then I found out NW is much better for color rendering. I don't live in an area that has lots of rain or fog therefore can't really test out the rain/fog cutting statements.
> 
> I always wanted to give warm white a try but when I saw the tint on my old maglite incan.; it's too yellow. I hope warm white LED is not like that...
> 
> ...




Maybe the question that you have asked in this thread should have a Poll added to it as this subject is much talked about nowadays whether we are Tint Snobs or not or maybe we just don't realise we are Tint Snobs yet.

The finer points of your question can still be added to this thread but the Poll would give us all a quick look at the way CPF members feel about the colours (colors) they prefer when choosing/using a flashlight.

Also it would give us a reasonable average of opinions when members do not have time to reply in full.


The Poll/Question could also include COOL WHITE if you liked.


1) Cool White

2) Neutral

3) Warm White



*CHEERS*


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



Oztorchfreak said:


> Maybe the question that you have asked in this thread should have a Poll added to it as this subject is much talked about nowadays whether we are Tint Snobs or not or maybe we just don't realise we are Tint Snobs yet.
> 
> The finer points of your question can still be added to this thread but the Poll would give us all a quick look at the way CPF members feel about the colours (colors) they prefer when choosing/using a flashlight.
> 
> ...



That's a great idea. How do I go about doing that? Never did a poll before. Thanks.


----------



## neutralwhite (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

good idea, but I still like neutral, lol.
do the poll. will surely vote.
thanks.



dealgrabber2002 said:


> That's a great idea. How do I go about doing that? Never did a poll before. Thanks.


----------



## Swedpat (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

Since my first experience of a nice neutral tint I always choose neutral if it's an option. I accept cool white if it isn't too bluish or greenish.
I also like warm tints providing they don't going too brownish. 

*Great neutral tints*: Xeno E03, Fenix PD32UE, Fenix E50, Malkoff M61 Nichia 219
*Great warm tints*: Malkoff M61W/91W.
*Great cool tints*: Fenix TK10/30/15S2. Surefire E1L/E2L/E2LAA


----------



## Oztorchfreak (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



dealgrabber2002 said:


> That's a great idea. How do I go about doing that? Never did a poll before. Thanks.





*Hi dealgrabber2002.*



Only the member that started any thread (or Mods etc) can "Add a Poll" to that thread.

Go back to the first post where you started this thread.

Click on Thread Tools.

Scroll down to "Add a Poll to this Thread" and follow the directions from there.




*CHEERS*


----------



## MichaelW (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

Neutral overall: It has the widest tent 3500-5000K.
Warm-white is fun and nostalgic, and it is good camouflage. Nope, no LEDs around here.
Neutral is also good for IFF. Make sure everyone on your team is using the same 4250K-ish light source, so if someone with a 6500K light appears, they aren't part of your group.


----------



## neutralwhite (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

i really like the group idea catching the odd light which ain't part. cool stuff.

by the way, does warm white make colours look any different to say my 5000CCT PD32UE neutral white?.
some say with warm, it makes green and red look different ....
neutral white does not do that right ?.

thanks.




MichaelW said:


> Neutral overall: It has the widest tent 3500-5000K.
> Warm-white is fun and nostalgic, and it is good camouflage. Nope, no LEDs around here.
> Neutral is also good for IFF. Make sure everyone on your team is using the same 4250K-ish light source, so if someone with a 6500K light appears, they aren't part of your group.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

Poll added. Thanks Oztorchfreak.


----------



## neutralwhite (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

just voted. thanks.
I do like warm white as well, but that reminds me of when I was young, and all we had was warm. 
cosy though, but does it do the job as well as a neutral?, that's the other poll question. lol
thank you.
great thread.



dealgrabber2002 said:


> Poll added. Thanks Oztorchfreak.


----------



## twl (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

I voted neutral white, but I really wanted to vote for cool white.
Seeing as the best choice was left off the list, I voted for my second choice.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



twl said:


> I voted neutral white, but I really wanted to vote for cool white.
> Seeing as the best choice was left off the list, I voted for my second choice.



Sorry twl,

I purposely only put in neutral and warm because there are already a few threads regarding cool vs warm and cool vs neutral.


----------



## TEEJ (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

If you want to SEE what you're all talking about....get the lights with the varying tints, etc...and take a color chart, and look at it in the daylight, then, in the dark with your lights.

Compare how it looks to YOU.

It might make a huge difference, good or bad, and it might be a mix of some colors looking right, and others being wrong, etc.

If I'm night adapted, the color chart is washed out anyway, as night adaptation - for me at least, means mostly rods instead of cones at play...and w/o the cones everything looks like shades of gray....with my mind's eye filling in what color it THINKS its supposed to be.

If NOT night adapted...I can see colors OK at night if the lighting is good.



For MY lights, the yellow beams are better for seeing SOME stuff, but worse for others. Overall, a neutral light is just that, neutral.


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

Earlier this year when Eagletac started producing the titanium D25's again, I ordered both the D25C Ti and the D25A Ti. They were the clicky models. But the options were neutral or cool white, so I bought what was supposed to be neutral. But when I got both of them in in the same package, they were both VERY yellowish. That night I had a headache, and when I clicked either of those lights on it literally seemed to make my headache worse. I thought that warm was supposed to render colors better, but these lights were making objects that were pure white look dull yellowish in color. I shined in into my closet onto shirts that are different colors, and it almost made this blue shirt look greenish, and it made the white wall look yellowish.

Suffice to say, I dont like that^. So I put both of those lights up on CPFmarketplace as neutral/warm, and within literally just a few minutes I found a buyer! Within less than about 1/2 hour I had at least 2-3 offers to buy both lights! So I sold both to a long time CPF member in Canada, and he liked the tints.

Then I went and re-ordered the D25C Ti in cool white, and its not really cool either. Its actually got a slight yellowishness to its corona, but its mostly white. ITs definitely not blue and cool though, as it was advertised. 

So from then on, if there is a choice between neutral or warm, I choose neutral. If its a choice between cool or warm, I choose cool. If there's a choice between neutral or cool, I choose cool, because I know its usually going to be more neutral than the neutral version! So far, since the D25 debacle, that^ strategy has worked well. For instance, it worked with the ZL SC52 and SC600, where I avoided warm in both lights, and the cool versions I got are just to a slight yellow side of neutral, definitely not blue or cool.


----------



## jorn (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

I like the neutral for around house, general stuff. And a really warm one out in the bush. I dont know why, but even the really hi cri neutrals makes everything look more flat with less contrast or something when i take it to a wooded area (compared with a warm). The warm makes the muddy trail around here pop out of the ground more and i feel i have better depth preseption, seeing trough underbrush etc. Winter time is neutral time. The warm looks too warm against the white snow, but it shows depth really well. Cool is for divelights, throwers or for "max lumen impressive blasters"  What i like is not set in stone, it really depends on my use  

The next time the sun shines trough the curtians at daytime, place all your lights on the floor in the shadow close to the blasing strip of sunlight on your floor and compare. To my suprice my closest one was a old arc aaa with a 5mm led. It is really close to the daytime sunlight. The rest is mostly way off. 
Wont see the sun for a while up here, it's still way under the horizon at mid day.. Dark + white outside = Neutral flashlight season.


----------



## CarpentryHero (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

In order of preference;
nuetral 4500k Nichia
hi cri xpg 3500k
neutral XML 4500-5500k
coolwhite for when max brightness is needed (monster lights like the TK75 would seem odd in a warm tint) my 2 lumens 

My grail tint would be 5000k Nichia with a hi cri of 90-100


----------



## PhiDeltBeers (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

Interesting thread! I'm not sure how kelvin temp from LED's and HID's compare, but here is what I've learned in the automotive world. Most all vehicles with HID lights use a 4300k bulb. I just changed out all the bulbs on my new Lexus IS-F to get a good color match. I tried some 8000k D4S bulbs and could barely see at night with them. I did an HID retrofit in my fogs at 6000k and it was too blue for me. I ended up installing 5000k in both the low beams and the fogs to match my LED daytime running lights. The 5000k isn't as bright as the 4300k but it gives me the pure white look I was after (4300k had a bit of yellow in it). Also, 5000k was MUCH better than 8000k as far as brightness goes. Again, I don't know if this is the same case with LED lights, but just wanted to share what I learned through the process. Here's an interesting article:

http://philipsxenonkit.com/is-4300k-hid-kit-really-the-brightest-bulb/#.UNymf-TAeSo

*Is 4300k HID Kit Really the Brightest Bulb?*

Jun 02 2011



*See [URL="http://www.candlepowerforums.com/Rules.html#siglines"]Rule #3** Do not Hot Link images. Please host on an image site, Imageshack or similar and repost – Thanks Norm*


Philips is the number one manufacturer of HID bulbs. The Philips D2S bulb is
rated at 4300K at 12.8 volts and produces 3200 lumens of light. The Philips
Ultinon D2S is 6000K at 12.8 volts and produces 2400 lumens of light. As you can see, with all other factors remaining constant, the brightness of an HID bulbdeclines the higher up the color index you go. 4300K has been proven through tireless independent research by the Germans, Japanese, and Americans to be the most functional, truest white and thus the brightest possible color temperature.
Every car manufacturer in the world (including BMW and Audi) uses none other than a standard 4300K gas-discharge bulb. No exceptions. The reason being is that 4300K is daylight white in color and produces the same color visible light as direct sunlight. This is least fatiguing functional color on the eyes and produces the most comfortable contrast on the road.
*

Now why do some OEM HID bulbs appear blue when they use a white bulb?*
Well, this coloration is the result of the light projectors; the lenses: it’s transparency, it’s curvature, the tiny grooves etched into it; the projector assembly, the shield, and the reflector bowl. All these components work together to produce a signature of light unique to that particular optic’s design. On the Audi and BMW projectors, the lens curvature at the edge bends the white light producing a “prism effect”. White light is broken down to it’s fundemental colors. Since blue lights is high energy, it is absorbed last and thus travels farther. So with this prism effect, you’ll notice that BMW HIDs are only purple and blue from the sides, the top, and the bottom edges, but are always daylight white on the road and in the beam pattern. This phenomenon can be demonstrated when you watch an oncoming BMW hit a pot hole or speed bump in the road and the car’s nose pitches up and down. The headlights will flicker and “throw colors off”, but returns to a solid white beam pattern directly on the road.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



MichaelW said:


> Neutral overall: It has the widest tent 3500-5000K.


Eh? You think a color temp as low as 3500 and as high as 5000 qualifies as neutral? 3500 is still in the warm white range, and 5000 is definitely cool. I would think neutral white would fall in the 4000 to 4500 range. My HDS Rotary is 3700K, and I'd consider it a warm white tint.


----------



## neutralwhite (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

they say 5000 is just right. pure white and in the middle of them both. oh damn, its confusing lol. 
i too think 3500 would be way warm than neutral.

4200 would be the lowest I would go, but 5000 seems right there. 4300 is yellow ish. 4500, i dunno.



the.Mtn.Man said:


> Eh? You think a color temp as low as 3500 and as high as 5000 qualifies as neutral? 3500 is still in the warm white range, and 5000 is definitely cool. I would think neutral white would fall in the 4000 to 4500 range. My HDS Rotary is 3700K, and I'd consider it a warm white tint.


----------



## PhiDeltBeers (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

If the definition of neutral is pure white, then 5000k is perfect neutral. When I turn on my 5000k HID's they start off blue and turn pure white in about 30 seconds. They match my 5000k LED's as well with NO blue and NO yellow. IMHO, this the the fence between warm and cool.


----------



## markr6 (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



neutralwhite said:


> they say 5000 is just right. pure white and in the middle of them both. oh damn, its confusing lol.
> i too think 3500 would be way warm than neutral.
> 
> 4200 would be the lowest I would go, but 5000 seems right there. 4300 is yellow ish. 4500, i dunno.



This makes me a little worried to get an H600w @ 4200K now. Can any tint snobs comment on the tint and possibly convince me it's not too yellow? I need to replace my H51 for running...I'm going to trip or get drilled by a car one of these nights.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



markr6 said:


> I need to replace my H51 for running...I'm going to trip or get drilled by a car one of these nights.



You're over worried; as long as you are visible, you won't get drill by a car. I also doubt that you'll trip as well.


----------



## CarpentryHero (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



markr6 said:


> This makes me a little worried to get an H600w @ 4200K now. Can any tint snobs comment on the tint and possibly convince me it's not too yellow? I need to replace my H51 for running...I'm going to trip or get drilled by a car one of these nights.



The h600w is as bright as a car headlight (maybe both carheadlights) I think they see ya  The only nuetral I've found too yellow was the quark nuetral XML. Zebralight is really good about picking tints, go look for the thread 
sc600 vs sc600w 

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...Zebralight-SC600-amp-SC600W-discussion-part-2

theres good info on the tint


----------



## SimulatedZero (Dec 28, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

To quote myself from a different thread 



SimulatedZero said:


> ...warm lights don't have that wow factor of brightness that the cooler tints have. Our eyes are less affected by the longer wavelengths of warm tints, which is why a really dim red light is used to preserve night vision. On the other hand, it takes less to light in a cool tint to reach the same perception of brightness as the warm tint. If you want to wow somebody with how bright your light is just use a light that is close to 6000k and around 650 lumens.





SimulatedZero said:


> I wouldn't say that the cooler tints are not as good for our eyes, just that they have a different effect. Our eyes are very adaptive by nature and can adjust themselves to a variety of conditions. The only reason I used a dim redlight for nightvision as comparison was just to demonstrate the difference. The only time that is really useful is when you need to use light to see something but don't want to compromise your ability to see in the dark.



Again, it's not that cool white is necessarily harmful, it's that we use a different part of our eyes to "see" it and thus it affect us differently than warm white. 






jorn said:


> I like the neutral for around house, general stuff. And a really warm one out in the bush. I dont know why, but even the really hi cri neutrals makes everything look more flat with less contrast or something when i take it to a wooded area (compared with a warm). The warm makes the muddy trail around here pop out of the ground more and i feel i have better depth preseption, seeing trough underbrush etc. Winter time is neutral time. The warm looks too warm against the white snow, but it shows depth really well. Cool is for divelights, throwers or for "max lumen impressive blasters"  What i like is not set in stone, it really depends on my use



+10 

I couldn't have said it any better myself. :thumbsup: There really is something comforting and inviting about a nice warm light out in the woods. It's kind of like being around a camp fire, very soothing.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Dec 28, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

I personally find depth perception and object recognition to be at its best with warm white tints, especially high CRI. Cool white makes everything look flat and grey.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Dec 28, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



the.Mtn.Man said:


> Cool white makes everything look flat and grey.



+1


----------



## eh4 (Dec 28, 2012)

Take a cool white 5mm led and a red 5mm led that are in the same ball park as far as MCD emitted.
Wire them up and go somewhere completely dark, let your eyes adjust for a couple minutes and see what you can see with each of them.

What I found was that the white led seems much brighter, particularly for my peripheral vision... But when I look directly at details the white light " greys out" and I can't see detail, its like looking into dim fog.
Then I try the red led and it seems much dimmer, particularly for my peripheral vision, but my center focus is sharp, fine surface details are easy to see.

I tried this experiment after reading that the central focal area in human eyes are packed with red sensitive cones for high resolution, but for me the results of my experiment were pretty obvious. 
I'm all about warm high cri light, using lower light levels, and letting my pupils stay relatively dilated and adapted at night.
If the light were sufficiently Bright to greatly light up the whole area of view then cooler light would be fine with me, so long as I wasn't going to turn it back off and count on any night adaptation at all.


----------



## MichaelW (Dec 28, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



the.Mtn.Man said:


> Eh? You think a color temp as low as 3500 and as high as 5000 qualifies as neutral? 3500 is still in the warm white range, and 5000 is definitely cool. I would think neutral white would fall in the 4000 to 4500 range. My HDS Rotary is 3700K, and I'd consider it a warm white tint.


Fine, make it <5000K & >3500K


----------



## neutralwhite (Dec 28, 2012)

so warm white is way better for our eyes than PD32UE neutral white?. I thought our eyes could see just as good with neutral too.

thanks. 



eh4 said:


> Take a cool white 5mm led and a red 5mm led that are in the same ball park as far as MCD emitted.
> Wire them up and go somewhere completely dark, let your eyes adjust for a couple minutes and see what you can see with each of them.
> 
> What I found was that the white led seems much brighter, particularly for my peripheral vision... But when I look directly at details the white light " greys out" and I can't see detail, its like looking into dim fog.
> ...


----------



## eh4 (Dec 28, 2012)

neutralwhite said:


> so warm white is way better for our eyes than PD32UE neutral white?. I thought our eyes could see just as good with neutral too.
> 
> thanks.



I don't know, I'm just saying that for low light levels I definitely get more function out of warm than cool.
And since I'm not carrying big lights I get a lot more use out of off/night adapted, low/low, low, and occasional brief use of higher settings for distance.

Maybe if you were hunting small creatures with a flood light and trying to spot movement out of the corner of your eye then cool might be better. 

Maybe if the light is Too bright then a warm light would be harder to adapt to. 

Just speculations.

But try reading newsprint with a dim red and a dim white and see what you think.

I keep talking about cool and warm to try and simplify, the cool is weighted towards blue and the warm is weighted towards red.
Surely a high CRI neutral would have much of the benefits of both, I just personally prefer the high CRI warm overall, and my preference probably has a lot to do with the amount of light that I'm most comfortable using. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruithof_curve


----------



## jinx626 (Dec 29, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

I like neutral --> cool --> warm.


----------



## uncle wong (Dec 29, 2012)

Neutral white 4000k or 4500k


----------



## chad allred (Dec 30, 2012)

What color tint is my lens light mini? It seems much more natural than my pd32 ue.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## H-2 CHARLIE (Dec 30, 2012)

i like a clear bulb for the brighter look in some high spots


----------



## Verej79TA (Dec 30, 2012)

Around the house probably warm white but if i am outdoors i would prefer white


----------



## g.p. (Dec 30, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



the.Mtn.Man said:


> Not really. Do incandescent bulbs around your home make things look orange?


The old incadescent Maglites sure do! :sick2:

Nuetral all the way for me. I don't like my lights to be yellow, orange, blue, purple, green, or any other colour. I don't buy into the better colour theory of warm lights either. To my eyes they just give a yellowy version of the true untinted colour, that is plainy visible with a nontinted nuetral light.

I have seen several times where manufacturers state that neutral/cool lights out sell warm versions 10 to 1. No matter how vocal the warm tint lovers are (and they are very vocal on CPF), that says it all.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Dec 30, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



g.p. said:


> The old incadescent Maglites sure do! :sick2:
> 
> Nuetral all the way for me. I don't like my lights to be yellow, orange, blue, purple, green, or any other colour. I don't buy into the better colour theory of warm lights either. To my eyes they just give a yellowy version of the true untinted colour, that is plainy visible with a nontinted nuetral light.
> 
> I have seen several times where manufacturers state that neutral/cool lights out sell warm versions 10 to 1. No matter how vocal the warm tint lovers are (and they are very vocal on CPF), that says it all.


Cool whites generally have higher output. Higher output means a bigger number on the box. Bigger number on the box means better sales. It's as simple as that.

As for the theory that warm light renders colors more accurately, it's not about tint but also the CRI of the source in question, the higher the CRI, the more accurate the color rendering. You may laugh at the warm output of an incan Maglite, but it will show a brown rabbit in a green bush better than a cool white source which will render both the rabbit and the bush as a flat grayish color. I've actually seen this affect myself. I was comparing my cool white HDS Rotary to my new high CRI Rotary. First I shone the cool white at the garden and took note of the color of the various the plants. Then I clicked on the high CRI, and suddenly there was a brown rabbit in the midst which was all but invisible under cool white to the point that I literally didn't see him. That proved to me the superiority of warm, high CRI sources.


----------



## Swedpat (Dec 30, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



the.Mtn.Man said:


> Cool whites generally have higher output. Higher output means a bigger number on the box. Bigger number on the box means better sales. It's as simple as that.
> 
> As for the theory that warm light renders colors more accurately, it's not about tint but also the CRI of the source in question, the higher the CRI, the more accurate the color rendering. You may laugh at the warm output of an incan Maglite, but it will show a brown rabbit in a green bush better than a cool white source which will render both the rabbit and the bush as a flat grayish color. I've actually seen this affect myself. I was comparing my cool white HDS Rotary to my new high CRI Rotary. First I shone the cool white at the garden and took note of the color of the various the plants. Then I clicked on the high CRI, and suddenly there was a brown rabbit in the midst which was all but invisible under cool white to the point that I literally didn't see him. That proved to me the superiority of warm, high CRI sources.



Shortly before christmas I had my first experience with a high CRI LED: A Malkoff M61 Nichia 219. The color rendition is excellent and looking at different colored objects the colors like "pop-up" compared to a common cool white LED. A standard neutral LED is better than a cool, but among standard LEDs the warms are best. Actually I have hard to see much difference of color rendition between Malkoff M61W/91W and Nichia 219, these are very close as good as the Nichia. But it's nice to have also a neutral LED wich makes everything looks SO more natural and colorful!


----------



## g.p. (Dec 30, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



the.Mtn.Man said:


> Cool whites generally have higher output. Higher output means a bigger number on the box. Bigger number on the box means better sales. It's as simple as that.


Yeah, that's the old argument from the warm camp...that anyone that buys a nuetral light is uneducated and just after big numbers. I don't buy it anymore and the poll seems to back that up at the moment. People that are spending the kind of money that we do on lights aren't going to be uneducated, at least not for long. If the majority of people like warm, they don't show it to the manufacturers with their money as much as they post about it. I believe there are just more posts about wanting warm tints since the majority are already happy with what is already being offered.


----------



## twl (Dec 30, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

I think what happened was in the early days of this "warming trend", people had the mistaken idea that "warm" somehow equaled "more accurate".
Of course, now we realize that was completely wrong, but the meme got out there.

I just got done discussing this issue with somebody else on another thread who is convinced that because he likes the color rendition of some shade of red on a stapler with some warmer LED tint, that it somehow is "more accurate", even though in his very own photos the massive color distortion in other areas of the spectrum are quite visible. Most easily seen is that the "white" typing paper is shown as quite tan/brown instead of white. Obvious color distortion in a major way. He just chooses to pretend those color distortions aren't there, and just tries to focus on what he likes to see.
This is what happens.

My comment is that I can tell that there's a red stapler in the photo, no matter which light is used, regardless of if it is cool, neutral, or warm. The slight shading variation off of the perfect shade doesn't interest me in the slightest. I recognize a red stapler, and I move on. I don't sit there gazing in wonderment that there is a red stapler there, and going ga-ga about how much I like that shade of red. It's not that much of a concern to me. I see a red stapler and that's that.

I happen to like cool white tints that are as close to snow white as I can get.
I like the extra output that comes with that, along with the added throw. I don't get white paper looking brown, or any of those other color distortions that come with the warmer tints.
Sure, there's some minor tint shifting toward the blue, but the colors are still fully identifiable, and that's all I need to know. I prefer the cool white tint, and like the full power output that comes with it.

And the same could be said for warm tint lovers saying that they don't mind that there's some tint shift toward the yellow/brown/red that they like, and that they don't care if they lose 40% of their light's output in order to get it. Nothing wrong with that either, if that's how they like it.

Where it becomes tiresome, is the continuation of this meme that one of these tint distortions is somehow "more accurate". That's where the whole thing caves in.
It's NOT "more accurate". It's just distorted differently in a way they like better.


----------



## neutralwhite (Dec 30, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

i just think warm tints are nice, and cosy in certain applications, but ain't they somewhat 70/80's ?.
this is old light. i remember these warms when I was like 10. im 41 now. 


neutral looks so much newer, and im sure it makes what you see clearer. 

warms are ok in some things, just about.


----------



## Brasso (Dec 30, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

Hate cool white. Really can't see how anyone who's used a neutral light could still say they still like cool. Maybe they're color blind or something.

Having said that, I consider warm to be 3700k and below. Neutral to be 4k to 5K. And cool to be anything above 5k.

Personally I prefer anything from 3700-4200 K to be about perfect. Any cooler and I start seeing blue.


----------



## g.p. (Dec 30, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



twl said:


> Where it becomes tiresome, is the continuation of this meme that one of these tint distortions is somehow "more accurate". That's where the whole thing caves in.
> It's NOT "more accurate". It's just distorted differently in a way they like better.


+1 Great post.



neutralwhite said:


> i just think warm tints are nice, and cosy in certain applications, but ain't they somewhat 70/80's ?.
> this is old light. i remember these warms when I was like 10. im 41 now.
> 
> 
> neutral looks so much newer, and im sure it makes what you see clearer.


+1



Brasso said:


> Hate cool white. Really can't see how anyone who's used a neutral light could still say they still like cool. Maybe they're color blind or something.
> 
> Having said that, I consider warm to be 3700k and below. Neutral to be 4k to 5K. And cool to be anything above 5k.
> 
> Personally I prefer anything from 3700-4200 K to be about perfect. Any cooler and I start seeing blue.


Yeah, we probably should define "neutral". Those numbers look pretty good compared to what I am thinking too. I generally like my lights arount 4500k. I have seen that called "cool" before, but I would say it's pretty neutral.


----------



## slntdth93 (Dec 30, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

Pure clean cool white is fine for low power (<100 lumens or so? - maybe more floody helps too)
<4500k to me looks a tad too yellow (although i do have beige walls and most of the time just play around with lights indoors)


----------



## Swedpat (Dec 30, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



g.p. said:


> Yeah, we probably should define "neutral". Those numbers look pretty good compared to what I am thinking too. I generally like my lights arount 4500k. I have seen that called "cool" before, but I would say it's pretty neutral.



The eyes have a great ability to adjust to tints. A cool white alone can be perceived as the whitest of white. But switch on an incandescent, or a warm white LED and compare to, and it instantly looks bluish. Or the other way: a bright incandescent can alone be perceived as very white, but compare to a cool or neutral white LED and it instantly seems to be yellowish. 

Earlier I wondered about if there is a true neutral tint. A true neutral white then SHOULD be a tint that always, undependent of comparing lightsources would be perceived as just WHITE. I guess it isn't so simple, however...


----------



## markr6 (Dec 30, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



Swedpat said:


> The eyes have a great ability to adjust to tints. A cool white alone can be perceived as the whitest of white. But switch on an incandescent, or a warm white LED and compare to, and it instantly looks bluish. Or the other way: a bright incandescent can alone be perceived as very white, but compare to a cool or neutral white LED and it instantly seems to be yellowish.
> 
> Earlier I wondered about if there is a true neutral tint. A true neutral white then SHOULD be a tint that always, undependent of comparing lightsources would be perceived as just WHITE. I guess it isn't so simple, however...



Very good observation! You can drive yourself crazy comparing them side by side. That's why I use a few objects as reference points. Right now, the snow outside and christmas decorations inside (tree, garland, poinsettias) work well. I know the hue of "green" the tree should be from seeing it all day. At night, I shine my lights on them and the cool whites are a disgrace. The NW looks very very close to what it looks like in the day.

Another one is my HP printer. It's a two-tone light grey and dark grey. The color are very accurate with the NW; they turn into a light blue and navy blue with CW. Technical talk aside, I think you approach a point, high CRI or not, where things just simply look correct with the NW.


But yes, put them side by side and one looks blue, one looks yellow. Got an XP-G S2? Maybe some green. :shakehead


----------



## g.p. (Dec 31, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

Saying that colours can be better distinguished with warm lights reminds me of the hidden answer cards in kids games. Put on the red glasses and the answer jumps out at you...but then all of the red is blurred together and lacking details. Warm lights may be great for picking out hidden bunnies and other colours, but at the expense of what colours? Nothing is for free.

Maybe we're all wrong and red LEDs are the ticket since they highlight dark colours? :thinking:


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Dec 31, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



g.p. said:


> Yeah, that's the old argument from the warm camp...that anyone that buys a nuetral light is uneducated and just after big numbers. I don't buy it anymore and the poll seems to back that up at the moment. People that are spending the kind of money that we do on lights aren't going to be uneducated, at least not for long. If the majority of people like warm, they don't show it to the manufacturers with their money as much as they post about it. I believe there are just more posts about wanting warm tints since the majority are already happy with what is already being offered.


I never said that anybody was uneducated, so please don't put words in my mouth. What I am saying is that the majority of people who buy lights generally value raw output over other considerations like tint and the accuracy of color rendering. I've seen countless posts over the years from people suggesting that they would be more likely to consider a warm or high CRI emitter if it offered the same lumen output as the cool white alternative.


----------



## twl (Dec 31, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



the.Mtn.Man said:


> I never said that anybody was uneducated, so please don't put words in my mouth. What I am saying is that the majority of people who buy lights generally value raw output over other considerations like tint and the accuracy of color rendering. I've seen countless posts over the years from people suggesting that they would be more likely to consider a warm or high CRI emitter if it offered the same lumen output as the cool white alternative.



Yes, I think you are right about that.

As a cool-white user, I would say the reasons are as follows:
1) As long as I can identify what color it is, it is satisfactory to me.
2) I don't like a blue beam, and aim for a snow-white, not a cool blue. And I don't like yellow or green or peach or purple or brown either. I like white beams.
3) I really would prefer to get the full power out of my beam. Making dramatic concessions in output, just to have a yellow/brown beam that purports to render minor "improvements" in certain segments of the spectrum, while casting a yellow/brown pall over everything else, is absolutely not near the top of my list.

I have 4500K neutral emitters in one of my triples. It absolutely is a brownish/peach color. No getting around it. How that is somehow "better" than a slightly bluish tint is beyond me. The main thing that I notice is that it's about 30% weaker output than my other triple that has cool white emitters. With both lights, I can see that the grass is green, the dirt is brown, the road is gray, the truck is red, etc.
Is there some variation in shade that isn't perfect? Sure there is. But I can still tell what color it is, and that's all I care about. I'm not photographing for the cover of National Geographic. I just want a good bright light that serves my purposes of seeing at night as far and wide as I can for the size light that I want to carry. 

So, get me a High CRI emitter in snow-white with full output, and I'm in. I'm not against truth in color. But the plain simple fact is that yellow/brown/peach lights aren't it. And they are weak.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Dec 31, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



twl said:


> Where it becomes tiresome, is the continuation of this meme that one of these tint distortions is somehow "more accurate". That's where the whole thing caves in.
> It's NOT "more accurate". It's just distorted differently in a way they like better.


Don't be so dismissive. It has been scientifically proven that certain tints of light in fact do render colors more accurately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_rendering_index





It's not so much that cool white can't render certain colors but rather it can't render subtle variations in those colors which lends it its "flat" appearance since various shades will tend to look the same under a cool white source. Browns and greens in particular take on the same bluish grey hue under cool white. This fact alone is what makes warm and especially high CRI objectively superior in my opinion. You might prefer cool white, but you can not say that it renders colors more accurately.


----------



## twl (Dec 31, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



the.Mtn.Man said:


> Don't be so dismissive. It has been scientifically proven that certain tints of light in fact do render colors more accurately.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_rendering_index
> 
> ...



It renders SOME colors better, and distorts others.
You are just trading one distortion for another.
Its NOT better. It's simply your preferred distortion.

I didn't say cool white renders colors more accurately. I'm not making that claim.


----------



## g.p. (Dec 31, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



the.Mtn.Man said:


> I never said that anybody was uneducated, so please don't put words in my mouth. What I am saying is that the majority of people who buy lights generally value raw output over other considerations like tint and the accuracy of color rendering. I've seen countless posts over the years from people suggesting that they would be more likely to consider a warm or high CRI emitter if it offered the same lumen output as the cool white alternative.


I clearly stated that was the argument from the warm camp. Obviously my own words. I never once quoated you as saying those exact words or stated that you did. 

Whether you like it or not, that's the way that arguement comes across IMO (and my own words).


----------



## g.p. (Dec 31, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



twl said:


> It renders SOME colors better, and distorts others.
> You are just trading one distortion for another, and then rationalizing it because YOU like it better.
> Its NOT better. It's simply your preferred distortion.
> 
> I didn't say cool white renders colors more accurately. I'm not making that claim.


Plus, you can't render colours that you can't even reach with the lower lumen warm tinted light!


----------



## twl (Dec 31, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



g.p. said:


> Plus, you can't render colours that you can't even reach with the lower lumen warm tinted light!



Correct.
CRI is zero at ranges that the light cannot reach.


----------



## Swedpat (Dec 31, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

Mistake


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Dec 31, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



twl said:


> It renders SOME colors better, and distorts others.
> You are just trading one distortion for another.
> Its NOT better. It's simply your preferred distortion.
> 
> I didn't say cool white renders colors more accurately. I'm not making that claim.


That a high CRI source renders colors more accurately is really not up for debate. Which you prefer, on the other hand, is purely subjective.


----------



## twl (Dec 31, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



the.Mtn.Man said:


> That a high CRI source renders colors more accurately is really not up for debate. Which you prefer, on the other hand, is purely subjective.



Actually, it IS up for debate.
It's only "High CRI" in comparison to other sources with the SAME Correlated Color Temperature.

From Wikipedia on "Color Rendering Index" as follows:
"CRI merely measures the faithfulness of any illuminant to an ideal source with the same CCT".

and,...
"A high CRI by itself does not imply a good rendition of color".

Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_rendering_index

This is why I advise against this continued implication that these "warm" or "neutral" or "High CRI" lights are universally "more accurate" than others.
The CRI is dependent on CCT and also SPD.


----------



## markr6 (Dec 31, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



LOL I had to do it! But seriosuly, I believe what you are referencing twl.


----------



## SimulatedZero (Dec 31, 2012)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

Regarding wikipedia, many articles that have disputed facts or claims have a disclaimer at the top. All articles have there sources listed at the bottom for you to confirm yourself. Wikipedia is very popular among engineers, or at least the ones I affiliate with. It provides the ability of constant peer review and updating of information. While not always the most accurate, it does provide you the information to determine that yourself. 

Regarding this current argu... discussion... about CRI. I may be mistaken, but are we not comparing things on a fairly level playing field? I thought most LED's had similar light output patterns and that a High CRI LED was that output pattern adjusted to render more colors, more accurately. Forgive me if I'm wrong, I haven't quite gotten to learning about light output in that detail yet.


----------



## G8tr (Dec 31, 2012)

markr6 said:


> LOL I had to do it! But seriosuly, I believe what you are referencing twl.




Love that clip.

Wikipedia is pretty much banned on an academic level. Can't use it as a reference. But if some one wrote a decent article on Wikipedia they include references, so you could always use them.


----------



## twl (Jan 1, 2013)

A more simple explanation is how an artificial light source shifts the location of eight specified colors on a version of the C.I.E. color space as compared to the same colors lighted by a reference source of the same Color Temperature. If there is no change in appearance, the light source is given a CRI of 100 by definition. From 2000K to 5000K, the reference source is the Black Body Radiator and above 5000K, it is an agreed upon form of daylight. Incandescent bulbs have a CRI rating of 100, yet are far from ideal for color rendering and matching. Why? With a color temperature of only 2700k they are far too weak at the blue end of the spectrum making it next to impossible to distiguish between various shades of blue. The CRI rating of 100 simply means that the 8 samples look exactly the same as they would under a black body radiator at 2700k. The same can be said for lamps that exceed 6000k in color temperature as they are too weak in the red end of the spectrum, making reds and oranges appear too similar creating a "washed out" appearance. The northern sky with a color temperature of about 7500k and a CRI of 100 is not necessarily the ideal color rendering light source either. An ideal light source for color rendering will have both a color temperature similar to daylight and a high CRI value.

An example:










The image on the left(top) is an example of a full spectrum light source with a kelvin temperature similar to natural daylight and a CRI of 93. The image on the right(bottom) is from a Solux halogen bulb source touted as having a "spectral match to daylight" and a CRI of 98. So why does her white hat appear yellow and not white in the photo? It is because the CRI calculation and spectral match was done against a 4100k reference source which is several shades more yellow than the actual sunlight striking the earth's surface. Remember CRI can only be determined by using a reference that has the same color temperature. A true spectral match to daylight would only occur in the 5000-6000k range, not at daylight if it were only 4100k! In our opinion, it is unfortunate that marketing strategies like this are allowed to exist, but can be easily avoided by the educated consumer.

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

NOTE*
I had to put the photos on top and bottom instead of left/right because of formatting issues, so I put the (top) and (bottom) explanation in parentheses in the copied text.

I note the rejection of the information with the repudiation of Wikipedia as the listed source, because they had no ability to argue the information. Obviously nobody went to any other places to see that it was obviously true, no matter what the source was.
This additional information is for those who would like to learn something.


----------



## markr6 (Jan 1, 2013)

twl said:


> A more simple explanation is how an artificial light source shifts the location of eight specified colors on a version of the C.I.E. color space as compared to the same colors lighted by a reference source of the same Color Temperature. If there is no change in appearance, the light source is given a CRI of 100 by definition. From 2000K to 5000K, the reference source is the Black Body Radiator and above 5000K, it is an agreed upon form of daylight. Incandescent bulbs have a CRI rating of 100, yet are far from ideal for color rendering and matching. Why? With a color temperature of only 2700k they are far too weak at the blue end of the spectrum making it next to impossible to distiguish between various shades of blue. The CRI rating of 100 simply means that the 8 samples look exactly the same as they would under a black body radiator at 2700k. The same can be said for lamps that exceed 6000k in color temperature as they are too weak in the red end of the spectrum, making reds and oranges appear too similar creating a "washed out" appearance. The northern sky with a color temperature of about 7500k and a CRI of 100 is not necessarily the ideal color rendering light source either. An ideal light source for color rendering will have both a color temperature similar to daylight and a high CRI value.
> 
> An example:
> 
> ...



Ewww! So I'll make sure I don't get a flashlight with a Solux halogen bulb and keep buying pure white neutrals like my EA4!


----------



## jorn (Jan 1, 2013)

The sun changes tint all over the place depending on how mutch atmosphere it has to go trough before it reaches you 





Sometimes a certian tint works better than another. So i think it's better to own different tinted stuff instead of getting 100% fanboy (stuck) with just one. And then it's all a big learning prosess to find out what type of lights/tints I like for different stuff. 

The funny thing about tint is, almost all looks really nice when your eyes gets used too them one at the time. Put lots of lights side by side, and no one looks pure white. No matter how white you think it is, it will show some sort of tint when it gets some company.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Jan 1, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



twl said:


> Actually, it IS up for debate.
> It's only "High CRI" in comparison to other sources with the SAME Correlated Color Temperature.
> 
> From Wikipedia on "Color Rendering Index" as follows:
> ...


Context is important. For the purposes of this discussion, we are talking about a high CRI LED in the 3000K to 4000K range which has superior color rendering to cool white LEDs which tend to give objects an unnatural grayish tone.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Jan 1, 2013)

twl said:


> An example:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Consider the source of the information: it's from a vendor trying to convince you that their particular product is superior to a competitor's, and it looks like you swallowed the bait. 

Honestly, it's hard to prove these things with photos, because I look at the bottom picture and think, "Either someone forgot to white balance their camera, or they used daylight balanced film with an incandescent source." I could similarly "prove" that warm white is superior by balancing a camera for warm white light and then taking a picture under cool white light which would render the scene a ghastly blue.

The only way to "prove" which is superior to you is to do a side by side comparison with your own two eyes and decide for yourself. While I think a case can be made that a warm high CRI source is objectively superior, such arguments are largely irrelevant if someone simply prefers cool white for whatever reason.


----------



## chad allred (Jan 1, 2013)

I prefer the color of my lens light.here is a pic of 5 of my lights
Eagtac d25, nitecore defender,lens light mini,Fenix pd-32,pd-32ue








Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Jan 1, 2013)

jorn said:


> The sun changes tint all over the place depending on how mutch atmosphere it has to go trough before it reaches you


Indeed. Morning and evening sunlight called "the Golden Hour" is prized by photographers for its pleasing warmth.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/5868/34goldenhourphotos.jpg


Your image is too large and has been replaced with a link. Please resize and repost.
See Rule #3 If you post an image in your post, please downsize the image to no larger than 800 x 800 pixels. - Thanks Norm


----------



## twl (Jan 1, 2013)

I have posted the necessary information to get the truth out, on the previous page.

I don't plan to argue.
The facts have been presented for those who have discernment to understand, and I'll leave it at that.


----------



## markr6 (Jan 1, 2013)

Let's just all get along and wait for someone to produce this so everyone is happy 


*See Rule #3 Do not Hot Link images. Please host on an image site, Imageshack or similar and repost – Thanks Norm*


----------



## jorn (Jan 1, 2013)

the.Mtn.Man said:


> Indeed. Morning and evening sunlight called "the Golden Hour" is prized by photographers for its pleasing warmth.


Up here in the land of the midnight sun, we call it sunlight


----------



## markr6 (Jan 1, 2013)

the.Mtn.Man said:


> Indeed. Morning and evening sunlight called "the Golden Hour" is prized by photographers for its pleasing warmth.



Just admit it, you prefer the CW :laughing: I guess that's what they were using when they named it "Kentucky 


Your image is too large and has been replaced with a link. Please resize and repost.
See Rule #3 If you post an image in your post, please downsize the image to no larger than 800 x 800 pixels. - Thanks Norm


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Jan 1, 2013)

markr6 said:


> Let's just all get along and wait for someone to produce this so everyone is happy



Now that's a good idea. Self adjust tint.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Jan 1, 2013)

twl said:


> I have posted the necessary information to get the truth out, on the previous page.


Except your "truth" was from someone trying to sell you something with a ginned up photo comparison to sucker you into believing their claims. You only insist it's the truth because it ostensibly supports your point of view.


----------



## twl (Jan 1, 2013)

the.Mtn.Man said:


> Except your "truth" was from someone trying to sell you something with a ginned up photo comparison to sucker you into believing their claims. You only insist it's the truth because it ostensibly supports your point of view.


Look, trying to push me into an argument ain't working.

Post your evidence to the contrary.
You can't because NOTHING supports your position.
All you can do is try to slander the sources because you have no facts in your favor. That's twice you've tried the same tactic, and you're STILL WRONG, and you have not been able to refute any of the facts stated.

You have presented nothing to support your claims.

Here's a few more in my favor.

"CRI is calculated from the differences in the chromaticities of eight CIE standard color samples (CIE 1995) when illuminated by a light source and by a reference illuminant of the same correlated color temperature (CCT); the smaller the average difference in chromaticities, the higher the CRI."
http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/nlpip/lightinganswers/lightsources/whatisColorRenderingIndex.asp

"A simple definition of Color Rendering Index (CRI) would measure the ability of a light source to accurately render all frequencies of its color spectrum when compared to a perfect reference light of a similar type (color temperature)."
http://www.lowel.com/edu/color_temperature_and_rendering_demystified.html

"Color Rendering Index (CRI) indicates how well a test source renders eight standard colors of intermediate saturation, when compared to a reference lamp of the same color temperature. "
http://www.mastlight.com/CRI-Chart.html

"As stated in IES Publication RP-16-96, the CRI is a measure of the degree of color shift objects undergo when illuminated by a light source, as compared with the color of those same objects when illuminated by a reference illuminant of comparable (within 100 Kelvins) color temperature."
http://www.gtilite.com/gti-pdf/Technote-30.PDF


To sum up, now with added sources cited, the CRI of a lamp is only valid in comparison to a reference lamp that is at the SAME CORRELATED COLOR TEMPERATURE(CCT), and is not valid as a cross-comparison against other lamps at other CCTs in an attempt to attribute a "universally more accurate color rendering characteristic" across CCT boundaries.
The CRI rating is limited to the CCT range it was tested in, against the reference lamp of the same CCT.


----------



## SimulatedZero (Jan 1, 2013)

Indeed, twl has made a most convincing argument here and what's more important is that he appears to be right too. Atleast as far as how light is physically perceived when compared to other sources. Though, I will say that there are times when I may prefer one distortion to another as it were. In example, when I am hiking or camping give me a warm light to go with my nice warm fire. 

I really do think that Jorn said it best earlier. Atleast as far as preference in use is concerned. 


Jorn said:


> I like the neutral for around house, general stuff. And a really warm one out in the bush. I dont know why, but even the really hi cri neutrals makes everything look more flat with less contrast or something when i take it to a wooded area (compared with a warm). The warm makes the muddy trail around here pop out of the ground more and i feel i have better depth preseption, seeing trough underbrush etc. Winter time is neutral time. The warm looks too warm against the white snow, but it shows depth really well. Cool is for divelights, throwers or for "max lumen impressive blasters"  What i like is not set in stone, it really depends on my use


----------



## N/Apower (Jan 2, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

I prefer 5500-6500K in tint for a weapon light. I have played with all tints from about 6500K down to 3200K. CRI's from 75 to 92.

Here is what I discovered:

6500K will reflect back much more of the out-doors. 5000K and below seems more "absorbed" by woodland features, and 4300K and below tends to "orange out" when confronted with a lot of dead leaves/grass such as in the fall-time. Unless your target it black or white, it's going to blend in very much so. The 6500K tends to make things "pop" MUCH! better. I am not trying to tell the color of its skin---I am trying to see that there is something that is not "like the rest of the environment" out there, and put a bullet into it.

When you pass 6500K by very much, you get what I call "grey-out". Everything looks sick and pale and the same problem that occurs at about 4300K and below now happens, except it's pale/grey rather than orange. Both are horrible for my uses.

6500K only appears "cold" because the rest of the environment is black. It's not cold. It's how your eye is most used to seeing things, and that's why things pop. Also, unless the light is shining IN YOUR EYES, it's not going to be an issue. You're just going to need less lumens to see the same things, and nice as it is, 6500K LED's are more power efficient and you get MORE lumens. A double-win.

I just took my 6500K Surefire M600C weapon light out and compared it to my Malkoff M61N XP-G2. The M600C slaughtered it for throw. Nearly 200% more effective at ID'ing things at distance with it. The M61N "browned out" in the field I shone it in. The M600C did not, and reflected back crisp outlines of the background it was shone onto.

Part of this is TIR vs. Reflector, but the tint perception is not. The 6500K was much more effective. Both have a CRI of around 75.

Now, if I wanted accurate rendition of my environment, a 4500K Nichia 92CRI would be, and is my choice. At this time, though, they just don't have the hardware built up around that LED for me to mount it on my M4. So as it stands, I prefer 55-6500K on a weapon, and 38-4500K with high CRI for walking trails/around the house/in the hospital where I work. In those places, the objective is more to study the detail of what I am seeing. To understand its color, etc. and how that relates to the process. Try spotting an infiltrated IV/redness with a 6500K LED 75CRI and then do it again at 3800K 85+CRI, and get back to me on that. The 6500K is horrible. However, out-doors (or indoors) when mounted on my M4...I don't care what color that arm is. I want to know THAT THERE IS AN ARM. The 6500K LED does that, further away and better, than anything else I have tried. It shows outlines much better than the warmer colors, although finer textures and nuance are not its forte, I can study that later.



markr6 said:


> Just admit it, you prefer the CW I guess that's what they were using when they named it "Kentucky Bluegrass"
> 
> 
> Your image is too large and has been replaced with a link. Please resize and repost.
> ...



This picture supports my above post beautifully. If I were trying to shoot that horse, the bottom rendition does a MUCH! better job of exposing its outline from the background. If I were trying to study the horse and better understand the nuance of its pelt, then the top. Notice how the horse in the bottom picture has NOTHING in common with its background, where in the top, its golden-brown somewhat blends with the railing and parts of the grass? Not completely, but enough that the outline is more obscured than in the bottom at quick glance.

*I posted originally after reading the first page, before seeing this photo.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Jan 2, 2013)

twl said:


> You have presented nothing to support your claims.


Like I said, I could make a cool white source look terrible if I took a photo with a camera balanced for warm white. That's all your source did. They're trying to sell you daylight balanced lights, and they took a photo of warm white using a daylight balanced camera in an obviously deliberate attempt to make the warm white look as bad as possible, so the photo comparison you presented is meaningless. Intentionally making a competing product look inferior is one of the oldest marketing tricks in the book, and, no offense, it's hilarious to me that you've fallen so hard for it. 

Just think about it for a moment: if your source is making a correct claim and that second photo is really a 4100K lamp with a CRI of 98 then it is literally _impossible_ that it will look that ridiculously orange to the naked eye. If anything, 4100K should be pretty near to neutral and have a very pleasing tint. In fact, one study found that test subjects overwhelmingly preferred a tint of 3700K because they perceived it as achromatic (that is neither warm nor cool). This fact alone makes the accuracy of your source highly suspect for what I think are obvious reasons.



twl said:


> To sum up, now with added sources cited, the CRI of a lamp is only valid in comparison to a reference lamp that is at the SAME CORRELATED COLOR TEMPERATURE(CCT)...


To quote myself from earlier in the thread, "Context is important. For the purposes of this discussion, we are talking about a high CRI LED in the 3000K to 4000K range which has superior color rendering to cool white LEDs which tend to give objects an unnatural grayish tone."

To put it another way, there's really no such thing as a cool white high CRI LED. It seems the only way to get high CRI out of an LED is to warm it up with extra phosphor.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Jan 2, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



N/Apower said:


> 6500K will reflect back much more of the out-doors. 5000K and below seems more "absorbed" by woodland features, and 4300K and below tends to "orange out" when confronted with a lot of dead leaves/grass such as in the fall-time. Unless your target it black or white, it's going to blend in very much so. The 6500K tends to make things "pop" MUCH! better. I am not trying to tell the color of its skin---I am trying to see that there is something that is not "like the rest of the environment" out there, and put a bullet into it.


I've not found "orange out" to be a problem with a high CRI LED. In fact, I find that depth perception and object recognition is dramatically improved with a warm white high CRI source. "Grey out", on the other hand, is a significant problem with any cool white LED I've tried.


----------



## orbital (Jan 2, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

+


rare
medium rare
medium
medium well
well



cool tint (rare) for throwers,, med to medium well for everything else.:twothumbs
{too _well done_ and everything looks like mud}


----------



## jorn (Jan 2, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



N/Apower said:


> This picture supports my above post beautifully. If I were trying to shoot that horse, the bottom rendition does a MUCH! better job of exposing its outline from the background.


Well if you ask me, i can see the "killspot" better on the warm pic. I aim for the killspot, and not silhouettes when i hunt  And this is just a photo put trough a blue filter in photoshop or something. So i wouldent draw conclusions on cool vs warm based on it. 
Most animals have natural camo, adapted to work under natural sunlight. So it wouldent suprice me if a really unnatural tinted light make them pop out of the woods better than a hi cri natural. Their camo is prob not adapted for 6500K lights, because you won't find a 6500k lightsourse anywhere it in nature.



> To put it another way, there's really no such thing as a cool white high CRI LED. It seems the only way to get high CRI out of an LED is to warm it up with extra phosphor.


The nichia 119 used in the Mc-gizmo's are pretty cool (and pretty rare, because i cant get my hands on any). So there are ways to make high cri leds with a cooler tint.

I dont get the pepole that claim they hate neutral/warm. Most prob live in their hoses with neutral/warm lights everywhere, spending lots of hours pr day in neutral lightning. The second they fire up a neutral tinted flashlight they say. "yuck. it's kind of yello.." And then they go back into their houses to their yello tinted house lights  Do theese pepole got cool white lights in their house? I doubt so..

Edit: I remeber i got some nice pics of a rabbit in the beam of a cool fenix tk11 under a hunting trip some years ago.











This little bugger survived all odds  One of my friends blasted 2 shells after it at close range and totally missed on both haha. It ran under some huge rocks, so i took some photos of it. Then my friend stood on top of that rock wating while i went down too the sea to find a floating twig or something to "poke" it out of there from the other side. (it's really close to north cape, It's so windy and short summers, trees won't grow on this island)) It ran, my friend, (too trigger happy again) blasted 2 more shells in it's tracks at 5-6 meters. Again, both missed, not a scratch. Every year i tell him to bring more ammo or more patience, because he misses a lot hehe  
(maby a little ot, but a nice break from all the argu.. eeh discussion in this interesting tread)


----------



## N/Apower (Jan 2, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



the.Mtn.Man said:


> I've not found "orange out" to be a problem with a high CRI LED. In fact, I find that depth perception and object recognition is dramatically improved with a warm white high CRI source. "Grey out", on the other hand, is a significant problem with any cool white LED I've tried.


Everyone's eyes are different. I am comparing a 75-85CRI 4000K tint to a 75CRI 6500K tint. The 6500K tint worked much better out-doors for me. The warmer tint made all the grass, animals, etc. look brown. Everything blended. The 6500K made things look different than they really were, but contrast was maintained better.

Maybe I will go for another walk tonight and bring my lights and compare them. I have a cat, that should work, yes? He's a very nice Maine Coon and of good natural coloring. Comes back when I call him, so he will be a very good prop for this. I will compare a Malkoff M61N XP-G2, and my Surefire M600C.

I will also hide him about the house.

Used my Droid: ISO 800, White Balance: Auto
Malkoff M61N XP-G2. Maine Coon, and Meatcat:
http://i50.tinypic.com/2hqgfpz.jpg
http://i47.tinypic.com/mi1dgh.jpg
http://i45.tinypic.com/uubnc.jpg
http://i49.tinypic.com/qnmyvq.jpg
http://i46.tinypic.com/16k4byd.jpg
http://i45.tinypic.com/b6avye.jpg[
http://i49.tinypic.com/2z9ijap.jpg
[http://i50.tinypic.com/1hx5z.jpg


Your images are too large and have been replaced with links Please resize and repost.
See Rule #3 If you post an image in your post, please downsize the image to no larger than 800 x 800 pixels. - Thanks Norm


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Jan 2, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



N/Apower said:


> Everyone's eyes are different. I am comparing a 75-85CRI 4000K tint to a 75CRI 6500K tint. The 6500K tint worked much better out-doors for me. The warmer tint made all the grass, animals, etc. look brown. Everything blended. The 6500K made things look different than they really were, but contrast was maintained better.


Honestly, with a CRI as low as 75 to 85, I'm not surprised the warm white gives you bad results. You need to get your hands on a 90+ CRI.


----------



## N/Apower (Jan 2, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



the.Mtn.Man said:


> Honestly, with a CRI as low as 75 to 85, I'm not surprised the warm white gives you bad results. You need to get your hands on a 90+ CRI.



Like I said, they don't make any 90+ CRI LED's that are embodied in a light suitable for my usage. The only one available is the Nichia, and it has a very floody beam and the most powerful version is only around 275 OTF lumens. That, coupled with a floody beam bodes poor for a weapon-mounted light.


----------



## SimulatedZero (Jan 2, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

The Nichia has a slightly more narrow viewing angle than the XP-G. While it may not be as efficient, it will definitely throw as far, if not slightly farther.


----------



## SimulatedZero (Jan 2, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



jorn said:


> (maby a little ot, but a nice break from all the argu.. eeh discussion in this interesting tread)





SimulatedZero said:


> Regarding this current argu... discussion... about CRI.


----------



## N/Apower (Jan 2, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



SimulatedZero said:


> The Nichia has a slightly more narrow viewing angle than the XP-G. While it may not be as efficient, it will definitely throw as far, if not slightly farther.



Not with the Malkoff module's reflector. The Malkoff unit is the only one I can fit in what is for me, a desirable setup.


----------



## N/Apower (Jan 2, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

This is about 15 yards or so, and roughly how things looked to my eyes, the pictures are very representative of what I saw.

Cat: Maine Coon
Lights: Malkoff M61N XP-G2 (6P with OEM lens and McClicky switch) and Surefire M600C (200 lumen version)
Distance: @ 15 yards
Camera: HTC Droid, 800ISO, Autobalance

http://i45.tinypic.com/feffid.jpg
http://i50.tinypic.com/nq1oph.jpg



N/Apower said:


> Everyone's eyes are different. I am comparing a 75-85CRI 4000K tint to a 75CRI 6500K tint. The 6500K tint worked much better out-doors for me. The warmer tint made all the grass, animals, etc. look brown. Everything blended. The 6500K made things look different than they really were, but contrast was maintained better.
> 
> Maybe I will go for another walk tonight and bring my lights and compare them. I have a cat, that should work, yes? He's a very nice Maine Coon and of good natural coloring. Comes back when I call him, so he will be a very good prop for this. I will compare a Malkoff M61N XP-G2, and my Surefire M600C.
> 
> ...





Note how my Maine Coon stands out so much better in the cooler tint? yes, he is being hit with more LUX, but I can't help that. Even still, you can see how he doesn't blend in in the 6500K tint like he does with the earth tones around him and the @4K tint of the Malkoff. Both lights have a CRI of around 75, so it's a great way to compare tint alone.


----------



## jorn (Jan 2, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



N/Apower said:


> Note how my Maine Coon stands out so much better in the cooler tint? yes, he is being hit with more LUX, but I can't help that. Even still, you can see how he doesn't blend in in the 6500K tint like he does with the earth tones around him and the @4K tint of the Malkoff. Both lights have a CRI of around 75, so it's a great way to compare tint alone.


Not that nice to compare because lux is different, and you never know what you get with auto whitebalance.. Most lux wins in this case.
It's like sayin: "im stronger than you. look at this. me and my 5 friends can lift this safe. If you cant, then youre the weakest, of us all!"


----------



## markr6 (Jan 2, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



N/Apower said:


> This is about 15 yards or so, and roughly how things looked to my eyes, the pictures are very representative of what I saw.
> 
> Cat: Maine Coon
> Lights: Malkoff M61N XP-G2 (6P with OEM lens and McClicky switch) and Surefire M600C (200 lumen version)
> ...



The warmer tint looks much more soothing and realistic, but I would choose the cooler tint 9/10 when I needed fast, no-nonsense identification of whatever is hiding in the dark. Honestly, you could have fooled me if you said there wasn't even a flashlight on in the first pic and it was just ambient light! Could have to do with flood vs. throw though.

Is that cat ready to attack you yet? :laughing:

And a friendly reminder to keep images at 800px max


----------



## N/Apower (Jan 2, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



markr6 said:


> The warmer tint looks much more soothing and realistic, but I would choose the cooler tint 9/10 when I needed fast, no-nonsense identification of whatever is hiding in the dark. Honestly, you could have fooled me if you said there wasn't even a flashlight on in the first pic and it was just ambient light! Could have to do with flood vs. throw though.
> 
> Is that cat ready to attack you yet? :laughing:
> 
> And a friendly reminder to keep images at 800px max



Sorry, I will in the future make my images the correct size. Thanks!

Yes, the Malkoff M61N XP-G2 is very dissapointing in the throw department. It is alleged at 300 OTF lumens, and has some good spill. 

What would you like me to balance the pictures at? They look identical on my PC screen to how they looked in person to my eyes when I took them. I have:
auto
incan
flourescent (This looks the most realistic to my eyes, and is what I will use, so at least everything is balanced the same).
daylight
cloudy


----------



## tjswarbrick (Jan 2, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

I voted Neutral.

My only warms are Hi CRI XP-G's in an M61 HCRI and a Preon2 HiCRI. Both seem to be in the 3000k temp range. They do yellows very well and reds okay, but tend to make grass and trees look like they are changing colors unseasonably early.
I once received a Warm XM-L erroneously when I ordered a Neutral. I sent the warm back.

I have neutrals in XP-G, XM-L, 219, and XP-G2. Only the 219 is specified as Hi CRI.
All give better tint, and color rendition, to my eyes, than the Warm Hi CRI XP-G. Some are more yellow than others, some are more white, but all look more natural and pleasing to me than the yellow/orange/brown of the warm emitter.


----------



## markr6 (Jan 2, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

N/Apower - just to be clear I wasn't insulting your photos about not being able to tell if there is a light on; that's just the nature of floodier lights, plus the warm tint.


----------



## SimulatedZero (Jan 2, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



N/Apower said:


> Not with the Malkoff module's reflector. The Malkoff unit is the only one I can fit in what is for me, a desirable setup.



I don't know if you are buying Malkoffs because your light is a weapon light, but you may want to take a look at nailbender.His 219 and XP-G2 modules are very throwy. If you are getting Malkoffs for another reason then never mind.


----------



## N/Apower (Jan 2, 2013)

*Thanks to my Maine Coon, Aloysius, and to my neighbors, who don't mind me doing nutty stuff like this as long as I take the M600 off of my M4 SBR first!


----------



## N/Apower (Jan 2, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



markr6 said:


> N/Apower - just to be clear I wasn't insulting your photos about not being able to tell if there is a light on; that's just the nature of floodier lights, plus the warm tint.



I did not take it as an insult in the least. I personally felt the same way when using my M61N XP-G2. It seems to just "blend in" and doesn't puncture shadows very well at all. Excellent inside a structure, and as a "general purpose" light, no doubt, but on my weapon, I want something that is going to punch through shadows and allow a target ID. Even if all I ever shoot are hogs at night, ID is STILL! important to me.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Jan 2, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

nice pic N/Apower


----------



## N/Apower (Jan 2, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



SimulatedZero said:


> I don't know if you are buying Malkoffs because your light is a weapon light, but you may want to take a look at nailbender.His 219 and XP-G2 modules are very throwy. If you are getting Malkoffs for another reason then never mind.



I have a 1.7A 219 from Nailbender, as well as 2.8A Regulated LOP XP-G2, XM-L, and other assorted modules.
The M600C in an offset mount, though, is a GREAT! light functionally, as going to a 6P or similar 1" bodied light with a ring to hold it prevents me from easily using my Troy BUIS. It creates a clearance issue on the side where you depress the button to allow it to be lowered. The M600C with its integral mount doesn't require any rings. I know, I'm being picky...but it works.

That said, my M600C gives up nothing in reach to the Nailbender modules I have, EXCEPT! for the 2.8A 6500K XP-G2 SMO. That will ever so slightly out-throw it. The rest, it's just tint and spill, and to be quite honest, the M600C's spill is more generous than people give it credit for.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand, I am pretty bent on using my M600C in LaRue offset mount. That means I am limited to...My M600C's KX2C head, or whatever fits in a VME...which happens to only be Malkoff. I did try several adapters For the E to C combo, and found that none of them fit any existing modules well without the adapter spring in place, which in my way of thinking is just "one more thing", and I don't want it on something like this. Hobby light, sure, but not on a tool like an M4 carbine. The VME/Malkoff is a pretty solid affair, and of course the OEM KX2C is, as well.

So far, nothing has bested my KX2C enough for me to really want to change.


----------



## N/Apower (Jan 2, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

Here is comparing the M600C weapon light to the 440 OTF Lument XM-L T6 Neutral (4750K) EDC Plus P60 module, as well as the Malkoff M61N XP-G2 4000K.

No matter how many lumens the competitors have that I throw at my M600C, it just keeps on proving that Surefire did a darn fine job! The spill is indeed less, but it's plenty adequate, and with the F04 diffuser in place, it's great! for indoors.


----------



## SimulatedZero (Jan 3, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



N/Apower said:


> I have a 1.7A 219 from Nailbender, as well as 2.8A Regulated LOP XP-G2, XM-L, and other assorted modules.
> The M600C in an offset mount, though, is a GREAT! light functionally, as going to a 6P or similar 1" bodied light with a ring to hold it prevents me from easily using my Troy BUIS. It creates a clearance issue on the side where you depress the button to allow it to be lowered. The M600C with its integral mount doesn't require any rings. I know, I'm being picky...but it works.
> 
> That said, my M600C gives up nothing in reach to the Nailbender modules I have, EXCEPT! for the 2.8A 6500K XP-G2 SMO. That will ever so slightly out-throw it. The rest, it's just tint and spill, and to be quite honest, the M600C's spill is more generous than people give it credit for.
> ...




Fair enough, I wasn't sure if you had given Dave's drop-ins a try yet and wanted to open up more options for you if I could. You have a nice setup goin on there, I would see no need to change it to be honest.


----------



## SimulatedZero (Jan 3, 2013)

I just picked up a 3B 5000k tint XM-L from Nailbender and I was very pleasantly surprised by the tint. To me the tint seems pure white. Every single color is completely its own. The blues pop, the whites are white, the yellows stick out, everything seems to pop out like someone turned up the saturation a little bit. The only thing that I wish this tint had a little more of is red. The reds are there, but they don't quite pop like everything else does. This makes trees, grass, and dirt a bit washed out by the overwhelming white. I guess if you were to add a touch of red you would end up somewhere in the 4500k range like the Nichia 219. I haven't gotten myself a Nichia drop-in yet so I don't have to compare. 

To me, this seems like a common problem with LEDs. You can shift towards the blue spectrum or you can shift towards the red spectrum. You never manage to find something that equally covers both spectrums. There was another thread that a decent amount of information on what spectrum different LED tints put out. All the warms had almost not blue while all the cool tints had almost no red. None of the LEDs however, managed to cover both. I don't know the specifics in LED production, but wouldn't there be a way to kind of bump up the low end of the spectrum without losing the high end of the spectrum? I feel that it would be hard on the efficiency to put out the low end, but it would be worth it. In the other thread it was speculated that the warmer tints are less efficient because they begin to bleed over into the IR spectrum and start to generate more heat and less light, like the old incans do. Perhaps there is something about the way that the LED produces the IR or near IR end of reds that prohibits it from also producing equal amounts of blue.


----------



## lightliker (Jan 3, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

That's the reason why Many cars where equipped with yellow(ish) lights about 30 years ago. Now, Xenon lights with almost violet colour are marketed as the one and only solution for a good sight.......



neutralwhite said:


> hi thanks, excellent topic this; was just this minute thinking about all this.
> was reading that 4000K-4300k is actually better than 5000k, and upwards.
> how true really is that statement ?.
> 
> ...


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Jan 3, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



N/Apower said:


> Note how my Maine Coon stands out so much better in the cooler tint? yes, he is being hit with more LUX, but I can't help that. Even still, you can see how he doesn't blend in in the 6500K tint like he does with the earth tones around him and the @4K tint of the Malkoff. Both lights have a CRI of around 75, so it's a great way to compare tint alone.


All that really does is the show the difference between spot and flood. Your eye is naturally drawn to the brightest part of the image, so of course you spot the cat straightaway in the second picture.

And again, 75 hardly counts as "high CRI". Get yourself a true high CRI source and the colors on your Maine Coon would "pop", and he'd be clearly visible against a green background. As I said, I've seen this effect myself when I noticed a rabbit in my garden that was all but invisible under cool white light yet clearly visible under warm white high CRI.


----------



## N/Apower (Jan 3, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



the.Mtn.Man said:


> All that really does is the show the difference between spot and flood. Your eye is naturally drawn to the brightest part of the image, so of course you spot the cat straightaway in the second picture.
> 
> And again, 75 hardly counts as "high CRI". Get yourself a true high CRI source and the colors on your Maine Coon would "pop", and he'd be clearly visible against a green background. As I said, I've seen this effect myself when I noticed a rabbit in my garden that was all but invisible under cool white light yet clearly visible under warm white high CRI.



Is 100 CRI good enough? That's what I used in part of my comparison above. I should have pulled out my 92CRI Nichia, as it is pretty throwy (1.7A Nailbender module).

Of course 75CRI is not high at all, but again, I cannot find a 90+ CRI in weapon-light format that I like. Maybe if someone could perform surgery on a KX2C and install a Nichia in a durable manner...holy grail!

Again though, this thread was about tint, not CRI, but I did take it on a tangent. Check out how much better everything "pops" with the 75CRI M600C in my last post vs. the 100CRI Incan (Surefire P60). Tint matters, too.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Jan 3, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

Like I said before, it's hard to prove these things one way or another with photos simply because so much depends on the color balancing of the camera. In your case, balancing for fluorescent, which is typically blue-green, will make warmer sources like incandescent appear overly orange (like in the images that twl posted earlier). If you balance for incandescent then cool sources will look overly blue. In short, photos make it very hard to show each light to its best advantage. Perhaps each photo could be manipulated with post-processing to match what the naked eye would see, but then one has to be careful to guard against subjectivity in order to show what the eye _really_ sees rather than what one _thinks_ it sees.


----------



## SimulatedZero (Jan 3, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

While I still prefer warm(ish) tints for when I'm walking in the woods I will agree with N/Apower on this one. Cool white does have a certain clarity that warm white does not. It's like turning up the contrast on your monitor. That's why I stopped using warm tints or Incans at work.


----------



## N/Apower (Jan 3, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



the.Mtn.Man said:


> Like I said before, it's hard to prove these things one way or another with photos simply because so much depends on the color balancing of the camera. In your case, balancing for fluorescent, which is typically blue-green, will make warmer sources like incandescent appear overly orange (like in the images that twl posted earlier). If you balance for incandescent then cool sources will look overly blue. In short, photos make it very hard to show each light to its best advantage. Perhaps each photo could be manipulated with post-processing to match what the naked eye would see, but then one has to be careful to guard against subjectivity in order to show what the eye _really_ sees rather than what one _thinks_ it sees.



It is my opinion that your eyes photo-balance things, as well. For example, your Malkoff M61N XP-G2 looks rather white...then you shine it next to that M600C, and it looks rose-colored all of a sudden.

I am inclined to say it's LUX on target within a REASONABLE spectrum and then CRI that matter. My M600C obviously does that better than 400+ lumen P60 reflectored lights, etc. and has enough spill to suite me, so it's a winner for MY purposes. Not any good for inspecting art-work or looking at a new paint-job, but it will get lead on the RIGHT target.

I also feel, and continue to feel, that cold tints (5500-6500K, much over that and you get purple/gray) make the world more "black and white", which is exactly what I am after (to an extent) for a weapon mounted light. I am not interested in seeing every minute detail, I just want to see the object as a whole.

To me, looking at the out-doors at 6500K is like looking at a low resolution monitor and picking out shapes. Looking at the world with 4000K tint (and the same CRI), I have a lot more clutter to deal with and none of it makes it any easier to pick out things in the background, just the opposite.

It's hard to explain, but the cooler tint just gives me more concise feed-back to the eyes, as opposed to some lengthy dissertation about the hues of this or that.

It's the difference between this post above and:

Cooler tints make outlines pop.
Warmer tints are for studying fur patterns and I don't care (for this purpose) and result in blending.

Most living things (animal) are NOT green. They stand out with cool tints.
Most living things (many) are black/brown. They blend in with everything else black/brown when you render color 100% accurately. Shift it cooler, and the camouflage dissapears and they "pop".


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Jan 3, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



SimulatedZero said:


> While I still prefer warm(ish) tints for when I'm walking in the woods I will agree with N/Apower on this one. Cool white does have a certain clarity that warm white does not. It's like turning up the contrast on your monitor. That's why I stopped using warm tints or Incans at work.


And see, it's the opposite for me. Cool white "flattens" the scene and screws with my depth perception and object recognition. My wife, on the other hand, loves cool white because she thinks it looks brighter.

So what it comes down to is that it's largely subjective as to which is "better".


----------



## N/Apower (Jan 3, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



the.Mtn.Man said:


> All that really does is the show the difference between spot and flood. Your eye is naturally drawn to the brightest part of the image, so of course you spot the cat straightaway in the second picture.
> 
> And again, 75 hardly counts as "high CRI". Get yourself a true high CRI source and the colors on your Maine Coon would "pop", and he'd be clearly visible against a green background. As I said, I've seen this effect myself when I noticed a rabbit in my garden that was all but invisible under cool white light yet clearly visible under warm white high CRI.



Please note that the light in the upper right corner of my photos is the same tint in each shot. Take into account that it and its spill on the side of the building DO NOT CHANGE.

Please note how much better the outline of the tree, and inside of my apartment "pop" with the 6500K tint, regardless of the 75cri vs. 100cri disparity.


----------



## jorn (Jan 3, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

I take a lot of photos. Not a pro, but i like to bring a camera outdoors. Most landscape stuff. Some pics gets sharper than others. How steady you hold the camera when the shot is taken + where it's focused is the two biggest factors for how sharp pics will look. Tint has less to do with it. Getting WB to match exactly what i actual see under different tints is almost impossible. So IMO comparing tints based on sharpness from two grainy pics from a autofocus handheld phone in the dark is useless. Photos are a hit or miss thing. Autofocus+darkness+small lense just makes everyting harder.

If i was standing on that spot wanting to focus my eyes at that tree, i could. Cant do that when looking at a picture. If the camera is out of focus on the part of the pic youre looking at. Then it wont look sharp no matter how hard you look at the photo.

Edit:
If someone hid something really good in a bush, make it really hard to spot. (or other scenarios discussed) Set up a SLR on a tripod with all manual settings and remote control. The camera is locked. It wont try to change focus, it wont shake, shutter speeds will be the same, iso will be the same. And the only thing that changes from one photo vs the other is tint. Use the same light with different tints pointed at the exact same spot . Someone with lots of different tinted xp-g nailbenders and photo gadgets could do so. 
That might be the only way i would even consider to use photos to discuss what different tints does. And even photos like this would not be proof. Eyes hoocked up to a brain vs lense hooked up to a sensor is not the same thing.


----------



## N/Apower (Jan 3, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



jorn said:


> I take a lot of photos. Not a pro, but i like to bring a camera outdoors. Most landscape stuff. Some pics gets sharper than others. How steady you hold the camera when the shot is taken + where it's focused is the two biggest factors for how sharp pics will look. Tint has less to do with it. Getting WB to match exactly what i actual see under different tints is almost impossible. So IMO comparing tints based on sharpness from two grainy pics from a autofocus handheld phone in the dark is useless. Photos are a hit or miss thing. Autofocus+darkness+small lense just makes everyting harder.
> 
> If i was standing on that spot wanting to focus my eyes at that tree, i could. Cant do that when looking at a picture. If the camera is out of focus on the part of the pic youre looking at. Then it wont look sharp no matter how hard you look at the photo.



Very true, and I have told you what my eyes see, but I cannot show you, that is the best I can do. Such are the limitations of being human.


----------



## jorn (Jan 3, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



N/Apower said:


> Very true, and I have told you what my eyes see, but I cannot show you, that is the best I can do. Such are the limitations of being human.


Hehe had a long edit. I really think it's more the limitation of what some "point and shot" pictures can show  And even really good "studio" pics wont tell the whole story.
There is no led that does it all. Simple as that


----------



## N/Apower (Jan 3, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



jorn said:


> Hehe had a long edit. I really think it's more the limitation of what some "point and shot" pictures can show  And even really good "studio" pics wont tell the whole story.
> There is no led that does it all. Simple as that



I agree, hence why I have stated over and over that my application is: Weapon light for my SBR.
In the hospital, I use an 85+ CRI pen-light.
In my apartment/camping, I use the XM-L 5000K


----------



## luxlucis (Jan 3, 2013)

neutral white is cool


----------



## eh4 (Jan 3, 2013)

I really think that your tint preference is going to be influenced by how brightly you illuminate a given scene.
For me warmer is better at lower levels, if I had 3000 lumen blasters that ran on multiple 18650s I might hate warm tint - in that circumstance.

At low lux, my peripheral vision really does seem to work better with cool tints.
At low lux, my central, highly detailed visual zone (right where I'm looking) seems to work much better with the red light found in greater abundance in warm tints.


----------



## eh4 (Jan 3, 2013)

the.Mtn.Man said:


> Indeed. Morning and evening sunlight called "the Golden Hour" is prized by photographers for its pleasing warmth.
> 
> http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/208/34goldenhourphotos.jpg/



I notice in this picture that there are multiple tint light sources...
This "golden hour" is also benefiting from a Very cool tint from the evening sky, the right side, opposite the setting sun. - look at the jocky's helmet.
I thought it was interesting anyways.

Also, the best work light I've managed to put together used two 3000k hcri cree and two of the nichia 219 hcri. I liked them together much better than either alone, though if I had to choose only one it would have been the 3000K Cree.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Jan 4, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



N/Apower said:


> Please note that the light in the upper right corner of my photos is the same tint in each shot. Take into account that it and its spill on the side of the building DO NOT CHANGE.
> 
> Please note how much better the outline of the tree, and inside of my apartment "pop" with the 6500K tint, regardless of the 75cri vs. 100cri disparity.


The light in your second pic is brighter. That's why you can see more with it. It has nothing to do with the tint.


----------



## jellydonut (Jan 4, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

I really don't like warms. They're too fake-yellow.

A combination of high CRI and neutral daylight-type kelvin levels (4200-4500K) would be the ideal form of illumination for any purpose. I still tend to stick to cool whites for most purposes, since LED lighting still has a way to go in terms of CRI, and I'd rather just have the added efficiency when the lighting is bound to mess up colors anyway.


----------



## jinx626 (Jan 5, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

Thanks N/Apower for all those pics. I wonder if both have the same brightness, same throwing ability, and same hotspot intensity; would the result be different?


----------



## neutralwhite (Jan 5, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

on a side question which is the better neutral out of these two ?, the Nichia 219 4500k, or the MCE LED 4500k ?.
just might get a bespoke copper in one of those from Jason at darksucks. com
thanks.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Jan 9, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



jinx626 said:


> Thanks N/Apower for all those pics. I wonder if both have the same brightness, same throwing ability, and same hotspot intensity; would the result be different?



That's a good question. If everything is the same, would the neutral tint have the advantage?


----------



## N/Apower (Jan 9, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



dealgrabber2002 said:


> That's a good question. If everything is the same, would the neutral tint have the advantage?



I think the highest CRI would win the day with equal LUX.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Jan 12, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

Thx N/Apower.


----------



## KarstGhost (Jan 12, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

Depends on my mood. I love the High CRI XPG when I'm in the mood for a campfire like warm, and love the Nichia 219 when I'm in the mood for pure white neutral! 

Anyone who dislikes neutrals because they've ran into a sample that was greenish needs to give the 219 a shot.


----------



## neutralwhite (Feb 12, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

would the Nichia 219 4500khcri be better than a cree normal 4500 MCE LED ?.



KarstGhost said:


> Depends on my mood. I love the High CRI XPG when I'm in the mood for a campfire like warm, and love the Nichia 219 when I'm in the mood for pure white neutral!
> 
> Anyone who dislikes neutrals because they've ran into a sample that was greenish needs to give the 219 a shot.


----------



## Norm (Feb 12, 2013)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

A number of images on this and preceding pages are oversize, when you post an image please remember Rule #3 

Excessively large images have been replaced with links, images just over size have been left. It's a shame interesting threads such as this are spoiled just because rules can't be followed. 

Rule #3 If you post an image in your post, please downsize the image to no larger than 800 x 800 pixels.

*Please resize and repost.* - Thanks Norm


----------



## grev (Feb 13, 2013)

This thread made me want to post, I've registered a while ago but haven't posted at all.

The thing is, any colour shift is bad for colour rendering and I would assume that for most people, they would want things to look more natural instead of shifting towards yellow/orange or blue/gray.

I suggest taking photos of the different lights at their own colour temperature with a camera, then use those RAW files and set them all to a neutral white balance, then compare the colours the different lights made.


----------



## jinx626 (Aug 15, 2014)

Seems like many preferred neutral white more than warm. I personally think warm tint makes things look orange.


----------



## 18650 (Aug 15, 2014)

jinx626 said:


> I personally think warm tint makes things look orange.


 That's because it does.


----------



## TEEJ (Aug 15, 2014)

18650 said:


> That's because it does.



Pretty much.


----------



## Swedpat (Aug 15, 2014)

Yes, some warm tints look orange. But I find it as a comfortable tint for the eyes.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Aug 15, 2014)

jinx626 said:


> I personally think warm tint makes things look orange.


As was discussed at length on the preceeding pages, it largely depends on the CRI. 

A high CRI source in the 3700K range appears achromatic to most people.


----------



## TEEJ (Aug 15, 2014)

the.Mtn.Man said:


> As was discussed at length on the preceeding pages, it largely depends on the CRI.
> 
> A high CRI source in the 3700K range appears achromatic to most people.



Correct, and if the topic was CRI instead of tint, that would be quite relevant. A high CRI 5k light could also appear achromatic for example. In fact, the whiter the beam, even w/o the high CRI, its generally perceived as more achromatic.

The lux is also an influence, and so forth.

But as far as tint goes, things look yellower in a yellower light, more orange in a more orange light, more green in a green light, etc.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Aug 15, 2014)

TEEJ said:


> Correct, and if the topic was CRI instead of tint, that would be quite relevant. A high CRI 5k light could also appear achromatic for example. In fact, the whiter the beam, even w/o the high CRI, its generally perceived as more achromatic.


According to one study, 3700K was the "magic number" for the majority of test subjects.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Aug 15, 2014)

Swedpat said:


> Yes, some warm tints look orange. But I find it as a comfortable tint for the eyes.



Warm tints only look orange when compared next to a cooler tint. If a warm tint light (with a decent CRI) is your only source of illumination, it looks white. Our eyes are very good at adapting to tints. Our eyes are designed to see contrast in colours, not absolute colours. We see a white house as white, whether it's lit by blue skylight at noon or a orange setting sun. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to ever see a white colour.


----------



## Swedpat (Aug 15, 2014)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Warm tints only look orange when compared next to a cooler tint. If a warm tint light (with a decent CRI) is your only source of illumination, it looks white. Our eyes are very good at adapting to tints. Our eyes are designed to see contrast in colours, not absolute colours. We see a white house as white, whether it's lit by blue skylight at noon or a orange setting sun. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to ever see a white colour.



I know that the eyes can adapt tints very good. I have noticed in the same way a cool white tint alone is perceived very white but compared to a warmer tint it instantly looks bluish. Yes; it's a bit fascinating how well our eyes make us see different tints very white as long they are alone, but mixing different tints between each other we clearly see the difference and that some of the tints we considered as white look either bluish, greenish or yellowish.

BUT: my personal experience is that I will always prefer a nice warm/neutral tint before a cool white. One example is Malkoff M61. I have as well cool white and neutral white models. If I at first look at the cool white and then change to the neutral I perceive the neutral as yellowish, but I like it. And if I change to the cool white after the neutral I instantly perceive the cool white as unpleasant and want to change back.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Aug 15, 2014)

Swedpat said:


> BUT: my personal experience is that I will always prefer a nice warm/neutral tint before a cool white.



Yes, I do as well. That is because the warm tints show reds and green colours much better, and often have better CRI overall (though that's less easy to notice). And, warm tints are just more pleasing/relaxing to my eyes.

Pity that few manufacturers offer warm tints. They all sell cool white, which is what the public demands because of lumen wars.


----------



## markr6 (Aug 15, 2014)

Swedpat said:


> One example is Malkoff M61. I have as well cool white and neutral white models. If I at first look at the cool white and then change to the neutral I perceive the neutral as yellowish, but I like it. And if I change to the cool white after the neutral I instantly perceive the cool white as unpleasant and want to change back.



EXACTLY! Well put!


----------



## TEEJ (Aug 15, 2014)

That's exactly it in a nut shell. Most people polled prefer a whiter light over a yellower light when given the choice. When they have a white light, and are given a yellow, they notice the difference, and wish to get the white light back.

As your brain mentally adjusts/calibrates to what you are seeing, it performs its own version of white balancing, so the colors appear as expected.

Some people prefer the yellow light over the white light, and mentally filter out the yellow to see colors as they wish to....just as the people with a whiter light do.

One version over emphasizes some colors and under emphasizes others, and so does the other version.

Once you do the testing, you see that the people who prefer white light are more comfortable compensating for that scenario than they are for the yellow light, and, analogously, the people who prefer yellow lighting are more comfortable compensating for that scenario.

Neither side is universally "right" or "wrong", as both are right for their own perceptions of things.

Its like arguing over what your favorite color should be.


----------



## Swedpat (Aug 15, 2014)

*My comments in red. *



TEEJ said:


> *That's exactly it in a nut shell. Most people polled prefer a whiter light over a yellower light when given the choice. When they have a white light, and are given a yellow, they notice the difference, and wish to get the white light back.
> 
> I would describe it as most people prefer a neutral white before a cool white. I mean that "white light" mostoften is defined as a cool white = compared to a warmer tint it's perceived as bluish. And according to friends of mine few prefer a bluish tint. But yes; it depends HOW warm the tint is. It can be TOO yellowish, yes...*
> 
> ...


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Aug 15, 2014)

Tints cooler than about 6000K I perceive as blueish, not white, even when it's the only light I'm using. The cool white Cree XML and XPG are usually okay, the XPE is always horribly blue.

Anything from 3000K to 6000K looks white to me, as long it's the only source of light. While I still like tints warmer than 3000K (for ambiance), they do look yellow.


----------



## Swedpat (Aug 15, 2014)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Tints cooler than about 6000K I perceive as blueish, not white, even when it's the only light I'm using. The cool white Cree XML and XPG are usually okay, the XPE is always horribly blue.
> 
> Anything from 3000K to 6000K looks white to me, as long it's the only source of light. While I still like tints warmer than 3000K (for ambiance), they do look yellow.



I think you give a pretty good description of the difference between the tints!


----------



## treek13 (Aug 15, 2014)

TEEJ said:


> Its like arguing over what your favorite color should be.


Red, your favorite color should be red.


----------



## jinx626 (Jan 27, 2015)

I am seriously going to try a warm tint when they come out in AA format. Depending on price of course...


----------



## f22shift (Jan 27, 2015)

i remember testing the same flashlight but one was cool and one was neutral. it was a rainy night and i remember i could barely see the light on neutral especially after using the cool.(both on the highest). maybe it was because the cool reflected better on the wet ground but that made the impression that i prefer a brighter looking light when handheld.
conversely, i very much prefer warm or neutral as a headlamp. headlamp are more of a necessity for handsfree uses such as reading or cooking where a warm emitter is just more natural. a headlamp doesn't need to be the brightest for close range use either.
i picked neutral which is more closer to my personal preference of the two. i once had a flashlight that was as warm as an incandescent(swapped the emitter for fun). i loved using it to read paperbacks late at night. anything else it really looked to orange..


----------



## jinx626 (Jan 28, 2015)

f22shift said:


> anything else it really looked to orange..



That's also what I read regarding warm tint.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jan 28, 2015)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

being a photographer, after using a cool white tint on EC25 light I thought I made a mistake. Colour reproduction was just horrible, although it made an excellent light for general purpose carrying during trekking and herping in western ghats. Since then I have purchased Eagletac D25LC2 in neutral white and I am really happy with the colour reproduction while using for macro photography in studio.


----------



## Fireclaw18 (Jan 28, 2015)

My favorite color temp is 4200-4500K neutral white.

I find 3000K warm white to be too orange.


----------



## wjv (Jan 28, 2015)

Neutral white for GP lights.

Cool for throwers.

I only have one "warm" light and that is my EagleTac D25A. It's a nice light but I'd take Neutral over warm.


----------



## Orangie (Jan 28, 2015)

My Spark SF3 Neutral is a lot warmer than my D25C Neutral, I would say warm. As most have said, cool for throwers I just got a Predator Pro. I felt that had to be cool. It is. I do like the warmer beam for around the house though, it reminds me of the 70's lol
Cheers


----------



## jon_slider (Feb 9, 2016)

My tint preference changes depending on what my eyes are adapted to.
During daytime, Cool White looks like a match to my eyes white balance, and seems white
During the evening with house lights on, I prefer Neutral White, it seems white, and Cool White seems blue
At night, when my eyes are fully dark adapted, I prefer Warm White, it seems white, and Neutral White seems blue

Cool white will have more lumens than Neutral, which will have more lumens than Warm.

Here is an example, 
CW at 6000k
NW at 4500k
WW at 3000k

the NW is 75% warmer than CW, and will have 75% of the lumens of CW
the WW is 50% warmer than CW, and will have 50% of the lumens of CW

in a fully dark adapted setting, I also prefer lower lumen levels
in sunlight adapted setting, I prefer the highest lumen levels

here is a concept group, imagine a light with 3 leds, that each only turn on to one of the 3 LMH modes:
WW at <5 lumens for full dark adapted vision (it will not look orange when fully dark adapted)
NW at <40 and >5 lumens for incandescent adapted vision (it will look white when eyes are adapted to incandescent light)
CW at 100+ lumens for sunlight adapted vision (it will not look blue when eyes are adapted to sunlight)

Cool white is good for throw, and for working on cars during the day, but CW is almost always Low CRI, so it is poor at rendering Red, such as in the following pic.. Note the hand looks pale and dead






here is what High CRI does (High CRI, above 80, usually means the LED will also be Neutral or Warm. For example here is a High CRI shot of my hand, note the more natural red tones:





By contrast working on a car outdoors, the CW is MUCH brighter and therefore shows more detail. Note that the tint does not seem blue, it closely matches the sunlight seen beyond the car





otoh, giving up 50% of the lumens to increase Red rendering Fails to be practical during the day, and note that the tint appears orange (because eyes, and camera, are white ballanced to the sunlight beyond the car:





So, when someone says they dont like Warm tint, chances are they are trying to use it when their eyes are whitebalanced to sunlight. When someone says they dont like Cool White tint, chances are they are trying to use it at night, when eyes are whitebalanced to Neutral or Warm ambient light.

I have an LED lamp in my kitchen (Phillips Hue), and it can be made to produce 6000k light or 3000k light. Here is an attempt to show how that affects our perception of a 3000k LED on left and a 6000k LED, against a 3000k ambient backgrond: (note how blueish the right hand beam is)





Same lights, but with a 6000k background, note the CW light does not look blue, and instead the WW looks orange.





moral of the story, I prefer Warm in full dark, I prefer Neutral indoors after sunset, I prefer CW outdoors during the day.. which is why I have more than one light...

fwiw, all these examples are single AAA lights.. here are my 3 LEDs shining on a piece of printer paper folded to a 90 degree angle (camera is choosing its own white balance based on the relative tints, it is a good match to what my eyes see when I turn on all 3 at the same time)


----------



## dmattaponi (Feb 9, 2016)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

Forgive my ignorance (I know nothing about the subject). I only comment because recently I had to choose between a cool white and a neutral white version of a flashlight. All of my other LED were cool white, and I wasn't sure what to choose. I ordered both. The specs on the lights were listed as identical. After trying them out, I can say that I prefer the neutral white over the cool white, and I was pleasantly surprised that I can tell no difference in brightness between the two. Lights are Thrunite TN4A


----------



## jon_slider (Feb 9, 2016)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



dmattaponi said:


> … cool white and a neutral white
> … The specs on the lights were listed as identical.
> … I can tell no difference in brightness between the two. Lights are Thrunite TN4A



When you compared the NW and CW lights, were your eyes adapted to outdoor daytime light, indoor lighting, or when waking up in full darkness (fully dark adapted)?

I googled your NW and CW lights and agree the specs are identical. I dont know if its just a copy paste error, or if the NW is not High CRI… unfortunately CRI is not disclosed in the specs I saw...

I invite you to post a beamshot of the CW and NW lights side by side against a folded piece of paper, and if you have an N219 light, do a 3 beam shot (at whatever brightness level is most closely similar to the Thrunites)..

Welcome to the warmer side of Cool 

disclaimer, Im not an expert in any way, and I respect your opinion as equally valid and informative..


----------



## dmattaponi (Feb 9, 2016)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

Hi Jon Slider, My testing has been anything but scientific. I have compared them in indoor daytime lighting, indoor in the dark, and outdoors after dark, and to my naked eyes they look the same in brightness with the NW being noticeably more yellow in color when looking at the two side by side (but not nearly so noticeable when using the NW as a stand alone light). When comparing the Thrunite CW to my Fenix CW the Thrunite looks yellow in color next to the more cool Fenix lights. Sorry, I don't have the capability of taking a decent photo and posting it. The Thrunite specs are listed as being the same on both the website and in the owners manual that came with the lights so if it's an error, its consistent. Previously they used a different led on the neutral white, and it was 100 lumens less, but when they updated to the same led on the neutral they now list the specs the same. I'm not trying to debate the subject or anything. Just sharing from my own limited experience with these lights.


----------



## jumpstat (Feb 9, 2016)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

From my eyes, warmer lights provides more details especially in the bush. I have 3 leds that I edc alot, a PD-S with SSC-P4, Ti-PD Mule Cree XR-E and Haiku XP-G Cool. Over the years, I still favour the PD-S with SSC-P4 and being warmer than the other two lights. Dont get me wrong all three are excellent. When I need to get some additional lights for my photo subject, its the PD-S if not the PD-Mule which gives a wider beama pattern. All I know is that when photos comes out, I do not have to do alot of editing with these. 

These are my own observations.


----------



## jon_slider (Feb 9, 2016)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



jumpstat said:


> … warmer lights provides more details especially in the bush. I have 3 leds that I edc alot, a PD-S with SSC-P4, Ti-PD Mule Cree XR-E… I still favour the PD-S with SSC-P4...



thanks for your comments, Im curious to learn more about photography applications for LEDs.. 

in my limited experience, PWM interferes with photography, I did a quick google and it seems the PD-S is the only one with no PWM? (maybe you dont use the lower modes on the ones with PWM?)

What is the Lumen level, CCT and CRI of the light you like to use for photos, and what background ambient light you are working in, full dark, incandescent or sunlight?

Can you share a picture or two, including the 3 beams side by side for relative tint.. and maybe an example of some photography you've done with LED lighting?


----------



## RickZ (Feb 9, 2016)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

Interesting nitpick. I think that warm or at least green light is better at penetrating air. But my problem with tint is that led is rarely good deep spectrum. Particularly week at lighting up asphalt. For three or four lumens, led does nothing while incandescent can at least light up the asphalt in front of me walking. On my bike, hid somewhere out there must be the only option. When rode biking at night I can't seem to go more than 20mph where there are no street lights, even with a 1000 lumen LED. Punching out a mere 30meters is impossible. $500 green as grass super lights with 6,000 lumens, sadly don't even compete with a typical hid car headlight with 2,000 lumens costing $2-300. So what I'm getting at is there are different colors for different situations. Warm lights that are narrow in spectrum are terrible. The tint is technically different, because it is just an average color illusion, after a minute, the tint adjusts to your eyes and a white wall will still look white. But with narrow spectrum, a blue might appear green or black. All CREE LEDs are relatively narrow in spectrum. . And most LED lights share the difficulty of reflecting off black top, perhaps the reason they aren't used in streetlights without significant higher lumens which just hurts eyes. I despise those who have bright car LEDs, and regularly ask then to turn the brightness down If possible.


jumpstat said:


> From my eyes, warmer lights provides more details especially in the bush. I have 3 leds that I edc alot, a PD-S with SSC-P4, Ti-PD Mule Cree XR-E and Haiku XP-G Cool. Over the years, I still favour the PD-S with SSC-P4 and being warmer than the other two lights. Dont get me wrong all three are excellent. When I need to get some additional lights for my photo subject, its the PD-S if not the PD-Mule which gives a wider beama pattern. All I know is that when photos comes out, I do not have to do alot of editing with these.
> 
> These are my own observations.


----------



## scs (Feb 9, 2016)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



RickZ said:


> Interesting nitpick. I think that warm or at least green light is better at penetrating air. But my problem with tint is that led is rarely good deep spectrum. Particularly week at lighting up asphalt. For three or four lumens, led does nothing while incandescent can at least light up the asphalt in front of me walking. On my bike, hid somewhere out there must be the only option. When rode biking at night I can't seem to go more than 20mph where there are no street lights, even with a 1000 lumen LED. Punching out a mere 30meters is impossible. $500 green as grass super lights with 6,000 lumens, sadly don't even compete with a typical hid car headlight with 2,000 lumens costing $2-300. So what I'm getting at is there are different colors for different situations. Warm lights that are narrow in spectrum are terrible. The tint is technically different, because it is just an average color illusion, after a minute, the tint adjusts to your eyes and a white wall will still look white. But with narrow spectrum, a blue might appear green or black. All CREE LEDs are relatively narrow in spectrum. . And most LED lights share the difficulty of reflecting off black top, perhaps the reason they aren't used in streetlights without significant higher lumens which just hurts eyes. I despise those who have bright car LEDs, and regularly ask then to turn the brightness down If possible.



RickZ, specifically which LED lights have you used for biking that were not sufficient?
I hear ya regarding the warm lights with a narrow spectrum. I think the typical sodium street lights are like that: you know there's light, but can't really see much.
My eyes have recently become more sensitive to glare from light with tints above 4000K, so I think I'll have to get everything in 4000 K from now on.


----------



## jon_slider (Feb 9, 2016)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



RickZ said:


> … led is rarely good deep spectrum...



High CRI is deeper spectrum, example N219A rated 4500k 90CRI, here are the actual values of my Prometheus Beta Copper:





Low CRI is not as broad spectrum, example below, Maratac with XPG2. I agree many more lights are sold in this Cool White low CRI configuration than the High CRI Neutral White above.





I agree that High CRI reveals more detail and depth of field when looking at things that are alive and have red pigments. The advantage is due to CRI, not color temperature. It is possible to have a warm tint that is still low CRI.

here are the same two lights whose spectrum, CCT and CRI are shown above: Beta on Left, Maratac on right:
to me, the left side High CRI shows much more detail.





I prefer high CRI. The fact that LEDs with higher CRI have warmer tints, should not be construed to mean warmer is better. I definitely think higher CRI is better 

I do personally prefer Warm White for relaxation, and feel Cool White is less relaxing, but more energizing.


----------



## Tachead (Feb 9, 2016)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



RickZ said:


> Interesting nitpick. I think that warm or at least green light is better at penetrating air. But my problem with tint is that led is rarely good deep spectrum. Particularly week at lighting up asphalt. For three or four lumens, led does nothing while incandescent can at least light up the asphalt in front of me walking. On my bike, hid somewhere out there must be the only option. When rode biking at night I can't seem to go more than 20mph where there are no street lights, even with a 1000 lumen LED. Punching out a mere 30meters is impossible. $500 green as grass super lights with 6,000 lumens, sadly don't even compete with a typical hid car headlight with 2,000 lumens costing $2-300. So what I'm getting at is there are different colors for different situations. Warm lights that are narrow in spectrum are terrible. The tint is technically different, because it is just an average color illusion, after a minute, the tint adjusts to your eyes and a white wall will still look white. But with narrow spectrum, a blue might appear green or black. *All CREE LEDs are relatively narrow in spectrum.* . And most LED lights share the difficulty of reflecting off black top, perhaps the reason they aren't used in streetlights without significant higher lumens which just hurts eyes. I despise those who have bright car LEDs, and regularly ask then to turn the brightness down If possible.



You should try some some of the newer Hi CRI Cree LED's. My XM-L2 Easywhite displays colours quite accurately and it is only 85 CRI. They have 95+ CRI emitters now.


----------



## scs (Feb 9, 2016)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

Does anyone's tint preference vary with lux? For example, preferring neutral or CW at high lux but warm at low lux, or vice versa?


----------



## Tachead (Feb 9, 2016)

Here is a 90CRI 4000K Nichia 219B 

http://i.imgur.com/0GNbe5p.png


----------



## paulnguyen92 (Feb 9, 2016)

Hi everyone,
I'm a new member, I cannot vote but I want to say that I love warm white. I noticed that warm white helps keep my eye sight better at night. I woke up at midnight and turn on my surefire triple led warm white, even at the highest level output, I didn't feel it was unpleasant to my eyes.


----------



## jon_slider (Feb 10, 2016)

scs said:


> Does anyone's tint preference vary with lux? For example, preferring neutral or CW at high lux but warm at low lux, or vice versa?



definitely yes

in a fully dark adapted setting, I prefer lower lumen levels and 3000k CCT

Ive been using 3 different lights, the warm one mostly on low, the neutral one mostly on medium, and the cool one mostly on high

like this:
1. High CRI XPG 3000k at 0.75 lumens for full dark adapted vision (it will not look orange when fully dark adapted)
2. High CRI N219 4000k at 18 lumens for incandescent adapted vision (it will look white when eyes are adapted to incandescent light)
3. Low CRI XPG2 6000k at 110 lumens for sunlight adapted vision (it will not look blue when eyes are adapted to sunlight)



Tachead said:


> Here is a 90CRI 4000K Nichia 219B



Thanks! I wish selfbuilt would include spectrographs like that with his reviews, and I wish more light manufacturers would too. Very few reviewers or manufacturers mention the CCT and CRI of their lights. I hope that changes, as more people come to value the benefits of high CRI.


----------



## bykfixer (Feb 10, 2016)

Warm.


----------



## Thetasigma (Feb 10, 2016)

I have a difficult time with CW emitters now, too cold and often blue/purple tinted. A nice creamy white somewhere in the 4k-5k range works fine for me, so Neutral white. 3200k is too warm for my tastes. CRI is important however as a 5000k light with hi CRI is preferable to a 4500k light with poor CRI.
Specific example, the Nichia 119V bin that Don uses in his lights has just about my favorite tint, a nice creamy white with high CRI. Colors pop and and there are no funny blue,green, or pink shifts in the light.


----------



## Tachead (Feb 10, 2016)

jon_slider said:


> definitely yes
> 
> in a fully dark adapted setting, I prefer lower lumen levels and 3000k CCT
> 
> ...



This is courtesy of maukka. We all appreciate his time to take and post these measurements:thumbsup:


----------



## gunga (Feb 10, 2016)

Yes. Those are outstanding results.


----------



## tops2 (Feb 10, 2016)

When I first started out, I didn't care about tint. Then at Illumn, I compared cool and neutral next to each other and though the neutral white was too "yellow". But I noticed most here preferred neutral white. Illumn also mentioned most people who end up in the flashlight hobby end up preferring neutral white.

So I picked up the Zebralight SC5w to try out the tint (and Zebralight UI)..I ended up loving the tint on this. Only when I do a side by side comparison with my lights, the SC5w appears a bit yellow. But when I use it normally, the tint is beautiful.

So yeah, neutral white for me from now on if possible.

Edit: Doh..didn't read carefully enough and thought it was cool white vs neutral white. That said, I think neutral white is "yellow" enough for me. Don't think I want to go more yellow..


----------



## cyberescudo (Feb 10, 2016)

After many flashlights, now i strongly prefer neutral white. (I tollerate cool tint on throw ones.)


----------



## Fireclaw18 (Feb 10, 2016)

I prefer neutral white. Especially for indoor use.

However for outdoor use I think warm white can look better.


----------



## RickZ (Feb 10, 2016)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



Tachead said:


> You should try some some of the newer Hi CRI Cree LED's. My XM-L2 Easywhite displays colours quite accurately and it is only 85 CRI. They have 95+ CRI emitters now.



I've used an xml-2 not sure easy white or not. Again hid with half the lux at any given distance does way better on asphalt. I guess I'm really talking about infrared and not visible light spectrum, but how much oxymoronic light reflects off of black is what's important and I've never been impressed with LED. Light is absorbed by black. Even full visible light spectrum can't really reflect off black. You need wider spectrum than visible light, like a little UV and infrared.


----------



## Lumencrazy (Feb 10, 2016)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



RickZ said:


> I've used an xml-2 not sure easy white or not. Again hid with half the lux at any given distance does way better on asphalt. I guess I'm really talking about infrared and not visible light spectrum, but how much oxymoronic light reflects off of black is what's important and I've never been impressed with LED. Light is absorbed by black. Even full visible light spectrum can't really reflect off black. You need wider spectrum than visible light, like a little UV and infrared.



Deleted


----------



## RickZ (Feb 11, 2016)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



scs said:


> RickZ, specifically which LED lights have you used for biking that were not sufficient?
> I hear ya regarding the warm lights with a narrow spectrum. I think the typical sodium street lights are like that: you know there's light, but can't really see much.
> My eyes have recently become more sensitive to glare from light with tints above 4000K, so I think I'll have to get everything in 4000 K from now on.



A friend of mine uses a solarstorm x3, for the price, it is pretty awesome. It is strictly a cycling light, and runs th e risk of overheating if you're just walking around. The 6,000 lumens can light up the road, just not very well for the output. A 6,000 lumen HID or even halogen light is far more effective. It is an excellent off-road light though, as its price would suggest replacement after a crash isn't too bad.


----------



## jon_slider (Feb 11, 2016)

Thetasigma said:


> … the Nichia 119V bin that Don uses in his lights has just about my favorite tint...



Sounds great, so I googled it to learn the CRI and CCT



McGizmo said:


> the advantage to the 219 is its foot print being essentially the same as the Cree XP-G. Had the original 119 that I started with been a 219 (didn't exist back then) I would have enjoyed using the same MCPCB for both the Nichia and the XP-G





McGizmo said:


> I did take a sample of the 119… CRI: 93… CCT: 4800 K



That is an outstanding specification!

The N219B-V1 that maukka plotted.. CRI: 90… CCT: 3960

IF I could have the same 90+ CRI at 5000k and 4000k, which one would I want? .. 

I think the answer is Both, 5000k during the day, and 4000k at night.


----------



## bkpdle (Feb 11, 2016)

I prefer about 4000K.

I read somewhere that moonlight is 4100K. That seemed the perfect temp to me because we use light in dark conditions or we wouldn't need the light. So why not use the temp that nature naturally provides at that time.


----------



## jon_slider (Feb 12, 2016)

bkpdle said:


> why not use the temp that nature naturally provides at that time



I agree completely!

I am learning that I choose the tint of my light based on exactly what you are talking about. I try to match the tint of my light to the tint of the environment that my brain has whitebalanced to.

example, work on a car during the day in 6000k+ bright sunlight, my 4000k flashlight looks too orange, 6000k looks white, so I use 6000k to look under a car and in the shadows of the engine bay, during the day

My house lighting is below 4000k. With my brain adapted to that illumination, in the evening, inside the house, a 4000k flashlight LED looks white and works well for me. 

When I wake up in the middle of the night, with my brain fully dark adapted, 3000k looks slighly warm orange, like a candle. I prefer 3000k in full dark, the 4000k or higher seems a bit too blue and glaring

ymmv

the brain adapts to ambient light by changing its white balance to match
there are in general terms 3 different white balance conditions that my brain seems to adapt to, as described above..
daylight
house lighting
full darkness

each calls for a different LED 

Leaving the house in the morning, I put a 6000k light in my pocket
arriving at home in the evening, I put a 4000k light in my pocket
on my nightstand, I have a 3000k light

yes I prefer Warm White or Neutral White, or Cool White, depending on ambient light.. 

here is what my 3 LED options look like when I just let the iPhone do automatic white balance (it seems to use the brightest source as its setpoint, kind of like our brain does 






here are those same 3 lights, plus a couple others, just looking at the reflection in the reflector with the lights off.. I find that also helps me know which light is cooler or warmer.





fwiw, I find I dont care for the tint of the XPL, not at 6000, nor at 3000. I prefer the tint of XPG, Nichia, and XPG2


----------



## scs (Feb 12, 2016)

A great reason to justify buying multiple lights, to your significant other: "I have a physiological need for different tints!"


----------



## jon_slider (Feb 12, 2016)

scs said:


> A great reason to justify buying multiple lights, to your significant other: "I have a physiological need for different tints!"



LOL! thanks for your support 

sample script:

"Sweetheart, please try to understand, I find low brightness very stressful during daylight, and I find low CRI equally if not more stressful in the evening. 

Im sure you agree that another light is cheaper than more psychotherapy.. 
So try not to worry honey, Ive got the situation under control, Ive stopped accumulating knives, and my flashlights are cheaper. Besides, I only buy lights with the money I get from selling off some of my collections.

By the way, I was wondering when I can take you out to dinner, just to appreciate you. Would you like to go shopping first? I was thinking you might like some new shoes, or maybe something for both of us from Victoria's Secret?"


----------



## ms1496 (Feb 13, 2016)

Definitely love the neutral tints with high CRI... The closest something can mimic sunlight (ie. 4500-5500K and 90+ CRI) the better. Not really into colder color temps of 6000K+, though I have a handful of lights in that range.


----------



## SemiMan (Feb 28, 2016)

This "Poll" and some of the responses seem to be the equivalent of having a poll for favorite color and expecting a right answer, when most are just looking for validation of the masses. There would be more value into research on vision, color and spectrum to both validate some of the things you believe you see, and to disprove some of the things you think you see.

- For the vast majority of the population, devoid of other light and at a reasonable brightness level (>10lux), something close to 4000K (Assuming high CRI) and on the black body curve is where a light will look the most white. On the black body curve and below 4000K it will look reddish, and above it bluish.
- Tricks can be played at a given CCT to change the "look" of a light for aesthetics or maximum lumens
- NO visible color of light penetrates fog or air better than any other color. Glare perception is almost all in the blue though.
- At <0.25 lux, color of the light is meaningless, but for a given number of photopic lumens, the higher CCT light will appear brighter, maybe even much brighter. 
- We "prefer" warmer lights at low light levels. That does not mean we see better, but we prefer it.
- Something around 4000-5000K and high CRI will provide color contrast for a greater range of targets than any other color
- Over about 2 lux, object detection in the central vision cone is pretty good with almost color of light of any CCT
- Object detection in your peripheral vision is better at low light levels with higher CCT light
- Moonlight may be 4100K and natural, but you rarely have color vision under moonlight.
- Unless you have a monochromatic light > 650nm, it does not matter what color of light you are using, they will all impact your night vision. 1 lux of green will maintain your vision just as well as 1 lux of red or white for that matter for all practical purposes.
- MANY of the attributes that were given to non-LED sources in the thread have far more to do with beam shape than spectrum
- Depending on the use, beam shape can have far more impact on the usefulness of the light than any other characteristic (think car headlights)

If you want to have a useful discussion, ditch the poll which is of little use, try to understand the science, and discuss WHY certain spectrums of light may be better for certain conditions AND why you may perceive a light to be better (but is not), or why you may just like one better, even if it does not improve your vision. Lights are both tools and aesthetics, sometimes those two purposes go hand in hand, and sometimes they do not.

Semiman


----------



## ch925413438 (Feb 28, 2016)

I would say neutral, warms are a bit too relaxed for me


----------



## bykfixer (Feb 28, 2016)

SemiMan said:


> This "Poll" and some of the responses seem to be the equivalent of having a poll for favorite color and expecting a right answer, when most are just looking for validation of the masses. There would be more value into research on vision, color and spectrum to both validate some of the things you believe you see, and to disprove some of the things you think you see.
> 
> - For the vast majority of the population, devoid of other light and at a reasonable brightness level (>10lux), something close to 4000K (Assuming high CRI) and on the black body curve is where a light will look the most white. On the black body curve and below 4000K it will look reddish, and above it bluish.
> - Tricks can be played at a given CCT to change the "look" of a light for aesthetics or maximum lumens
> ...



I suppose you're saying the moon has a lack of CRI? 

Perception is 99% of reality these days. And many do not have any idea where the lemmings are headed...but turn from the path they were on, jump in the line of lemmings flowing past and follow anyway.... shortly thereafter explaing to others they pass by why being in the lemming line is best.

Don't fight it bro.... the lemmings like being lemmings


----------



## RickZ (Mar 5, 2016)

Red light penetrates air better, and violet the worst. Period. It's called science. There is a reason car lights, escape lights, wing lights, aircraft landing lights, antenna lights, sea ships, and everything else use red lights. The eye also sees red first. Perception isn't completely relative, some light colors absolutely have different performance than others, saying otherwise is ignorance.


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 5, 2016)

RickZ said:


> Red light penetrates air better, and violet the worst. Period. It's called science. There is a reason car lights, escape lights, wing lights, aircraft landing lights, antenna lights, sea ships, and everything else use red lights. The eye also sees red first. Perception isn't completely relative, some light colors absolutely have different performance than others, saying otherwise is ignorance.



This is pretty much all ... well wrong.

From a practically standpoint, at almost any distance we use artificial lights, there is no difference in the penetration capability of any wavelength of light. 

Now from a practical standpoint, depending on how much water is in the atmosphere there can actually be more absorption in the red. You have scattering of blue due to raleigh scattering from small particles in the atmosphere, but at the distances of artificial light, its does not come into play.

Why are tail lights, etc. red? Simple, because the first lights we ever had were incandescent and the ONLY filtered color that could be bright using an incandescent source ... was red... period. No other color was possible with an incandescent light and long life.

At night blue is far more effective as our sensitivity in blue is many many times better than red. Reaction times at low levels with blue lights is far faster than red.

Actually feel free to research the web and you will find that reaction time on red is actually slowest. Red, Green and Yellow has frequently been studied. The slowest reacting color .... that would be red. Next fastest is green. Fastest .. Yellow.

Historically red has been used for warning lights because frankly ...that's all that was available. Now that other efficient colors are available, they are being used. There is a reason why blue is used for police flashers now ..... because people respond much faster to it.

I will not comment on your ignorance comment. You have done well enough on that on your own.


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 5, 2016)

And if pigs could fly none of this would matter.

Guys...take it up with Pm's. K?


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 5, 2016)

Bykfixer,

In a discussion of warm white and neutral, the reasons why are important. Opinions are just that, opinions .... great for marketing, but of little use when you are trying to make a decision based on other peoples information.

Semiman


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 5, 2016)

I get the opinion/marketing and all that. I choose to make my own way in life. But....

Why you argue all the time bro?

You're obviously a well read individual. And debates are fun. Yet personal attacks and insults are tactics of the one who's losing. Wink wink. 

It seems like when semi man shows up drama aint far behind. Off topic drama...replete with insults and personal attacks. 

The topic is "do you prefer warm or neutral white?"
Not Rick is wrong because he failed to mention the history of tail lights or account for water vapors in the ambient surroundings....in his off topic festival of pointless details.

I like reading your know how. But the insults and attacks are...at best pointless words used by a seemingly smug individual or has absolutely no self control...at worst a reason for those trying to learn, a reason to tune out.

So how about turning off the troll, turning down the flame and just stick to the facts? Please.


----------



## stephenk (Mar 6, 2016)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

Warm vs Neutral? 

Depends on the use. Being a light painter, I use Cool, Neutral, Warm, Red, Blue, or Green depending on what I'm trying to get out of the scene.


----------



## Milw light (Mar 6, 2016)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

If those are my only 2 choices it would be NW. I like cool white though, the colder the better.


----------



## vadimax (Mar 6, 2016)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

Being B2 color blind I prefer CW


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 6, 2016)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



vadimax said:


> Being B2 color blind I prefer CW



Wow. That must get complicated sometimes.
Any colors or just some? 
Does a warm beam appear too dim perhaps?


My brother in law says he's color blind in one eye. And it's only certain colors. 
Apparently when he was a kid something happened that damaged one so he had the memories of when they both saw color correctly. He now has red/green issues.

(He did like the kid in the 'Christmas Story' with his Red Ryder too. lol)


----------



## Chrisdm (Mar 6, 2016)

Any light with a cool tint i just see as a drugstore disposable, no matter what it costs. Neutral tints are so, so much more pleasing to the eye. I just wont buy a light that isnt offered in neutral anymore. Also, after much experimentation with custom p60 dropins, i have found 4000k to be my personal sweet spot. After being accustomed to this beautiful tint (very very slightly warm, no orange) that even 5000k neutrals seem to have the ghastly blue hue of cheap drugstore lights.


----------



## recDNA (Mar 6, 2016)

5000k is closer to sunlight at noon than 4000. I like 5000 HI CRI. 4000 looks yellow to me. It is better in fog though.


----------



## vadimax (Mar 6, 2016)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*



bykfixer said:


> Wow. That must get complicated sometimes.
> Any colors or just some?
> Does a warm beam appear too dim perhaps?
> 
> ...



Red and green issues -- exactly B2 color blindness group  Of course, that B2 has different levels: from inability to see any difference in non intense variations to absolute inability to see red and green color.

An ability to lose color sensitivity with time is rather strange to me. Always thought it is a genetic feature.

Personally about me, if I see red and green colors at once, I can say they are different, but some of those colors alone -- I lose a reference point


----------



## Tachead (Mar 6, 2016)

recDNA said:


> 5000k is closer to sunlight at noon than 4000. I like 5000 HI CRI. 4000 looks yellow to me. It is better in fog though.



4000K is the temp of moon light though so it is more suited to night use. If you just need extra light during the day for a couple minutes 5000K is great but, for extended night time use 5000K is harsh and unnatural. 4000K is much better for night time outdoor use imo. It makes trees, grass, foliage, exc. look much nicer, is better for preserving your night vision, and is just generally easier on your eyes and more natural looking. Try using 5000K after sitting around a campfire for a bit and it really is harsh. This really became evident to me when I recently purchased 2 of the exact same lights with the same emitters, one in 4000K and one in 5000K. Before that I always thought 5000K high CRI neutral white was what to look for in a light. Now I realize that for anyone who primarily uses their lights outdoors at night, 3500-4500k high CRI is a much better option imo.

There is a reason why lights used in living areas are almost always warmer(2700-4000K) too. Its just easier on the eyes and more relaxed/calming.


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 6, 2016)

*Re: Do you prefer Warm or Neutral White?*

I did some reading this morning with color checking items like circles with a bunch of multi colored dots...with certain colors arranged in recognizable patterns such as numbers. It was interesting to learn how folks with the gentics to not allow certain colors to show up would even know that...or how those who can are able to discern what the others cannot. 
Gladly I could see all the numbers...
But it's still intriguing how an LED bulb affects those who do not see the entire blend of colors like the majority do. 

Does an incandecent bulb look the same as say a warm LED? 
Does the cool tint allow better visibility in darkness? 

I hope these questions are not distressing. If so I appologize in advance. 

It also causes me to wonder if folks with yellow deficiencies would prefer warm or cool. 

My former uncle in law was a color blind electrician. ⊙▁⊙. He died of old age...not electricution...but to hear him tell it, he did get zapped quite a few times.


----------



## recDNA (Mar 6, 2016)

I like "harsh". For my eyes it makes things more visible. I do however like HI CRI so if I had to drop to 4000 to get good color rendition I would. I use lights almost entirely indoors. Outdoors I only need to see the route to my car. I would never, ever go camping in the woods or mountains. Not even in a camper with all the luxuries of home. I get bored within 10 minutes of exposure to nature. I do, however, love the ocean. I guess I would camp out at a beach in the summer but it isn't allowed anyway.


----------



## jon_slider (Mar 6, 2016)

Tachead said:


> 4000K is the temp of moon light though so it is more suited to night use. If you just need extra light during the day for a couple minutes 5000K is great but, for extended night time use 5000K is harsh and unnatural. 4000K is much better for night time outdoor use imo. It makes trees, grass, foliage, exc. look much nicer, is better for preserving your night vision, and is just generally easier on your eyes and more natural looking. Try using 5000K after sitting around a campfire for a bit and it really is harsh. This really became evident to me when I recently purchased 2 of the exact same lights with the same emitters, one in 4000K and one in 5000K. Before that I always thought 5000K high CRI neutral white was what to look for in a light. Now I realize that for anyone who primarily uses their lights outdoors at night, 3500-4500k high CRI is a much better option imo.
> 
> There is a reason why lights used in living areas are almost always warmer(2700-4000K)



Im quoting ever word, because I agree completely. It is especially useful that you indicate in what ambient lighting conditions you are preferring 4000K light over 5000K. I think you would like 3000K even better, when adapted to campfire light.

My tint preference depends on the tint of the ambient light, that my brain has set its white balance reference to.

So with a 3000K incandescent light in my house, a 3000K LED flashlight is a close match.. In that setting a 5000K+ LED will look more blue than my brain's ambient white balance. Thats not necessarily bad. My eyes see an increase of 1000K as a brighter and whiter light. I think theres a practical limit though, and a flashlight whose LED is 3000K cooler than ambient will seem "too" blue.

Similarly, during the day, using a light to look under the hood of a car, the 3000K looks pathetically orange, and a 6000K light does not look blue, in THAT setting, with my brains ambient white balance set to sunlight at noon. In that scenario, if a 6000K light is not an option, a 5000k light is preferred to a 4000K.

Basically, a light that is within 1000K of ambient is pretty comfortable, but 3000K off ambient, in either direction, is not very pleasant.

By ambient I mean, the tint of the place where my brain has adapted its white balance to. Camping under the stars, with a fire, can move into the 2000K range, at which point a 3000K LED will look "whiter and brighter".. while a 5000K will look bluer and harsher.

I have a selection of flashlight tints. I keep a 6000K light in the car, I carry a 4000K on my keys, and after dark I like to use 3000K indoors. My house lighting is 3000K Incandescent. When hunting Zombies, I stun them with 6000K on Strobe.


----------



## Tachead (Mar 6, 2016)

recDNA said:


> I like "harsh". For my eyes it makes things more visible. I do however like HI CRI so if I had to drop to 4000 to get good color rendition I would. I use lights almost entirely indoors. Outdoors I only need to see the route to my car. *I would never, ever go camping in the woods or mountains. Not even in a camper with all the luxuries of home. I get bored within 10 minutes of exposure to nature.* I do, however, love the ocean. I guess I would camp out at a beach in the summer but it isn't allowed anyway.



That's really sad man because that is how/where humans were meant to live. These concrete jungles we live in are modern day inventions filled with materialistic items that are created by destroying are natural world. Nature is where we come from and without it we would all cease to exist. Forests make the very oxygen we breath. The way we live now is not sustainable and will have to change for the human race to continue to thrive. You should try some outdoor activities, there are many great things to do that are far from boring like hiking, mountain biking, rock climbing, canoeing, kayaking, camping, hunting, fishing, skiing, skating, surfing, paragliding, swimming, scuba diving, snorkeling, caving, and many more. Its amazing how getting out of the city can affect your general health and wellness. Its a great stress reliever for many people too.


----------



## recDNA (Mar 6, 2016)

I understand the importance of nature. I didn't suggest turning forests into strip malls... But that doesn't mean I want to spend any time there. It's wet, dirty, cold, buggy etc. Furthermore you have your forest dwelling banjo picking scary people like in the Deer Hunter movie. 

I can see a small wooded grove of conservation land that surrounds my house on 3 sides. Pretty. No reason to go in there though. 

As I said I like the ocean. (Maybe that is why I like a cooler tint. Blue light penetrates the water best.) I don't want to be under it, on it, nor even in it. I like to look at it from a beach or lanai... With a cocktail. Arrrrrgh. I vote 5000k.


----------



## vadimax (Mar 6, 2016)

Personally for me CW looks just more intense, nothing more. I also consider it more appropriate in tactical situations when a bad guy better be disabled instead of enjoying nice tint of light, directed at him  But when I walk at home in the midnight, of course, I prefer S1 Ti with its NW tint


----------



## Brasso (Mar 6, 2016)

I guess my idea of warm, neutral, and cool is different than most.

Warm, to me, is anything below 4000k. Neutral is 4000k-4500k. Cool is anything above 4500k. 

My personal preference is 4000k.


----------



## mbw_151 (Mar 6, 2016)

The answer to the poll is, "It depends on how dark it is and how much light I want." If it is truly dark and I need a few lumens, I want a warm light. If there is some ambient light or I need a lot of lumens, I go for a Neutral light. I use my HDS in mostly low light applications, it an older High CRI Cree. My Surefire lights are loaded with Malkoff modules of various outputs with Neutral tint. At really low light levels I find the warm tint easier to look at. No science, just personal preference.


----------



## jon_slider (Mar 7, 2016)

mbw_151 said:


> At really low light levels I find the warm tint easier to look at.



completely agree

Incandescent compared to daylight, and 3 different flashlight LEDs. Photos by iPhone 5 with automatic white balance:

Pic 1. 53 Watt Incandescent (100 CRI House Electric at night) 3000K
Pic 2. Daylight inside my kitchen, 12 noon, partly cloudy (100CRI sunlight) ~6000K
PIc 3. the LED assortment I use at different times of day, photo taken at same time as pic#2















Left to Right stock Maratac head with XPG2 6000K, stock Worm head with N219b 4000K, Customized Maratac with Rey Light Driver and XPG 3000K (all drivers are the latest No PWM models)
Note the Nichia produces the most realistic Tint match to the daylight color of the Buckskin


----------



## MX421 (Mar 7, 2016)

recDNA said:


> Furthermore you have your forest dwelling banjo picking scary people like in the Deer Hunter movie.


I hear Banjo's....

To each their own i guess, i like outdoors. I'm still scared of being out on the water at dark after I saw the movie Jaws, but i think i'm over that now 


Anyway, back on track. I vote Neutral for overall, but i have recently found i like warm tints. It started with noticing more colors with them, but perhaps its a bit of nostalgia for the Incans i grew up with. Or perhaps there is some subliminal marketing going on that provides high CRI as another excuse to buy more lights...

On the flip side, for throw purposes, i like cool temps though since they tend to throw further IMO.


----------



## gunga (Mar 7, 2016)

I replied neutral, but I've liked 4000K for a long time, now I really like Zebralight "C" tint (3700-3900K?). Is that considered warm or neutral?


----------



## Inebriated (Mar 7, 2016)

I tend to prefer a warmer tone, but as long as it's not a super cool tone, I'm generally pretty content.


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 7, 2016)

I like forest dwelling banjo picking scary people...
They make mighty fine moonshine.


----------



## xdayv (Mar 7, 2016)

I like warm... but neutral is also nice, as the name suggests, it's neutral, more applicable to different environments. But general use edc, I prefer warm. YMMV.


----------



## Tachead (Mar 8, 2016)

gunga said:


> I replied neutral, but I've liked 4000K for a long time, now I really like Zebralight "C" tint (3700-3900K?). Is that considered warm or neutral?



Zebralight's "c" models are 4000K. Their spec is an average and there always is a variance/range between different emitters. And, to further complicate things, emitters tend to get progressively warmer as their current is reduced. So, the lower the output level the warmer an emitter will be. I find people on this site(not you in particular) often read a review and take the reviewers specs/measurements as gospel when that is not the case. A reviewers measurements only indicate the measurements of the reviewers particular example. Tint, CCT, CRI, exc. can vary quite a bit in the same batch of emitters. Sometimes hundreds of Kelvin for example. So a reviewers measurements should be taken with a grain of salt because your example could end up being quite a bit different. 

There really doesnt seem to be a clear definition of what Kelvin range warm, neutral, and cool white is unfortunately. Many sites and text books seam to define it differently. I personally think anything getting much below 4000K is starting to push into the warm range and anything above 5000K is cool for flashlights anyway.


----------



## Tachead (Mar 8, 2016)

jon_slider said:


> Im quoting ever word, because I agree completely. It is especially useful that you indicate in what ambient lighting conditions you are preferring 4000K light over 5000K. I think you would like 3000K even better, when adapted to campfire light.
> 
> My tint preference depends on the tint of the ambient light, that my brain has set its white balance reference to.
> 
> ...



I agree and am starting to realize that there is no perfect colour temperature. You have to pick the CCT based on your intended use.


----------



## Tachead (Mar 8, 2016)

recDNA said:


> I understand the importance of nature. I didn't suggest turning forests into strip malls... But that doesn't mean I want to spend any time there. It's wet, dirty, cold, buggy etc. Furthermore you have your forest dwelling banjo picking scary people like in the Deer Hunter movie.
> 
> I can see a small wooded grove of conservation land that surrounds my house on 3 sides. Pretty. No reason to go in there though.
> 
> As I said I like the ocean. (Maybe that is why I like a cooler tint. Blue light penetrates the water best.) I don't want to be under it, on it, nor even in it. I like to look at it from a beach or lanai... With a cocktail. Arrrrrgh. I vote 5000k.



You will live a pretty boring life if you never get your hands dirty or wet man. You should get out there and try some new things, I think you will be surprised how much fun you have. Also, judging people based on their looks is pretty close minded and bordering on bigoted. I often find that country folk are some the nicest people. They are often much less self entitled/selfish and quite giving, caring, and friendly compared to city people. There are some ignorant hillbillies too but, there are plenty of bad city folk as well. The bottom line is you just can never tell without giving every person their fair chance:thumbsup:


----------



## recDNA (Mar 8, 2016)

I was joking about a movie caricature - not real people. We have different ideas of fun. There is no correct way to have fun. Whatever works for you.


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 8, 2016)

recDNA said:


> I was joking about a movie caricature - not real people. We have different ideas of fun. There is no correct way to have fun. Whatever works for you.



They do make great moonshine though.

Meanwhile back at the ranch...
You guys prefer warm or neutral lit fun?


----------



## jon_slider (Mar 8, 2016)

Here are two 3000K LEDs, notice how different the tints are









Im learning some new terminology.. Tint refers to whether an LED of a given Color Temperature, falls above or below the Black Body curve. The 3000K XPL tint is above the curve, while the 3000K XPG tint is below the Black Body curve.

I believe the neutral white 4000k LEDs also come in versions whose tint is above or below the curve. For example, the XM-L2 tends to the yellow side above the curve, the N219 is on the pink or magenta side below the curve. 

I seem to prefer LEDs whose tints fall below the curve.


----------



## Tachead (Mar 8, 2016)

jon_slider said:


> Here are two 3000K LEDs, notice how different the tints are
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yep, people on this site often tend to think tint and CCT are the same thing and use the terms interchangeably. Tint is the colour of the beam not the temp but, tint also varies with colour temp obviously. Depending on the CCT, tints above the black body radiation line(BBRL) tend to be slighty greenish where as tints below it are generally pinkish/magenta. I would say your XPL example is pretty close to the BBRL judging by the picture. Where as your XPG is definitely below it.

A perfect neutral tint between 4000 and 5000K should have very little green or pink/magenta. It will vary between slightly yellowy/creamy and bluey depending on how warm or cool it is.


----------



## jon_slider (Mar 8, 2016)

Tachead said:


> … Tint is the colour of the beam not the temp but, tint also varies with colour temp obviously.


 Thanks for the help understanding the differences

I may have guessed wrong about the reason my XPG is redder than my XPL. Unfortunately I dont have BBRL nor Spectrograph for them, maybe the difference in tint would measure out to actually being a difference in CCT, as the 3000k value is just "nominal"

Here are a couple of 4000k LEDs, the N219 is 8% cooler (less yellow) than the XM-L2
and also the N219 has 10% higher CRI (more red), but both plots are above the BBRL.

XM-L2 3680CCT 83CRI:









-------------

Nichia 219b 3940CCT 91CRI:









Disclaimer, YourTintMayVary (YTMV)
I dont think there is concensus on what Warm or Neutral is, in CCT, some call 4000k warm, I call it neutral.. I also consider daylight Cool, Moonlight neutral, and incandescent warm.





thanks to @maukka for all the images from his reviews
Astrolux A01
Zebralight SC5Fc


----------



## Brasso (Mar 8, 2016)

I'm not 100%, but I was always under the impression that the high cri xpg was 3750K in tint, and that the xpg2 was 3000K.


I have an xpg2 3000k module and it is way too yellow for my liking, but I like the high cri xpg.


----------



## Tachead (Mar 8, 2016)

Brasso said:


> I'm not 100%, but I was always under the impression that the high cri xpg was 3750K *in tint*, and that the xpg2 was 3000K.
> 
> 
> I have an xpg2 3000k module and it is way too yellow for my liking, but I like the high cri xpg.



In temp(CCT):thumbsup:


----------



## eh4 (Mar 8, 2016)

This is Sparta... https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-...ws/s1600/Screenshot_2016-03-08-23-03-31-1.png


----------



## jon_slider (Mar 9, 2016)

Brasso said:


> I'm not 100%, but I was always under the impression that the high cri xpg was 3750K



Have any links or references?

I have a 3000K Incandescent bulb over my kitchen table. When I shine the 3000k XPG on the ceiling, the CCT looks very similar to my eyes. I also have a 4000k Nichia 219b, and it looks Noticeably Bluer and Cooler on the ceiling than the supposedly 3000k XPG, and the known 3000k Incandescent.

here are the two LEDs side by side





I dont have any spectrograph nor CCT plot for my N219b, nor the XPG, so I dont really know for sure if the 3000K spec is accurate. 

Maybe replicate my observations, by using a 3000k and maybe also a 4000k incandescent bulb, and compare their CCT to your XPG.. and to a Nichia 219b… (as in the latest Lumitop Tools and ReyLight Tools)


----------



## Tachead (Mar 9, 2016)

jon_slider said:


> Have any links or references?
> 
> I have a 3000K Incandescent bulb over my kitchen table. When I shine the 3000k XPG on the ceiling, the CCT looks very similar to my eyes. I also have a 4000k Nichia 219b, and it looks Noticeably Bluer and Cooler on the ceiling than the supposedly 3000k XPG, and the known 3000k Incandescent.
> 
> ...



They all use 4500K 219B's. Its hard to tell from the picture but, it appears your light is 4500K as well(it looks too cool to be 4000K). What light is it? There are very few lights that use a 4000K Nichia, most use 4500 or 5000K 219B's.


----------



## jon_slider (Mar 9, 2016)

Tachead said:


> They all use 4500K 219B's. Its hard to tell from the picture but, it appears your light is 4500K as well(it looks too cool to be 4000K). What light is it? There are very few lights that use a 4000K Nichia, most use 4500 or 5000K 219B's.


My current crop of N219b are in a Lumintop Worm, as pictured above, and again at the end of this post. I also have a ReyLight tool with N219b-V1.. I believe concensus is that the LED is a 4000k, like this Astrolux has:

N219b 3940K:





N219a 4400K: (this is an actual test of my actual Prometheus Beta with N219a) I dont have it anymore, sold due to PWM and replaced with the new NoPWM worm pictured in the beam shots









anyway, were just speculating now. 

Because my photos use auto white balance, the color they show is relative to which lights are in the photo. So here are my Maratac XPG2, Copper Worm N219b, and High CRI XPG together (I no longer have testing access, these specific lights have not been tested), so the white balance now is biased to the XPG2 and you can see how the N219b looks compared to the XPG





and here are just the two lights on the right.. lets see how the white balance affects them, does the 219b look the same in both photos? Nope! (exact same Worm head and same XPG)





the only value to these photos is the relative color of the lights in the pic. We really need more help from maukka  (but Im in California and he is in Finland). I was hoping simply to show how far apart the color of the N219b and the XPG is. I have no idea how many Kelvin points apart they actually are, but from where I sit, I do not think the XPG is 3750, given the known 4000k N219b

we need to go to Sparta and get some real data, I will try to stop speculating about Brasso's comment that he thinks the XPG is 3750k.. I have not seen any evidence to support that assumption..

I will add an observation that the apparent whiteness of the N219b when compared to only the XPG is a white balance effect, where the iPhone seems to use the brightest light in the frame to bias the white balance.. Our BRAIN does the same thing. That is, if I turn on the N219b and the XPG at the same time, the N219 looks much more cool. That was the whole point, that the 219b is not just 250k away from the XPG.

now back to our regularly scheduled poll. I voted Neutral, like the 4000k N219b, its far and away my favorite and most versatile High CRI LED for my use.

Oh, one more pic, the N219b in my Worm, and the N219b in my Reylight (not identical tint, the Worm is slightly yellower, but afaik similar 4000k CCT)





Here are the actual lights, note Im referencing the heads, not the bodys, which are legos (ReyLight head on Maratac body, Maratac head on Tool body, XPG custom Maratac head on Wrom body, Wrom head on Maratac body)… fwiw, 3 out of 4 legos are fully functional, with the exception of the Worm body paired to Maratac head..





yes the Worm is labeled Wrom from the Factory (special collectors item) LOL 








fwiw, here is the 3000k Incandescent I used to compare to the XPG




note the 3000k spec:


----------



## Tachead (Mar 9, 2016)

jon_slider said:


> My current crop of N219b are in a Lumintop Worm, as pictured above, and again at the end of this post. I also have a ReyLight tool with N219b-V1.. I believe concensus is that the LED is a 4000k, like this Astrolux has:
> 
> N219b 3940K:
> 
> ...



Both the Reylight Tool Copper and Reylight Tool Ti use the 91CRI *4500K* Nichia 219B as stated at the top of the buy threads for them...

http://budgetlightforum.com/node/41588

http://budgetlightforum.com/node/41588

Because Lumintop is using 4500K Nichias for these lights they probably are using them for all their lights so, your Worm likely has a 4500K emitter in it as well. 

The Astrolux/Manker A01 are the only lights that I am aware of that use a 4000K 219B. Most lights use either the 4500K or 5000K Nichia 219B.


----------



## low (Mar 9, 2016)

Neutral only for me.


----------



## jon_slider (Mar 9, 2016)

Tachead said:


> Both the Reylight Tool Copper and Reylight Tool Ti use the 91CRI *4500K* Nichia 219B… your Worm likely has a 4500K emitter in it as well.
> 
> The Astrolux/Manker A01 are the only lights that I am aware of that use a 4000K 219B.



Thanks! I believe you are correct and I was mistaken. (I reserve the right to disagree with myself) 

It appears I made an AssUmption that the current batch of N219's in the Chinese flashlight manufacturing stock are the same for both Astrolux and Lumintop.

I hope someone will post an actual CCT and CRI test for the new N219 Lumintops. We do have maukkas test of the Astrolux A01 already. I hope he buys a Tool.. LOL

or, maybe someone with an Astrolux and a Tool can post a beamshot of the two for further etertainment..

I learn a lot from your posts @Tachead, thanks for taking the time to wade through my prose.


----------



## Tachead (Mar 9, 2016)

jon_slider said:


> Thanks! I believe you are correct and I was mistaken. (I reserve the right to disagree with myself)
> 
> It appears I made an AssUmption that the current batch of N219's in the Chinese flashlight manufacturing stock are the same for both Astrolux and Lumintop.
> 
> ...



No problem:thumbsup:

I hope someone tests the Tool as well. Keep in mind though there is always variation between different emitters even from the same batch/real. The LED manufactures binning allows for a certain range to be allowed. A test only shows results for the particular light being tested and the light you get(even though the exact same model) could be quite different. The CRI, CCT, Tint, and other attributes vary within a certain tolerance set by the manufacturer(some of these tolerances can be found in the emitter manufactures spec sheets). Maukka's tests are always great, we are lucky he takes the time to do them for us. Thanks again maukka:thumbsup:

I have an Astrolux A01 on its way(should be here any day) but, have no plans to get a Tool unfortunately.

No problem. Thanks for your posts as well. Its nice to see beam shots from various different lights:thumbsup:


----------



## tab665 (Mar 9, 2016)

im really digging all the pics being posted here. i voted a while back but never commented, i prefer both neutral and warm over cooler tints, but between the two i like warm tints. i recently had a light upgraded to a 4750-5000k xp-l hi led. its still a little on the cool side for me, although while at work if someone else is using their flashlight i realize that mine is indeed warmer and more pleasant. i have a prometheus and an oveready mini turbohead that both have HCRI leds in them at the 3000k mark. i love those lights and color temprature, but i also dont know how much of it has to do with the fact they are high CRI leds and not just warm leds. i think my ideal temp range is between 4000k and 3000k.


----------



## bodhran (Mar 10, 2016)

I was going through a box yesterday and came across two Qmini's I hadn't seen in ages. A CR2 and 123. Both have the HCRI XPG rated at 3000k I believe. I prefer a neutral but for night stand lighting or a tent light these are very nice.


----------



## jon_slider (Mar 10, 2016)

bodhran said:


> HCRI XPG rated at 3000k… I prefer a neutral but for night stand lighting or a tent light these are very nice.



I agree completely, the 3000k is best in full dark adapted circumstances and is my night stand and camping light (clipped to a baseball cap)





and, I agree the HCRI XPG _is_ *3000K
*heres a link that adds to that belief:
#1


neutralwhite said:


> _The Cree XPG High CRI (Color Rendering Index) is specifically designed to deliver accurate color rendering to the human visual system. On a scale of 1-100 it scores a 93+. The LED tint is warm, like an incandescent light bulb, and comes in a CCT (Correlated Color Temperature) of *3000K*._



Jason says the same
"The Cree XPG High CRI (Color Rendering Index) is specifically designed to deliver accurate color rendering. On a scale of 1-100 it scores a 93+. The LED tint is warm, like an incandescent light bulb, and comes in a CCT (Correlated Color Temperature) of *3000K*."

I Much prefer the 3000k XPG's tint over the 90CRI 3000k XPL, which I find too ugly mustard yellow


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Mar 10, 2016)

Something to keep in mind is that LED tints/CCTs come in ranges. Depending on how the manufacturer bins them a 4000K could be anywhere from 3750 - 4250K and tending to the yellowish/greenish or magenta/purplish. 

Check out the ANSI white chart: http://flashlightwiki.com/images/c/cb/Ansi-white.jpg

Premium tints are along the black body line, but that's not always easy to find.

I've ordered some batches of 4000K LEDs that are definitely cooler than other batches of the same rating. 

Back to preference though - 3000K for a nice warm indoor light, very calming. 4000K for a general use light regardless of indoors/outdoors etc. 4500K is okay for some general use but definitely at the high end of my preferences. 

I've installed some 5000K XP-Ls and they are a pretty nice white tint. I could handle it if I had to.


----------



## jon_slider (Mar 10, 2016)

ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond said:


> Something to keep in mind is that LED tints/CCTs come in ranges. Depending on how the manufacturer bins them a 4000K could be anywhere from 3750 - 4250K and tending to the yellowish/greenish or magenta/purplish.



Yes I understand a 4000k spec is nominal +- about 5%

I prefer tints in the magenta range over tints in the yellow green side. My XPG and Nichias tend to the Magenta side, my XPLs tend to the yellow green side

btw, I find this plot from darksucks.com helps me understand the lumen/CRI tradeoffs better, I thought it would help the OP:


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Mar 10, 2016)

That is a good reference chart. The only skew of the data on that chart is that the XPG would be driven at 1.4A while the others would be driven at higher currents.


----------



## jon_slider (Mar 10, 2016)

ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond said:


> The only skew of the data on that chart is that the XPG would be driven at 1.4A while the others would be driven at higher currents.



true, and that makes them hotter 

Brightness Observation, there is only so much a given battery voltage can deliver for a High.
Using Eagletac specs for sake of example, with a Nichia:

1.5 Volt AAA and AA batteries support a High of ~70 lumens
3 Volt CR123 single gives a High of 160 lumens (basically double the voltage gives double the brightness)
Two CR 123 gives a high of 240 lumens
D25AAA w Nichia 219B 
ANSI lumens: (3modes): 68/40/8

D25A w Nichia 219B 
ANSI lumens: (4 modes): 70/55/7/0.5

D25C w Nichia 219B, 
ANSI lumen: (4 modes): 160/129/16/0.5

D25C2 w Nichia 219B
ANSI lumen: (4 modes) 240/204/26/6

Note on Eagletac specs: the high increases by 20% for the first 3minutes (timed turbo). Values above do not include Turbo mode. Im not recommending eagletac specifically, I just want to emphasize that batteries have inherent limits. Also, yes you can increase the High by giving up CRI, but I personally wont settle for a low CRI light.. thats just me, and for the way I use lights primarily indoors.. For zombies bright and Low CRI is actually more effective, but, Zombie hunting season is closed where I live.. 

sooo, if the OP wants high CRI and more than ~ 70 lumen high, neither AAA nor AA is a good match. That is why CR123 is so popular
also notice that only the D25A and D25C include a moonlight mode of 0.5 lumens (nightlight). I like a Moonlight option very much


----------



## eh4 (Mar 12, 2016)

I started out years back strongly in favor of warm over neutral, and since most of what was available was pretty cool or blue I went with sub optimal red Infinity Ultra, and eagerly looked for the warmest tints as they became available. 
Now that led tech is as great as it is, I've been won over to the highest CRI neutral that I can get. 

But there's a wrinkle, the dimmer the intended use of the light, the warmer I want it to be, down to red if necessary. 
Anyhow, that's the current state of it for me, warm lights make it easier for me to cycle between adding light and going back to seeing vaguely in the dark -instead of being blind for a while.

BTW I'm totally stoked about the Armytek Predator Pro V3 Warm that arrived today. 
The .2 lumen mode is great, and the tint is great. 
The mode spacing is mostly great...
I yacked about it at length in the Armytek forum.


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 12, 2016)

All those charts, graphs, plots and theories convinced I don't really prefer warm, I just think I do.... I actually prefer neutral...because the charts, graphs plots and theories told me to. 





So all this time I thought the beam from this incan light was my favorite...
Geez, glad I saw those charts, graphs plots and theories.


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Mar 12, 2016)

^^^ sarcasm??


----------



## Brasso (Mar 12, 2016)

Is anyone else pissed that all the high cri lights coming out lately are all cool (5000K)?

No one makes a 4000K tint high cri anymore.


----------



## fnsooner (Mar 12, 2016)

I can’t say that I like warm better than neutral, but I do like it and in some cases I like it better. Five or six years ago I made a conscious decision to never buy cool white and to always buy the warmest option. Since warm is not offered that much, it gave me a nice collection of neutral lights with a few good warms. 

Anything over 4500k temp and I start loosing interest.

I EDC a neutral ZebraLight and during the work week I also carry a Hi CRI warm Ti Preon 2.

I would love for ZebraLight to offer a Hi CRI warm SC63 using the XHP35. I doubt it will happen.


----------



## twistedraven (Mar 13, 2016)

Brasso said:


> Is anyone else pissed that all the high cri lights coming out lately are all cool (5000K)?
> 
> No one makes a 4000K tint high cri anymore.




5000 kelvin is closer to neutral white than 4000k is, at least when it comes to black body radiation and very high CRI lighting (90+). If a light has plenty of deep red saturation, 5000k and even lights closer to 5500k can have plenty of inner warmth to them.

I'm for one glad that lights are approaching color temperature values closer to mid-day sunlight, with high CRI to back it up. Since sunlight is the reference (at least my reference) for perfect color rendering, having lights that come closer and closer to its performance is something to look forward to.


I just picked up a Jaxman E2 with Nichia 219B V1 with an SW57 tint at 5400-5700 kelvin, and I've found that it renders skin tones and differentiates woods better than my L3 Illuminaiton L11C with a Nichia 219B SW45 tint at 4500 kelvin, which makes everything look orange in comparison. Of course, none of the Jaxman's magic would be possible if it didn't have a high amount of deep red saturation. Maukka measured the LED's ability to produce R9 deep red at 80, which is 10 higher than even most SW45 variants of the older 219B.


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 13, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> 5000 kelvin is closer to neutral white than 4000k is, at least when it comes to black body radiation and very high CRI lighting (90+). If a light has plenty of deep red saturation, 5000k and even lights closer to 5500k can have plenty of inner warmth to them.



"Neutral White" is a marketing term created somewhat by Lumileds when they started to market their "automotive white" into the general lighting market and need to differentiate it from cool and warm.

Across the general population, with conditioning to the light, 4000K, on the blackbody is considered the most "white" by the most people.


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 13, 2016)

SemiMan said:


> "Neutral White" is a marketing term created somewhat by Lumileds when they started to market their "automotive white" into the general lighting market and need to differentiate it from cool and warm.
> 
> Across the general population, with conditioning to the light, 4000K, on the blackbody is considered the most "white" by the most people.



Didn't know the history there. Nice.

I suppose I fall into that 'most people' category (gasp!) regarding 4k appearing pretty dawg gone close to pure white. By 5k I see color mixed in trying to make me think it's brighter.

Yet in terms of flashlights my brain seeks out an ever so slight hint of warm whenever I see what until now I thought of as a neutral beam. 

My eyes have always seen LED as harsh until at least a hint of warm is added. I'm biased in that regard. So I'd never considered pure white as neutral, yet thinking about it for a few ticks, no warm or cool would be...
Neutral. Right?


----------



## Tachead (Mar 13, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> 5000 kelvin is closer to neutral white than 4000k is, at least when it comes to black body radiation and very high CRI lighting (90+). If a light has plenty of deep red saturation, 5000k and even lights closer to 5500k can have plenty of inner warmth to them.
> 
> I'm for one glad that lights are approaching color temperature values closer to mid-day sunlight, with high CRI to back it up. Since sunlight is the reference (at least my reference) for perfect color rendering, having lights that come closer and closer to its performance is something to look forward to.
> 
> ...



I find 5000K+ too cool for many application as well. It is only really good for daytime use in dark places or work areas imo otherwise it is too harsh. Their is a reason why 2700-3000K household lighting is used and recommended in almost all living areas. It is softer, more relaxing, and easier on the eyes.

Remember that lights are most often used at night. There is no mid-day sunlight at night. Night is lit by moonlight which is 4000K. 5000K+ is very harsh when going from 4000K moonlight directly to it. Also, generally CRI increases the warmer you go with LEDs(although high CRI are available in a number of temp ranges). 100 CRI standard black bodt radiator incandescent lights are 2700K.

I personally think you want your light source to be as close to the ambient light that you are currently in as possible. Otherwise it will appear harsh or warm and force your eyes to adjust depending which way you go. There is no perfect temperature. 4000K is better for outdoor and late night use and 5000K is better when used during the day in dark places after going from daylight or fluorescent lighting. Another thing to remember is that warmer light will always be better for dark adapted eyes and will allow you keep your night vision better.

I used to think 5000K high CRI was what to shoot for too until I got 2 of the exact same high CRI lights one in 4000K and one in 5000K. Now I realize the difference and see that 4000K is much better for outdoor and late night uses where as 5000K is better for use during the day.


----------



## twistedraven (Mar 13, 2016)

I get the argument to want warmer lights for the mere fact that they're not as harsh as cooler temperatures, which would make sense being in a very dark environment then bringing a 1000+ lumen flashlight to illuminate your surroundings. I'm not quite sure about the argument of wanting something near the color temperature of moonlight since it's our ambient light during the night. The extent to which moonlight illuminates the ground is very small-- with only 1/10th of a lux reaching the ground at any time. Even during the periods of twilight, the overall ambient temperature is on the bluer side of things, so if one were outside and it was closely approaching night time, they would have already been accustomed to a cooler ambient temperature. Neither am I sure about the argument for preserving night vision. We bring these powerful flashlights to bear so we don't have to rely on adapted night vision. If we truly wanted to preserve night vision, we'd ideally want 650mm red lights to work with.


At the end of the day it all boils down to personal preference, but I do feel that a lot of people still consider 5000k plus as cool when it comes to LEDs or flourescents, only because they had experiences with lights that lacked a healthy amount of deep red saturation. Very few LEDs can boast a high R9 reading, and the ones that do are used as light sources rather than emitters for flashlights. 

According to spectral data, roughly ~5400 kelvin has the most balanced spread of light, making it objectively the most neutral, but only when dealing with ideal black body radiation. The sun will dip down to 5400 kelvin at one point or another in the day-- differing depending on altitude, location on earth, season, and a wealth of other things, and whenever that happens, would be a truly neutral lighting experience.


----------



## jon_slider (Mar 13, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> I'm not quite sure about the argument of wanting something near the color temperature of moonlight since it's our ambient light during the night. The extent to which moonlight illuminates the ground is very small



lets try to eliminate some variables
Assume a scenario outdoors camping, at night, in the dark
IF you had a choice between a light that gives 20 lumens at 4000K
and a light that also gives 20 lumens, but at 5000K
can you see that the 5000K would seem more blue, because the brain is white balanced to 4000K moonlight?
Try it

It makes ALL the difference what ambient light your brain is adapted to. 
As Tachead mentioned, during daylight, with the brain white balanced to sunlight, the 5000K light will seem less Orange than the 4000K light

otoh, a brain on Moonlight white balance will find a 4000K light a closer match to ambient brain white balance, and the 5000K will seem more blue

make sense?.. Try it!
Go outside during the day, then go into a dark area and compare a 4000K and 5000K source
Do the same after spending time in the dark, especially waking up in the night, and compare the same two light sources.
I think you will See that CCT preference changes based on the CCT the brain has adapted to


----------



## Tachead (Mar 13, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> I get the argument to want warmer lights for the mere fact that they're not as harsh as cooler temperatures, which would make sense being in a very dark environment then bringing a 1000+ lumen flashlight to illuminate your surroundings. I'm not quite sure about the argument of wanting something near the color temperature of moonlight since it's our ambient light during the night. *The extent to which moonlight illuminates the ground is very small*-- with only 1/10th of a lux reaching the ground at any time. Even during the periods of twilight, the overall ambient temperature is on the bluer side of things, so if one were outside and it was closely approaching night time, they would have already been accustomed to a cooler ambient temperature. * Neither am I sure about the argument for preserving night vision.* We bring these powerful flashlights to bear so we don't have to rely on adapted night vision. If we truly wanted to preserve night vision, we'd ideally want 650mm red lights to work with.
> 
> 
> At the end of the day it all boils down to personal preference, but I do feel that a lot of people still consider 5000k plus as cool when it comes to LEDs or flourescents, only because they had experiences with lights that lacked a healthy amount of deep red saturation. Very few LEDs can boast a high R9 reading, and the ones that do are used as light sources rather than emitters for flashlights.
> ...



That depends on the moon phase. When the moon is close to full, it is so bright outside that a flashlight is barely even needed(even many miles into the wilderness where there is little to no artificial light).

The warmer(closer to red) a light source is the more it will preserve your night vision. Blue light is very counter productive to preserving night vision.

Your right, it is a personal preference thing but, I think that colour temp preference is often tied to usage. I think most city folk tend to prefer cooler neutral temps closer to 5000K where as people who are outdoors enthusiasts and use their lights away from artificial light at night often prefer warmer neutral temps around 4000K. I also think that when using a flashlight/headlamp for extended periods, at night, as the only source of light, people will prefer the warmer tints as well. Especially when relaxing as apposed to working. That's why we generally use 2700-3000K for our living areas and 5000K only for kitchens, laundry rooms, hospitals exc.


----------



## twistedraven (Mar 13, 2016)

I guess I'm a weird one. I find 4500k to be dirty-orange compared to 5000k-5500k at night as well as during the day. I am also an outdoor enthusiast as well-- love hiking some mountains in the early morning before sunrise.


----------



## Tachead (Mar 13, 2016)

jon_slider said:


> lets try to eliminate some variables
> Assume a scenario outdoors camping, at night, in the dark
> IF you had a choice between a light that gives 20 lumens at 4000K
> and a light that also gives 20 lumens, but at 5000K
> ...



Exactly. I really think if more people tried this they would change their preferences. Having an artificial light source as close to the colour temp of the ambient light you are in/were last exposed to is always easiest on your eyes and the most effective imo. There is no perfect colour temp for a flashlight or even household light. Its not about what is most neutral. You need to chose based on the intended usage. Use the ambient light of your intended environment as a guide.


----------



## Tachead (Mar 13, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> I guess I'm a weird one. I find 4500k to be dirty-orange compared to 5000k-5500k at night as well as during the day. I am also an outdoor enthusiast as well-- love hiking some mountains in the early morning before sunrise.



You're not weird, its all about what your brain is adapted to. 4500K is orange when compared to the early morning before sunrise in the mountains. Like you said, twilight is blue(cool). Conversely, 4500K would seem very blue(cool) if you were sitting around a campfire in the middle of the night and tried to use it. Your brain will auto white balance eventually but, I say why make it when you can pick a light that closely matches it. Its easier on your eyes and more effective that way imo.


----------



## jon_slider (Mar 16, 2016)

Tachead said:


> Both the Reylight Tool Copper and Reylight Tool Ti use the 91CRI *4500K* Nichia 219B as stated at the top of the buy threads for them...



That was superceeded:

Post #274
As stated by Mr. ReyLight himself:
"It is: NVSL219B-VI *SW40*D220L2R9050"


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 16, 2016)

SemiMan said:


> - For the vast majority of the population, devoid of other light and at a reasonable brightness level (>10lux), something close to 4000K (Assuming high CRI) and on the black body curve is where a light will look the most white. On the black body curve and below 4000K it will look reddish, and above it bluish.
> - It has also been shown that we "prefer" light under the blackbody at almost any CCT
> 
> - Tricks can be played at a given CCT to change the "look" of a light for aesthetics or maximum lumens
> ...



- Repeated, with emphasis on some key items and a few more words for clarification.


----------



## jon_slider (Mar 16, 2016)

SemiMan said:


> Something around 4000-5000K and high CRI will provide color contrast for a greater range of targets than any other color
> ...
> huge advantage to higher CCT lights in your peripheral vision at low light levels versus warm lights.



Thanks for the education.
could you please add some specific values to help define "high CRI".. does that include 83CRI?
And could you define "higher CCT".. does that include 4000K?


----------



## twistedraven (Mar 16, 2016)

SemiMan said:


> - Something around 4000-5000K and high CRI will provide color contrast for a greater range of targets than any other color
> Semiman




What evidence do we have of this, though? Higher CRI will of course provide better color accuracy, but what research was done to compare 4-5k kelvin as providing better color contrast as opposed to something warmer or cooler?


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 17, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> What evidence do we have of this, though? Higher CRI will of course provide better color accuracy, but what research was done to compare 4-5k kelvin as providing better color contrast as opposed to something warmer or cooler?



Within the gamut (pun intended) of LEDs we will see in a typical light, 4000-5000 (and really closer to 5), when high CRI (90+), you have what approximates a full spectrum light source that will allow color discrimination (contrast) of the widest set of targets. The Bridgelux 5500, 90+ CRI may be the exception. When you get into lower CCT, you loose the ability to differentiate blues .. and then greens as you get lower in CCT.

Gamut Area Index gives a clue about this, but GAI is still based on the CRI sample set, but is not a relatively measurement like CRI. Because it is based on the CRI sample set, it is enclosed within the CRI sample set gamut.

For GAI, and gamut in general, you can tweak the spectrum, lowering CRI, but improving GAI. 

This is why with the right scenes, people prefer a tailored low CRI (say 70), but high gamut LED source to 100CRI halogen bulbs. The gamut of the LED can be much higher which makes a wide range of colors more vivid.

Semiman


----------



## jon_slider (Mar 17, 2016)

SemiMan said:


> people prefer a tailored low CRI (say 70), but high gamut LED source to 100CRI halogen bulbs.


Great info! Got a picture of a scene to illustrate the point? And an example of a flashlight that produces high gamut?

I wonder what kind of Gamut spec my 6000K 70CRI Maratac AAA with XP-G2 has?


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Mar 17, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> What evidence do we have of this, though? Higher CRI will of course provide better color accuracy, but what research was done to compare 4-5k kelvin as providing better color contrast as opposed to something warmer or cooler?



SemiMan's reply was a good one, but my answer to you question is more individual.

My evidence is what I see. And what I see that pleases my eyes. I find that anything other 4500K starts to be lacking in the red range and colors are not as vibrant to me. So, for me, 4000K puts thing right in the sweet spot. Tints haven't gotten too yellowish and everything appears quite natural. Now there may be a slight overall neutral beige to the tint but that's okay with me. 

I do agree that 5000K tints are more "pure white" when looking at a white wall. If I could have that CCT and still get the full spectrum of red I would probably not mind much.


----------



## twistedraven (Mar 17, 2016)

ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond said:


> SemiMan's reply was a good one, but my answer to you question is more individual.
> 
> My evidence is what I see. And what I see that pleases my eyes. I find that anything other 4500K starts to be lacking in the red range and colors are not as vibrant to me. So, for me, 4000K puts thing right in the sweet spot. Tints haven't gotten too yellowish and everything appears quite natural. Now there may be a slight overall neutral beige to the tint but that's okay with me.
> 
> I do agree that 5000K tints are more "pure white" when looking at a white wall. If I could have that CCT and still get the full spectrum of red I would probably not mind much.



That's a matter of CRI, and deep red (R9) color rendition, more than it's a matter of CCT in general, at least in my opinion and experience. Midday sunlight is rated at a perfect 100 CRI with a perfect score of 100 for R9 rendering, however its color temperature is around 5600k. Shining a 4500k Nichia 219B against the sunlight would make the 219B look both dull and lacking in red, in turn making it look slightly green in comparison. The same is true for a Nichia 219B V1, rated at 5400k and 90+ CRI. On average it has 10 more R9 rendition than a 219B rated at 4500k, and it in fact does make a 4500k 219B look a tad bit more green as well in comparison, even though it's a whole 1000 kelvin cooler.


----------



## twistedraven (Mar 17, 2016)

SemiMan said:


> Within the gamut (pun intended) of LEDs we will see in a typical light, 4000-5000 (and really closer to 5), when high CRI (90+), you have what approximates a full spectrum light source that will allow color discrimination (contrast) of the widest set of targets. The Bridgelux 5500, 90+ CRI may be the exception. When you get into lower CCT, you loose the ability to differentiate blues .. and then greens as you get lower in CCT.
> 
> Gamut Area Index gives a clue about this, but GAI is still based on the CRI sample set, but is not a relatively measurement like CRI. Because it is based on the CRI sample set, it is enclosed within the CRI sample set gamut.
> 
> ...



So you're saying that the higher the CRI, and the better the spectral balance of the light, the better it is at showing color contrast? If that's truly the case, then 5400 kelvin (which has objectively the best balanced spectral balance of any other CT range-- but we're talking true black body radiation), with 100 CRI would be ideal for showing color contrast.

I'm not sure about all this GAI though, could you elaborate on it?


----------



## Tachead (Mar 17, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> That's a matter of CRI, and deep red (R9) color rendition, more than it's a matter of CCT in general, at least in my opinion and experience. Midday sunlight is rated at a perfect 100 CRI with a perfect score of 100 for R9 rendering, however its color temperature is around 5600k. Shining a 4500k Nichia 219B against the sunlight would make the 219B look both dull and lacking in red, in turn making it look slightly green in comparison. The same is true for a Nichia 219B V1, rated at 5400k and 90+ CRI. On average it has 10 more R9 rendition than a 219B rated at 4500k, and it in fact does make a 4500k 219B look a tad bit more green as well in comparison, even though it's a whole 1000 kelvin cooler.



5600K is considered cool not neutral though. Almost all lights sold in that range or up are listed as cool. I personally consider anything above 5000K as cool white. Even 5000K is bordering on cool and appears bluish in most ambient light. The tint of green on your 219 example is probably more due to it falling above the black body radiation line. Any comparison of emitters to other emitters or the sun is moot unless you have advanced measuring equipment like maukka because LED's vary a lot in CCT, tint, luminous flux, CRI, exc. You cant just go by the specs and remember that tint and CCT are not the same thing. Tint is the colour of the light and CCT is the temperature. Tint obviously varies with CCT, even if both samples are exactly on the bbrl(they almost never are however).


----------



## Tachead (Mar 17, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> So you're saying that the higher the CRI, and the better the spectral balance of the light, the better it is at showing color contrast? If that's truly the case, then 5400 kelvin (which has objectively the best balanced spectral balance of any other CT range-- but we're talking true black body radiation), with 100 CRI would be ideal for showing color contrast.
> 
> I'm not sure about all this GAI though, could you elaborate on it?



This is a good post that explains a lot. There are also many sites on the net that have all kinds of info about all of these topics.

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...CRI-vs-alternatives-with-measurement-examples


----------



## twistedraven (Mar 17, 2016)

Tachead said:


> 5600K is considered cool not neutral though. Almost all lights sold in that range or up are listed as cool. I personally consider anything above 5000K as cool white. Even 5000K is bordering on cool and appears bluish in most ambient light. The tint of green on your 219 example is probably more due to it falling above the black body radiation line. Any comparison of emitters to other emitters or the sun is moot unless you have advanced measuring equipment like maukka because LED's vary a lot in CCT, tint, luminous flux, CRI, exc. You cant just go by the specs and remember that tint and CCT are not the same thing. Tint is the colour of the light and CCT is the temperature. Tint obviously varies with CCT, even if both samples are exactly on the bbrl(they almost never are however).




Being cool or neutral is a matter of marketing lingo. Yes, most LED manufacturers label anything in the 4k range as neutral, but that doesn't mean that's the case in reality. 5000k being cool or not depends again, on its spectral balance, and rather it can render enough deep reds or not, which is a matter of CRI, and not CCT. 

It is true that LEDs vary in tint, but not as much as we think, and not the case with a company like Nichia. I've had 3 219Bs at one point, and there were all very close to each other-- nearly indistinguishable, the difference certainly wouldn't be enough to make one Nichia appear green vs one Nichia appearing spot on compared to the sun's ability to render reds. All also seem to be slightly on the pinker side of the black body locus, subjectively speaking, so that isn't the reason for them appearing green compared to sunlight, it's a matter of their lack of deep red rendering.


----------



## Tachead (Mar 17, 2016)

I have 2 of the exact same lights with the same emitters. Both have the same CRI nominal but, one is 4000K and the other is 5000K. I can tell you with certainty that the 4000K example makes trees, grass, leaves, foliage, exc. look much better and truer to what they look like during the day. The 5000K example is more white and makes white look more white when looking at cereal boxes exc. though. If I switch between them in the same setting, I notice right away that the 4000K one is easier on the eyes. You can actually feel the harshness of the 5000K one when going back and forth. Its just like how I felt the first time I compared a CW emitter with a NW one. Now, after doing this comparison, I realize that 4000-4500K is better for me and 5000k is not the ultimate NW CCT to shoot for. YMMV.


----------



## markr6 (Mar 17, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> It is true that LEDs vary in tint, but not as much as we think, and not the case with a company like Nichia. I've had 3 219Bs at one point, and there were all very close to each other-- nearly indistinguishable, the difference certainly wouldn't be enough to make one Nichia appear green vs one Nichia appearing spot on compared to the sun's ability to render reds. All also seem to be slightly on the pinker side of the black body locus, subjectively speaking, so that isn't the reason for them appearing green compared to sunlight, it's a matter of their lack of deep red rendering.



Unfortunately I've found them to vary like crazy. At one point, I purchased five Fenix PD32UEs to try and get a nice matching pair. I ended up with a purplish, yellow, yellow-green, very neutral, and neutral with some pinkish tint. The last two were close enough so I kept them, but still quite different when comparing. But the first three were so different it was hard to imagine they were even the same kind of LED.

I experienced the same with the LD10, LD12 and LD22


----------



## twistedraven (Mar 17, 2016)

markr6 said:


> Unfortunately I've found them to vary like crazy. At one point, I purchased five Fenix PD32UEs to try and get a nice matching pair. I ended up with a purplish, yellow, yellow-green, very neutral, and neutral with some pinkish tint. The last two were close enough so I kept them, but still quite different when comparing. But the first three were so different it was hard to imagine they were even the same kind of LED.
> 
> I experienced the same with the LD10, LD12 and LD22




Oh yes, I would agree that lights like this do vary quite a bit; the Cree tint lottery is very real, so to say. Other LEDs like the Nichias, and any Cree with the easywhite methodology of tint selection, all vary very little in my experience though. The easywhite methodology was conceived specifically to mitigate different tint variations in different lights for consistent lighting applications.




Tachead said:


> I have 2 of the exact same lights with the same emitters. Both have the same CRI nominal but, one is 4000K and the other is 5000K. I can tell you with certainty that the 4000K example makes trees, grass, leaves, foliage, exc. look much better and truer to what they look like during the day. The 5000K example is more white and makes white look more white when looking at cereal boxes exc. though. If I switch between them in the same setting, I notice right away that the 4000K one is easier on the eyes. You can actually feel the harshness of the 5000K one when going back and forth. Its just like how I felt the first time I compared a CW emitter with a NW one. Now, after doing this comparison, I realize that 4000-4500K is better for me and 5000k is not the ultimate NW CCT to shoot for. YMMV.



Might you be talking about the XML2 easywhites in the Zebralights? If so, I would agree that the 5000k variant is a champion at white wall hunting, but shows its uglier side when it comes to actually rendering colors, the likes of which is only mediocre. In that case, I could see why one would want an even warmer light. These lights have a big lack of deep red rendering, only at around 20 or so, according to Maukka's measurements.


----------



## Tachead (Mar 17, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> Being cool or neutral is a matter of marketing lingo. Yes, most LED manufacturers label anything in the 4k range as neutral, but that doesn't mean that's the case in reality. 5000k being cool or not depends again, on its spectral balance, and rather it can render enough deep reds or not, which is a matter of CRI, and not CCT.
> 
> It is true that LEDs vary in tint, but not as much as we think, and not the case with a company like Nichia. I've had 3 219Bs at one point, and there were all very close to each other-- nearly indistinguishable, the difference certainly wouldn't be enough to make one Nichia appear green vs one Nichia appearing spot on compared to the sun's ability to render reds. All also seem to be slightly on the pinker side of the black body locus, subjectively speaking, so that isn't the reason for them appearing green compared to sunlight, it's a matter of their lack of deep red rendering.



Even 5000K lights with 90+ CRI and 50+ R9(even as high as 80 R9) are still cool. LED's are not great in general at rendering deep reds no matter what the CCT. I think it is more how much blues are in a light(or the ratio of blues to other colours) that makes them more cool.


----------



## Tachead (Mar 17, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> Oh yes, I would agree that lights like this do vary quite a bit; the Cree tint lottery is very real, so to say. Other LEDs like the Nichias, and any Cree with the easywhite methodology of tint selection, all vary very little in my experience though. The easywhite methodology was conceived specifically to mitigate different tint variations in different lights for consistent lighting applications.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes I am talking about the Easywhites. I wouldnt say the 5000K is mediocre either. I have compared it to my 5000K 90+ CRI 50+ R9 Nichia and although the Nichia displays colours better, it isnt a very large difference. It is still much better then anything I have used other then Nichia's. You are forgetting too that I am comparing the same exact lights with the Easywhite. The warmer 4000K actually has a lower R9 value yet it still makes the trees, grass, leaves, foliage, exc. look much nicer. It is the CCT that is effecting things as that is the only major difference. 4000K just makes outdoor colours look better and more natural imo. It is not just my opinion either as I have read and talked to many people that feel the same way. Even the unbiased opinion of my spouse(who could care less about lights) was that the 4000K made the colours look better and that she preferred it.

I think you need to get two of the same lights like I did to actually see the difference. Until I did I used to think 5000K high CRI was what to shoot for. Now I know that 4000-4500K is better for my uses.


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 17, 2016)

jon_slider said:


> Great info! Got a picture of a scene to illustrate the point? And an example of a flashlight that produces high gamut?
> 
> I wonder what kind of Gamut spec my 6000K 70CRI Maratac AAA with XP-G2 has?



Pictures of flashlights to illustrate color are pretty much meaningless. Look for 4500K-5000K with a high CRI led. I don't keep a database of flashlights on hand, and tend to modify off the shelf for my own uses.


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 17, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> So you're saying that the higher the CRI, and the better the spectral balance of the light, the better it is at showing color contrast? If that's truly the case, then 5400 kelvin (which has objectively the best balanced spectral balance of any other CT range-- but we're talking true black body radiation), with 100 CRI would be ideal for showing color contrast.
> 
> I'm not sure about all this GAI though, could you elaborate on it?



5400K blackbody does offer excellent ability to differentiate a wide range of color. There is a reason why near daylight, high CRI sources are used for print verification. That said, currently, options in this CCT with high CRI are nearly nill in a flashlight compatible LED. 80+ tend to have holes and dips that reduce color contrast and can be quite weak in the red, even though overall they have good "CRI".

CRI just tells you how close something is to a reference. You can make a <100 CRI source that has much wider gamut than a 100CRI source at the same calculated CCT.


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 17, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> It is true that LEDs vary in tint, but not as much as we think, and not the case with a company like Nichia.



... That's not quite true. With the exception of no-name Chinese vendors, LED vendors all generally offer similar binning. Some vendors may have specific products that they only offer in very tight binning (COBS), some Luxeon's, etc. 

Yes the better LED vendors will have a greater distribution near the center, but they have outliers too.

What really matters is how the LEDs were ordered. Did they order a 3-step grouping? 5? 7?


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 17, 2016)

Tachead said:


> Even 5000K lights with 90+ CRI and 50+ R9(even as high as 80 R9) are still cool. LED's are not great in general at rendering deep reds no matter what the CCT. I think it is more how much blues are in a light(or the ratio of blues to other colours) that makes them more cool.



Cool is a matter of CCT, period .... by definition. Same with warm, or neutral. They are all marketing terms, yes, but they are based on CCT.

LEDs are not "poor" at rendering deep reds, LEDs are MFG purposely to optimize light output while achieving good perceptive color qualities. It would not be hard to have "good" deep red, but how many lumens are you willing to give up? Quantum dot phosphors may improve this.


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 17, 2016)

Tachead said:


> yet it still makes the trees, grass, leaves, foliage, exc. look much nicer. It is the CCT that is effecting things as that is the only major difference. 4000K just makes outdoor colours look better and more natural imo. /QUOTE]
> 
> - Key thing here is "look" better. I have no doubt that you prefer 4000K. If you had to carry just one light, it's a good light to carry.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tachead (Mar 17, 2016)

SemiMan said:


> Cool is a matter of CCT, period .... by definition. Same with warm, or neutral. They are all marketing terms, yes, but they are based on CCT.
> 
> LEDs are not "poor" at rendering deep reds, LEDs are MFG purposely to optimize light output while achieving good perceptive color qualities. It would not be hard to have "good" deep red, but how many lumens are you willing to give up? Quantum dot phosphors may improve this.



Sorry, LED`s currently available to us are poor at rendering deep reds. Knowing that they can make LED`s with higher R9 values doesnt help me much.


----------



## Tachead (Mar 17, 2016)

SemiMan said:


> Tachead said:
> 
> 
> > yet it still makes the trees, grass, leaves, foliage, exc. look much nicer. It is the CCT that is effecting things as that is the only major difference. 4000K just makes outdoor colours look better and more natural imo. /QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 18, 2016)

Tachead said:


> Sorry, LED`s currently available to us are poor at rendering deep reds. Knowing that they can make LED`s with higher R9 values doesnt help me much.



Sorry, a more accurate post would be "I" am not aware of current LEDs that render deep reds well. As written it's inaccurate.

First though, in a flashlight, at least a thrower, the ability to render deep reds is really not that useful.

That said, there are many COB LEDs that render deep reds excellently. If you need a thrower, the 3000K, 95 CRI Luxeon M renders deep red very well too.

Semiman


----------



## Tachead (Mar 18, 2016)

SemiMan said:


> Sorry, a more accurate post would be "I" am not aware of current LEDs that render deep reds well. As written it's inaccurate.
> 
> First though, in a flashlight, at least a thrower, the ability to render deep reds is really not that useful.
> 
> ...



The highest R9 I have seen in a commonly available light was 80(that was rare as most seem to be closer to the 60 range or less and they were all Nichia's). Maybe they do exist but, not from the common vendors that I have found. I wasnt trying to be snarky. Why dont you list some for us please.

I have no use for throwers. I dont participate in search and rescue. The throwiest light I own is 12500cd and all my other lights(especially the high CRI ones) are significantly less then that.


----------



## jon_slider (Mar 18, 2016)

SemiMan said:


> you rarely have color vision under moonlight.
> ...
> peripheral vision is better at low light levels with higher CCT light.
> ...
> ...



Those comments give great food for thought, thank you
Im trying to check my understanding with the following statements, which I think are true by extension.. Im very open to corrections:

Sounds like a 3000K light at 0.5 lumens is not as good for peripheral vision as 4500K. And above 2 lumens 3000K LED light has less contrast than 4500K, assuming both are high CRI

I note that LEDs do not replicate Sunlight, nor incandescent light very well at all. LEDs are good at making a few colors, but not the full spectrum of a Black Body source. LEDs use less power, but they dont make the same CCT nor CRI as Incandescent, nor Sunlight. So targetting the CCT of sunlight in an LED does not bring with it the CRI of Sunlight.

LEDs lack CRI and as CRI increases, Brightness is sacrificed. Using a Lumintop Tool with XP-G2 as an example, It seems that for a given LED producing 110 lumens at 6000K and 70 CRI, an increase in CRI of ~ 30% comes with a corresponding reduction in CCT of ~30%, as well as a reduction in Lumens of about ~30%, e.g. an 80 Lumen ~4200K 90CRI LED such as the Nichia N219b-V1 that is in the Lumintop Tool, Worm, and in the Astrolux A01

I hope some of my restatements are accurate 

Im left to realize that LEDs are just Not as good at rendering color as incandescent. For that reason, I have removed the LED lighting from my home and gone back to Incandescent. I also was happy to be rid of the PWM that my 91 CRI Phillips Hue LED system produces, in favor of the much more consistent illumination of Incandescent.

After considering all of the above comments I also am less inclined to use my 3000K 93CRI XPG LED flashlight, and more inclined to use my 4000K 91 CRI N219B-V1

I appreciate the discussion very much, it has "opened my eyes" to a lot of new information, that has practical application to my choices for home lighting and flashlight LED choices.


----------



## twistedraven (Mar 18, 2016)

LEDs can get close to sunlight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3LWXznJx_0


----------



## jon_slider (Mar 18, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> LEDs can get close to sunlight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3LWXznJx_0



96CRI at 5600K, yes please! Can I have it in an AAA flashlight 
Ive been waiting for a Cool White High CRI option. 
I already have 3000K and 4000K at 91 CRI, but my 6000K LEDs are just 70CRI (eg. Maratac, Olight i3s, Thrunite TiXmas)


----------



## twistedraven (Mar 18, 2016)

jon_slider said:


> 96CRI at 5600K, yes please! Can I have it in an AAA flashlight
> Ive been waiting for a Cool White High CRI option.
> I already have 3000K and 4000K at 91 CRI, but my 6000K LEDs are just 70CRI (eg. Maratac, Olight i3s, Thrunite TiXmas)



I'm probably sounding like a broken record at this point to some, but look into the N219B V1 SW57 binning. It has 90-93 CRI at 5700k (measured at 5400k at hotspot on Maukka's sample.) The Jaxman E2 has one, and is cheap, so is worth experimenting with. On the other hand, if you don't like the host, you'll probably have to custom-build a flashlight with one.


----------



## jon_slider (Mar 18, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> I'm probably sounding like a broken record at this point


Not to me. I really appreciate your post. 
Thank you for offering visual examples and specific product options, thats what I call a useful and constructive contribution.. Much respect.


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 18, 2016)

Tachead said:


> The highest R9 I have seen in a commonly available light was 80(that was rare as most seem to be closer to the 60 range or less and they were all Nichia's). Maybe they do exist but, not from the common vendors that I have found. I wasnt trying to be snarky. Why dont you list some for us please.
> 
> I have no use for throwers. I dont participate in search and rescue. The throwiest light I own is 12500cd and all my other lights(especially the high CRI ones) are significantly less then that.



Having an R9=100 does not mean that a light renders deep red better than an LED with an R9=80.

CRI is not an absolute measurement, it is a relative measurement. R9=100 just means you have a black body radiator. I could have a 5000K light with R9=100. You may not feel that renders deep reds well. R9=80 is actually pretty good.

Going back to my original post though, I carefully used the word color contrast, but could have used color differentiation .... will the light allow you to differentiate colors that are close? R9=80 will do that just fine. Likely you could not tell it apart from Incan if the safe CCT.

I listed the 95CRI, Luxeon 3000K, probably the best if you are looking for single emitters that can throw. Bridgelux Decor Class A Vero, Xicato artist modules, OSRAM Duris S line, Yuji ....


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 18, 2016)

jon_slider said:


> Im left to realize that LEDs are just Not as good at rendering color as incandescent. For that reason, I have removed the LED lighting from my home and gone back to Incandescent.



... and the birds and the bees will remember not to thank you for it.

LEDs can achieve near 100 CRI. I pretty much guarantee that if you walked into a room lit by 2700K, 90+ CRI LED, if you did not see the bulb, you would have no clue what the light source was. If interior designers cannot, the average person is not going to.

LEDs can RENDER better than Incandescent. CRI only tells you how close a light replicates a black body or sunlight. That is not an indication of color rendering. Something with a bigger gamut area will in general give perceptually better colors.

We don't see lumens, we see candela and indirectly lux. 2-3 lux on most surfaces is the lower limit for some reasonable color vision.


----------



## twistedraven (Mar 18, 2016)

Darn those incandescents and black and purple shirts.


----------



## markr6 (Mar 18, 2016)

SemiMan said:


> I pretty much guarantee that if you walked into a room lit by 2700K, 90+ CRI LED, if you did not see the bulb, you would have no clue what the light source was. If interior designers cannot, the average person is not going to..



I use GE Reveal LEDs in some places. I don't know the CRI, but I agree noone would be able to tell. They are perfect. I also have some Cree TW Series bulbs and same goes for them. Just the slightest bit less quality of color than the GE, but close. Now that the GE bulbs are down to $8 or less, it makes them the easy choice for me.


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 18, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> I'm probably sounding like a broken record at this point to some, but look into the N219B V1 SW57 binning. It has 90-93 CRI at 5700k (measured at 5400k at hotspot on Maukka's sample.) The Jaxman E2 has one, and is cheap, so is worth experimenting with. On the other hand, if you don't like the host, you'll probably have to custom-build a flashlight with one.




All these pictures prove is that your camera cannot color balance properly .... or that there is nothing in the images for the camera to pick to color balance on. It also tells me that the lighting levels are not consistent, etc.

If I had to make a guess, given they are so bad, someone may have purposely color balanced on the Nichia and allowed the others to screw up and/or purposely screwed up the balance on the others.


----------



## Tachead (Mar 18, 2016)

SemiMan said:


> Having an R9=100 does not mean that a light renders deep red better than an LED with an R9=80.
> 
> CRI is not an absolute measurement, it is a relative measurement. R9=100 just means you have a black body radiator. I could have a 5000K light with R9=100. You may not feel that renders deep reds well. R9=80 is actually pretty good.
> 
> ...



Yes it does. A light source with higher a R9 value will produce stronger, more vibrant reds.

CRI doesnt even take R9 into account it is a measurement of R1-R8. This is unfortunate because reds are very important as they are so common in our day to day lives. It is also not the greatest measurement for LED's and some of the newer measurement methods are better for finding what a human will actually prefer as a light source(CQS, MCRI, CRI2012).

I agree that an R9 of 80 is great but, the more the better imo as with all the R values. Ideally we would have a light source with 100 for all the values.

Thanks for the recommendations:thumbsup:


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 18, 2016)

That 219B, 90CRI, 5700K looks awful .... see ...... it's all purply ...


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 18, 2016)

Tachead said:


> Yes it does. A light source with higher a R9 value will produce stronger, more vibrant reds.
> 
> CRI doesnt even take R9 into account it is a measurement of R1-R8. It is also not the greatest measurement for LED's and some of the newer measurement methods are better for finding what a human will actually prefer as a light source(CQS, MCRI, CRI2012).
> 
> ...



Since we are talking R9, we are already past talking CRI (Ra) so why bring it up?

No, higher R9 ONLY means that a single swatch, for R9, will look exactly the same as with an Incandescent light. That is all it means. At best you could use the word Saturation, but not Vibrant, and one can be over-saturated. Actually many would find some deep reds over-saturated under incandescent and not vibrant at all.


----------



## twistedraven (Mar 18, 2016)

SemiMan said:


> All these pictures prove is that your camera cannot color balance properly .... or that there is nothing in the images for the camera to pick to color balance on. It also tells me that the lighting levels are not consistent, etc.
> 
> If I had to make a guess, given they are so bad, someone may have purposely color balanced on the Nichia and allowed the others to screw up and/or purposely screwed up the balance on the others.



Every flashlight was diffused and was around 100 lumens of output, give or take 10 lumens. All of white balanced set to sunlight, so they are all consistent. These are also close to what I see in person, minus some color loss here and there due to low light performance of the camera. The second set of pictures you edited are not at all what they appear to be in person. I don't know why you would correct something you didn't shoot in the first place.


----------



## Tachead (Mar 18, 2016)

SemiMan said:


> Since we are talking R9, we are already past talking CRI (Ra) so why bring it up?
> 
> No, higher R9 ONLY means that a single swatch, for R9, will look exactly the same as with an Incandescent light. That is all it means. At best you could use the word Saturation, but not Vibrant, and one can be over-saturated. Actually many would find some deep reds over-saturated under incandescent and not vibrant at all.



Because R9 is very important. Reds are very common in our day to day lives. I wish more companies would list the R9 value along with the CRI value personally. I bet one day CRI will be sidelined for one of the newer measurement methods that take R9 and many of the other R values into account other then just R1-R8.

Humans have a preference for saturated colours, you said it yourself. 

Check this post out, it describes some of the newer measurement methods.

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...CRI-vs-alternatives-with-measurement-examples


----------



## Tachead (Mar 18, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> Every flashlight was diffused and was around 100 lumens of output, give or take 10 lumens. All of white balanced set to sunlight, so they are all consistent. These are also close to what I see in person, minus some color loss here and there due to low light performance of the camera. T*he second set of pictures you edited are not at all what they appear to be in person.* I don't know why you would correct something you didn't shoot in the first place.



I appreciate your beam shot comparisons twisted but, I do think they just show how ineffective cameras are at capturing lights true colours(I guess our monitor settings come into account too). The 4500K 219B and 5000K Easywhite look nothing like mine in real life. They both look much more yellowy then my examples. Actually, Semimans edited image looks much closer to what I see in real life. 

I just think the only comparison that really works is seeing them in person and switching between them in real time.


----------



## jon_slider (Mar 18, 2016)

SemiMan said:


> I pretty much guarantee that if you walked into a room lit by 2700K, 90+ CRI LED, if you did not see the bulb, you would have no clue what the light source was.



You are contradicting my direct personal experience with Phillips Hue and incandescent. Probably because you speak in general theory and fail to address specific examples I have provided.

Though I find your posts informative, I also find you argumentative and selective in your responses. You dont answer direct questions Ive posed and you dont speak to specific examples Ive offered. So, I will no longer pursue trying to mine your obvious deep expertise, for relevant comments to my experience.

Ive enjoyed the discussion, thanks for taking it as far as we have gone.


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 18, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> Every flashlight was diffused and was around 100 lumens of output, give or take 10 lumens. All of white balanced set to sunlight, so they are all consistent. These are also close to what I see in person, minus some color loss here and there due to low light performance of the camera. The second set of pictures you edited are not at all what they appear to be in person. I don't know why you would correct something you didn't shoot in the first place.



- I don't need to have shot it to know it was shot improperly. A 5 second glance tell one that right away.

- That you used one color balance (Sunlight) tells me that the other ones are going to look poor no matter what you do. That is not remotely real world.

"Close to what you I see in person" ..... under what conditions? There is no way that your eyes, adjusted to any of the other lights, would have those weird "Greeny" casts to how you saw them. The 85CRI Cree and Lumileds 5000K would look "white". There would not be the green cast that your pictures imply if you were using them as your primary light source. 

The only thing that your picture shows is that the other LEDs are not "daylight". Well that is pretty obvious since they are mainly 4500-5000K.

That said, I would almost guarantee that "5700K" XHP ... is no where near 5700K. Being 70CRI as opposed to 90CRI would not create that large a color cast, even on a camera.


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 18, 2016)

Tachead said:


> I appreciate your beam shot comparisons twisted but, I do think they just show how ineffective cameras are at capturing lights true colours(I guess our monitor settings come into account too). The 4500K 219B and 5000K Easywhite look nothing like mine in real life. They both look much more yellowy then my examples. Actually, Semimans edited image looks much closer to what I see in real life.
> 
> I just think the only comparison that really works is seeing them in person and switching between them in real time.



.... I color balanced on the 5000K Cree. Some of the others were hard to color balance on as I could not find a good spot on the image for a "white point".


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 18, 2016)

jon_slider said:


> Though I find your posts informative, I also find you argumentative and selective in your responses. You dont answer direct questions Ive posed and you dont speak to specific examples Ive offered. So, I will no longer pursue trying to mine your obvious deep expertise, for relevant comments to my experience.



My time is limited, so I tend not to answer questions that can be easily researched. Asking questions that are really narrow and require specific knowledge of a specific product is also unrealistic. I will also refute erroneous information ... some do not like being told they are wrong or inaccurate and find that argumentative. It's not, its simply stating fact, not opinion, and where people want their opinion to be right, facts often get in the way.

The Hue. is 90CRI, only at 2700K. I know some have questioned how accurate that is over the distribution of MFG, and operating temp. I am not aware of any color feedback mechanism for the Hue.

Where I say people cannot tell the difference, it's because I have done the experiments, with interior designers, and some lighting people, with quite a wide range of sources. Most don't even pick up 80+ CRI, let alone 90+. Our color memory is not very accurate. I didn't do these experiments with XYZ flashlight with brand K LED, but with area lighting for a whole room with balancing for brightness and no ability to see the source, only the room. Even when I gave them smaller lit areas where they could move color targets between the areas, they still could not with any reliability what was LED, Incan or CFL. Their results were effectively random. Now I should state, that under conditions of the whole room, they had no clue what was doing the lighting. Where they had the color areas, they knew they were different, but they had no idea which was which. The one most preferred was a high gamut area LED, with CRI about 87.


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 18, 2016)

Tachead said:


> I just think the only comparison that really works is seeing them in person and switching between them in real time.



I would argue that you need 5-10 minutes of adaptation time to a given light ... at least to assess the color.

If you are just interested in what you prefer, say when you first turn it on at night, then staying dark for a while, then turning it on would be best.

Switching between them in real time will be heavily influenced by what your eyes have adapter to. It would be similar to the pictures above.


----------



## markr6 (Mar 18, 2016)

SemiMan said:


> .... I color balanced on the 5000K Cree. Some of the others were hard to color balance on as I could not find a good spot on the image for a "white point".



I tried that too out of curiosity, but isn't that just correcting it to look correct...but not at all how it would in person? I used to shoot photography in factories with HPS bulbs...everything on camera was totally ORANGE. But when selecting a neutral gray spot using a gray card, it magically adjusted everything as if the roof was torn off and sunlight was let in. Of course it looked great, but not like it did in real life.


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 18, 2016)

markr6 said:


> I tried that too out of curiosity, but isn't that just correcting it to look correct...but not at all how it would in person? I used to shoot photography in factories with HPS bulbs...everything on camera was totally ORANGE. But when selecting a neutral gray spot using a gray card, it magically adjusted everything as if the roof was torn off and sunlight was let in. Of course it looked great, but not like it did in real life.



Oh definitely. You can't rely on a camera for color comparison any more than you can rely on your eyes when they are already balanced for one particular light. That was mainly what I was trying to show. It also shows that the 5700K Cree is not 5700K. The 5700K Cree bin for the XHP35 extends down to about 5350, but even if it was in the upper right corner, the tint, compared to the Nichia, which will be close to the black body, looks too far away based on these samples.

One thing to note, Cree (and others), may bias their higher CCT products above the black body. When you buy 5700K, 70CRI, your primary requirement is lumens, and that generally means an outdoor spec product where color is not important (street lights, parking lots, outdoor industrial building lights, etc.) Green contributes the most to lumens, so the more green, the higher the efficiency. Their 90 CRI would be the parts that are near the black body.


----------



## twistedraven (Mar 18, 2016)

It's so hilarious. I posted one set of pictures a while back, and people complained that I used the camera's auto white balance, and the pictures could not be used to compare with as a result. Now I set every picture to be on the same white balance, and people still complain. 

Balancing the pictures that aren't raw files using photoshop-- or any other image editing program-- to the best of your ability is not the way to go. You can't just put these pictures through a filter and white balance them to 5000k, the result turns out to look bad. Also, trying to find something in each picture to color balance off of is the completely wrong way of going about things, we're not trying to say-- put up a gray card here and make sure each image has a perfectly neutral gray card in it with no color cast ini t; the whole point of the comparison is to see the different color casts of each light. The XHP 35 5700 70 CRI for example, is shown as relatively white on your post-processed images, where it's very green in person. The 219B V1 5700k 90CRI looks blue in your images, where in person it looks white, and slightly pink.

Why can't the lights have a green cast to them? Do we honestly think regular Crees that aren't high CRI lack any sort of green cast at all? No, even the most well-behaved ones look very green compared to Nichia LEDs. Part of that is a result because Nichia LEDs are inherently slightly pink to begin with, but the other part of that is because most other LEDs lack a healthy amount of deep red.

The differences shown in these pics, and the relative color temperatures, are all decently accurate. The only thing that isn't accurate is the amount of color saturation and value delineation, because of the camera's lack of dynamic contrast and sensitivity to low light. That doesn't affect the overall results too much, but it does make all of them not look as bright or vibrant as they should.


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 18, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> Why can't the lights have a green cast to them? Do we honestly think regular Crees that aren't high CRI lack any sort of green cast at all? No, even the most well-behaved ones look very green compared to Nichia LEDs. Part of that is a result because Nichia LEDs are inherently slightly pink to begin with, but the other part of that is because most other LEDs lack a healthy amount of deep red.



I stated above the XHP-35-5700K-70CRI would likely have a green cast. The 85CRI, 5000K, no, they would look very white (well maybe a touch blue). 

Setting your camera to Daylight, then expecting a 4500K or 5000K to photograph correctly is of no value .... which is what I was pointing out by picking one of the 5000K and "sort of" white balancing it by picking something maybe close to neutral. Both images are for all intents and purposes worthless.

I have some XHP35, 5000K, 70CRI. When sitting in my 5500K(ish) work area, they looks almost perfectly white. Maybe, a hint of green, but for the most part no. Now that is a small sample, 10 units. Odds are your XHP is not 5700 if you took a picture with daylight balance not because of the green cast, but because the balance of colors looks much closer to 5000K with a green cast.

I would pretty much guarantee, that if the 5700K XHP35 was your only light source for 15 minutes, that it would not appear "very green".

When you say Nichia, be careful to only say high CRI Nichia. Nichia does not have any great capabilities that Cree does not. High CRI, even 80 CRI Cree do not look "green". Considering they are located around the black body, if the color point is below the black body, they will not be green and statistically for anything 4000K and under, a large portion will be under the black body and for 90 at any color temp a lot will be under the black body and even at 80, quite a few will be as well.

The differences are not "decently accurate" in a real world situation. They are grossly exaggerated by a camera set to 5700K. The same would be true if you allowed your eyes to completely balance to 5700K and then turned on a 4500 or 5000K source. The color would appear to be off, AND it would appear to have a green cast as your eyes natural gain for green will be increased at 5700K versus where it would be at 4500K or 5000K. This DOES NOT mean the light has a green cast .... it means the measurement system has a green bias which is completely different (the XHP35 aside which likely has both issues).


----------



## twistedraven (Mar 18, 2016)

SemiMan said:


> Setting your camera to Daylight, then expecting a 4500K or 5000K to photograph correctly is of no value .... which is what I was pointing out by picking one of the 5000K and "sort of" white balancing it by picking something maybe close to neutral. Both images are for all intents and purposes worthless.
> 
> 
> I have some XHP35, 5000K, 70CRI. When sitting in my 5500K(ish) work area, they looks almost perfectly white. Maybe, a hint of green, but for the most part no. Now that is a small sample, 10 units. Odds are your XHP is not 5700 if you took a picture with daylight balance not because of the green cast, but because the balance of colors looks much closer to 5000K with a green cast.
> ...






A couple of fallacies here to go over:


Why are you assuming the 85 CRI 5000k lights will look white? Even if they were on the black-body locus, they would still have discernible tint differences. These are not black body radiators, and are not at a color temperature to have a completely balanced spectral distribution, like pure white would. All of these lights could be passed off as reasonably white, but the fact remains that they all still are different from one another. Why are you even trying to white balance off 5000k in the first place? I’m using daylight here (5500k white balance) merely because of two factors: A, it’s widely used in photography and B: it showcases the lights closely to what I perceived in person.


Why are you saying my 5700k XHP35 is balanced to look like a 5000k light? How would you even know what to look for in this particular case? My wall is not white, so you can’t reference off that; nor do I have any neutral reference within the images themselves to pull off that kind of assumption— which strikes me as peculiar. 


These images are decently accurate to what I saw in person, it also strikes me as peculiar that someone like you, who wasn’t even with me in person to see these lights one after the other, or (at this case I can only assume) has not owned all of these particular lights at once, would pompously criticize my attempt at trying to showcase the difference with these emitters. I studied, trained, and practiced with photography for quite a while, even for my fine arts major, so it’s not as if I don’t know what I’m doing. The point and shoot’s relative poor low light performance is a culprit, but that certainly doesn’t mean these images are not even remotely accurate and ‘grossly exaggerate’ the difference seen here. Ironically, the difference between the Luxeon T at 5000k and XML2 easy white at 5000k is not as great on these images as it is in person.


Changing the scope of the response now to everybody, I know people can get thrown off by seeing how warm the N219B 4500k and XML2 Easywhite 5000k light look on this set of images, but that’s pretty much their characteristic. When I first popped a battery in my H600FD, I was quite awestricken at how yellow it looked in my lightless room. Through multiple N219B 4500k lights, I was also quite puzzled at how warm they were, and could never see how people could view that emitter as white. The only situation where I would consider it white is viewing its tint after being accustomed to 2700-3500k incandescent lighting. So in that sense, yes, I could see why some people would question the validity of the images, but at the same time they should question their own experiences with those lights, and reevaluate just how warm they really are. 


So to close this, I ask anybody this, what would they want to see to make this comparison ‘better?’ I could change the white balance setting (having a static white balance at any other color temperature is arguably just as much of a wrong-doing), I could turn on the camera’s automatic white balance setting, but at the end of the day I’m still going to reference the images side by side with what the light actually looks like on my hand, to make sure they’re as realistic as they could be. Getting a DSLR would definitely help, but what makes the set of images here less important than ones shot from others with their iPhones? It just strikes a nerve when I try to provide comparative assets for the community, and it seems as though I’m the only one getting criticized, out of the hundreds of other beam and tint comparison shots found on the same forum.


----------



## Tachead (Mar 18, 2016)

I think we need to keep in mind guys that all of our particular viewing devices/monitors display colours differently due to them having different LCD/LED displays, different colour and contast settings, different brightness settings, exc. Also, not all human eyes/brains register colours the same necessarily and it is entirely possible that one person could see more blue or green in an image then another. Some people even have different levels of colour blindness without even knowing it. 

The bottom line here is that trying to compare emitters with pictures over the internet on different viewing devices is not exactly the best way to do it and should be only used as a very rough reference.


----------



## tab665 (Mar 18, 2016)

i have no idea how to do proper beamshots, no clue about camera settings and white balances... but i do know that i find it in bad taste to edit someone's beam shots, which were posted with the good intentions of contributing to the thread, with a sarcastic response attached.


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 18, 2016)

tab665 said:


> i have no idea how to do proper beamshots, no clue about camera settings and white balances... but i do know that i find it in bad taste to edit someone's beam shots, which were posted with the good intentions of contributing to the thread, with a sarcastic response attached.



And I find it in terribly bad taste to post beam shots and post that they are "as you saw them", without giving any qualification as to how you took those beam shots when those beam shots are highly misleading. Facts that only came out AFTER I posted the same shots with a different white balance.


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 18, 2016)

-----


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 18, 2016)

Why are you assuming the 85 CRI 5000k lights will look white? Even if they were on the black-body locus, they would still have discernible tint differences.


** I am not assuming that 85CRI, 5000K light will look white. They do look white, or very close to it. The 5000K and the 85CRI is pretty much all I need to know.
[*]
These are not black body radiators, and are not at a color temperature to have a completely balanced spectral distribution, like pure white would.


**1) Now this is a fallacy. For one, by definition, under 5000K, on the black body is white.
[*]**2) No, an even spectral distribution (the closest you come is at about 5500), is actually not perceived as pure white by most of the population. Adapted to the light, the spot on the blackbody that is most perceived as pure white is around 4000K. Over 4000K its viewed to be slightly blue, under 4000K, slightly red.


All of these lights could be passed off as reasonably white, but the fact remains that they all still are different from one another. Why are you even trying to white balance off 5000k in the first place? I'm using daylight here (5500k white balance) merely because of two factors: A, it's widely used in photography and B: it showcases the lights closely to what I perceived in person.


**It was never implied that they were not different. The point is that comparing them against any reference color temperature, whether 5700K or 5000K is erroneous and not of value unless that is the actual color temperature of that light.

Why are you saying my 5700k XHP35 is balanced to look like a 5000k light? How would you even know what to look for in this particular case? My wall is not white, so you can't reference off that; nor do I have any neutral reference within the images themselves to pull off that kind of assumption? which strikes me as peculiar.


**How? 25 years of lighting and optics, 15 years of solid state lighting, actual testing of 100?s of LEDs (and other sources), tons of experience with image capture, courses, seminars, technical conference, reading far more paper than I can remember, and the $100K of electro-optic test equipment at my disposal. 
[*]**I did not say that it is balanced for 5000K, I said is is closer to 5000K than 5700.
[*]**As you white balanced for daylight and the high CRI 5700K Nichia renders typical skin tones, not to mention when the other higher CRI samples are balanced for 4500K and 5000K respectively, they are tonally close to the 5700K Nichia, that provides a set of references.
[*]**Taking into account the (B), and the potential color point range for the Cree parts, suggest they are not from the 5700K bin, but 5000K bin.


These images are decently accurate to what I saw in person, it also strikes me as peculiar that someone like you, who wasn't even with me in person to see these lights one after the other, or (at this case I can only assume) has not owned all of these particular lights at once, would pompously criticize my attempt at trying to showcase the difference with these emitters. I studied, trained, and practiced with photography for quite a while, even for my fine arts major, so it's not as if I don't know what I'm doing.'


**I have a lot of friends who are professional photographers. Most have very little deep understanding of the interaction of varied light sources, and their equipment. They don't need to. That is what white balancing and grey cards are for. It does all the work for them. My extended colleagues who work on de-mosaicing technology for cameras and white balancing algorithms, may not know much about photography, but they know a ton about the interaction of light sources and what comes out as a photo.
[*]**If you have accurately communicated what LEDs you are using and their CRI, then I do not need to own those exact models of flashlights to know how both cameras and most humans will perceive them within a reasonable margin of error.


The point and shoot's relative poor low light performance is a culprit, but that certainly doesn't mean these images are not even remotely accurate and grossly exaggerate the difference seen here. Ironically, the difference between the Luxeon T at 5000k and XML2 easy white at 5000k is not as great on these images as it is in person.


**I think you are missing the point here. It's your method that is grossly exaggerating differences and/or illustrating differences that are obvious, hence why I posted a picture with a different white balance. 
**No doubt there are color point differences between the Luxeon and the XML2. I don't know what binning grouping they are and have not researched where the Luxeon T and XML2 center for their white point is. If they were both the exact same CCT, and within the same 3 step McAdam grouping, then the difference between the two of them would be very subtle.
**While you can see the difference side/side, or in rapid succession on the same target, I would take the bet that you could not tell which was which if used to light a room. Your first impression would be completely weighted by what previous light you were adapted to, and in the absence of a reference, color memory is just not that good.

This is what you wrote, "These are also close to what I see in person, minus some color loss here and there due to low light performance of the camera. The second set of pictures you edited are not at all what they appear to be in person. I don't know why you would correct something you didn't shoot in the first place."


**What you failed to mention, and it's pretty critical not to mislead people, is that your eyes were adapted to either sunlight or the Nichia (just like the camera). That is the ONLY way those other lights would appear close to what I see in person. If you allowed your eyes to adapt to each light (or start dark and adapt), they would not look like that, in person. There would be tonal differences of course, but not the gross differences, significant green cast on all the images, etc. that is illustrated.


Changing the scope of the response now to everybody, I know people can get thrown off by seeing how warm the N219B 4500k and XML2 Easywhite 5000k light look on this set of images, but that?s pretty much their characteristic. When I first popped a battery in my H600FD, I was quite awestricken at how yellow it looked in my lightless room. Through multiple N219B 4500k lights, I was also quite puzzled at how warm they were, and could never see how people could view that emitter as white. The only situation where I would consider it white is viewing its tint after being accustomed to 2700-3500k incandescent lighting. So in that sense, yes, I could see why some people would question the validity of the images, but at the same time they should question their own experiences with those lights, and reevaluate just how warm they really are.*


**Take your pick, color blindness, or measurement bias. 4500K and 5000K, near the blackbody, are near pure white if not a touch blue to the majority of the population after adaptation. 
[*]**I don't know how old you are, but if 60+ and have had a lot of sun exposure over your life, especially if working outdoors, you could have a lot of yellowing of the eyes, which will cause you to perceive light to be a lower CCT than others. This could explain why you perceive 4500-5000K as warm, but it will not cause you to see large variances.


So to close this, I ask anybody this, what would they want to see to make this comparison better?? 


**Here is the thing. You are trying to make an impossible comparison. You have a multivariable system, and you are trying to hold all the variables except one constant while varying that single variable. Until we figure out a way to hack the brain, that will be impossible as you can?t hold all the variables constant and adjust just one.
[*]**The best simple way that can be done is to light a scene with a single light source, let the eyes adapt, then attempt to recreate that visual impression through a display (which itself is a whole different set of variables). More sophisticated method are used in scientific research and always with as large a subject size as possible.

It just strikes a nerve when I try to provide comparative assets for the community, and it seems as though I?m the only one getting criticized, out of the hundreds of other beam and tint comparison shots found on the same forum.


**Often when people post beam shots and discuss tint, the results are criticized if inaccurate conclusions are drawn. You are not unique in this regard. There used to be a larger community of technically knowledgeable users on CPF, but most have left.


----------



## twistedraven (Mar 19, 2016)

I appreciate that you can contribute with all the years of experience you have in the subject matter, but coming out and attacking the images as you initially did and even post-processing them to what you thought was ideal is the exact opposite of professionalism. Saying I'm misleading by telling people how a set of LEDs look under my specific adaption of lighting, and then criticizing me and altering my images so that the 5700k XHP 35 or 85 CRI 5000k lights look how you would expect them to look (not even taking into consideration your own possible light adaption and how it would affect your perception of the tints), and without even owning these specific lights in the first place, reeks of irony to me.


And where is the research and documentation of people perceiving 4000k as the whitest color temperature? 

I will try to get my hands on a decent DSLR sometime soon, and hopefully post higher fidelity comparisons playing with static and dynamic white balances, but as far as discussing the nature of this current batch of images, I'm over it. I want to help showcase the broad differences between different emitters to people, and how higher CRI and red rendering can make lesser CRI lights look green (because they do), not get into circular arguments on whether or not they're 100% accurate.


----------



## KeepingItLight (Mar 19, 2016)

I have been struggling with the best way to represent flashlight tint in photographs. Not so long ago, I was an advocate of using a camera's daylight white-balance setting. Today, I am leaning more towards selectively doctoring (i.e., adjusting) a camera's settings so that the resulting image looks like the tint I see with the flashlight in hand. 

Color adaption is the reason. In many viewing circumstances, our brains can strip away the the color cast that is created by tinted light. Our cameras cannot. No matter whether the beams are warm-white, neutral-white, or cool-white, I have noticed that many beam shots exaggerate the tint of a flashlight beam when I compare them to what I actually see with the flashlights in hand. 

I have not be able to try this out yet, but my idea is to shoot cool-white flashlight beams with a higher white-balance setting than what I use on warmer flashlight beams. When I get around to it, I may use daylight for cool-white flashlights, but perhaps try a white-balance setting designed for florescent lighting when shooting a warm-white or neutral-white flashlight beam. The idea is to move both towards something that looks more neutral in the image, while still leaving a vestige of tint. 

One problem with this is that on some cameras, the florescent setting may do more than simply adjust the white balance. It may also assume a low-CRI green tint, and apply some sort of curve to push up the other colors. A better approach, therefore, may be to shoot in camera raw format, and fine tune the white balance after the fact.

I don't really have the answer yet. I am, however, convinced that using daylight white-balance is not always right.


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 19, 2016)

KeepingItLight said:


> I have been struggling with the best way to represent flashlight tint in photographs. Not so long ago, I was an advocate of using a camera's daylight white-balance setting. Today, I am leaning more towards selectively doctoring (i.e., adjusting) a camera's settings so that the resulting image looks like the tint I see with the flashlight in hand.
> 
> Color adaption is the reason. In many viewing circumstances, our brains can strip away the the color cast that is created by tinted light. Our cameras cannot. No matter whether the beams are warm-white, neutral-white, or cool-white, I have noticed that many beam shots exaggerate the tint of a flashlight beam when I compare them to what I actually see with the flashlights in hand.



One concept to understand is that lights don't have, in actually usage, Absolute values of "color cast", or "tint" or "green", etc. Those concepts are only absolute when measurement equipment is used. As you noted, our eyes color adapt. The relative ratios of the gains of the cones change so that we perceive what we believe is "white" as white. By technical definition, "white", is normally referred to as "on the black body locus". However, perceptively, that is actually not the case except close to 4000K. At other CCTs, what we best perceive as "white" is either above or below the black-body.

Cameras normally do color adapt. You usually have to turn that off.

Setting your camera to a fixed white point and taking beam shots Only shows that your emitters are different (and you probably knew that already) and that the white point of the emitter is different from your cameras setting (and you probably knew that to). So what can you do?:

1) Using a single white point setting on your camera, typically black body color temperature, AND comparing images of multiple emitters that are of that exact same color temperature. That will give you an idea of the spectral content of the individual LEDs versus a reference (the camera), but will not show how the images will look once your eyes are adapted. This is really far more of a technical measurement than a perceptive measurement.

2) Adjust the camera or adjust in post processing so that the scene looks the one you thing it looks. This is difficult in practice, but where you are imaging a natural scene, can be the best way to go. It's subjective still, but if you communicate that to people viewing the images it gives them something to go on. It is not repeatable of course. This is "Sort-of" the way experiments are run, but with much more sophisticated methods, that concentrate on either individual colors or scene locations.

------------------------------
3) A repeatable way --- but may not be what you want to show



a) Obtain a CRI color chart. These are not the easiest to come by since CRI is done from spectrum on a computer, but I have seen these over the years.
b) OR, pick a nice repeatable scene that you always use
c) Obtain a neutral grey or white color target. This cannot be house paint, etc. as that tends to have quite a bit of tint. It must be truly neutral. You can buy these.
d) With your neutral target in the scene, that target taking up a reasonable amount of the scene (5% for camera balancing, 1% for post processing balancing), and with brightness of the target consist between shots, take a picture, with the camera set to white balance on the target. If you don't have a DSLR, you probably cannot do spot white balancing. The camera will try to pick a neutral spot, but it may not get it right.
----- For emphasis, you MUST do a new white balance for every single LED you take a picture of (just like your eyes will dark adapt to each LED after extended exposure) -----
e) In post processing, which can be as simple as Google Picasa, use a tool to white balance on the neutral target.

There is one caveat here though, cameras and post processing will generally balance to the black body, and that is not what your eyes will do. As well, cameras and post processing will tend to more aggressively balance at really low CCTs (and really high) compared to what your eyes can do. There was a good example above of HPS. Your eyes cannot balance that. A camera can, but typically will not. Post processing can.


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 19, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> I appreciate that you can contribute with all the years of experience you have in the subject matter, but coming out and attacking the images as you initially did and even post-processing them to what you thought was ideal is the exact opposite of professionalism. Saying I'm misleading by telling people how a set of LEDs look under my specific adaption of lighting, and then criticizing me and altering my images so that the 5700k XHP 35 or 85 CRI 5000k lights look how you would expect them to look (not even taking into consideration your own possible light adaption and how it would affect your perception of the tints), and without even owning these specific lights in the first place, reeks of irony to me.



- Whenever professionals post results, they always post the conditions under which they achieved said results so that others could reproduce them. This thread is about warm/neutral/white. The way you posted images strongly implied that this is what others would see if they were to buy such lights.

That is not true though. The only way they would see those colors is if they first adapted themselves to 5700K (sunlight pretty much), and then used those lights for brief periods of time. I think we can all agree that is a highly unrealistic usage scenario.




"how higher CRI and red rendering can make lesser CRI lights look green"
As you have presented it, that is just plain wrong and misleading. The reason why the lights you used look green is because you color balanced at 5700K. Of course a 4500K or 5000K is going to bring out the green in objects in that case. On a relative basis, they have more power in the green part of the spectrum. That has nothing to do with CRI, and everything to do with CCT/relative spectrum densities. The Only comparison that is valid would be the two LEDs at 5700K (assuming they are very close in CCT), but the odds are highly unlikely that the Cree is actually at 5700K, and even if it was, and low CRI, it could just as possible look blue/red as opposed to green at the same CCT. There is a higher likelihood of green as LED vendors, for low CRI, shift the distribution to the green to get more lumens. However, given you have used 85 CRI and 90CRI LEDs in all cases but one, that would just not be the case except for the 70CRI XHP, which dark adapted on its own, would still not come across "green" though colors may seem off.

Feel free to read the numerous papers posted by LRC, NIST, etc.


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 19, 2016)

Here are some interesting shots .... in here are :

- Morning sunlight
- 5500K, 90+ CRI fluorescent
- 4000K, 85CRI LED
- 5500K(ish) 80 CRI LED
- 2700K CFL

... not necessarily in the order displayed, though I think the sunlight and 2700K CFL will be obvious

Taken with a DSLR, auto-white balanced, then post-balanced on the white paper. RAW mode capture. Ensured no over-exposure.
Color setting on camera to Neutral.
Last, exposure compensated so that they were as equal in brightness as i could make.

Is this close to how I saw them? I would say yes, though the tonal balance in the 2700K situation was better in person that on the image. Moving from location to location, yes colors looked funky at first, yellowish or blueish, but over 10 minutes, they all looked pretty similar, with the 2700K CFL always seeming more yellow. After about 10 minutes ... it just becomes "light" and you stop really thinking about it that much. I have a 4000K, very high CRI source (not just Ra, but R9-R15), but there was too much sunlight in that room to make a useful image.

This was done on a bright morning, so I personally would have started somewhat daylight balanced .... the camera was not aware of what time of day it was


----------



## KeepingItLight (Mar 20, 2016)

SemiMan said:


> Here are some interesting shots .... in here are :
> 
> - Morning sunlight
> - 5500K, 90+ CRI fluorescent
> ...



Nice job with the photos. What you have done was called "color correction" by my photography professors. Shooting with a gray card, and selecting a fixed white balance when shooting a series of related photographs, were just a couple of the tricks they taught me. 

Auto white balance is often my enemy because using it means that each image a series may require a custom white-balance correction. That's extra work, but without individual tweaking, the images in a set will often look different from each other. By using a preset white-balance, I am usually able to apply the same correction to each image in a set. It is even easier when I put a gray card in the frame for the first couple of images in a set. 

With film, the same result is obtained by putting a gray card in the first frame, and using it to set the color balance at the enlarger when you are making prints. Once you dial in the color for the gray card, the rest of the roll "snaps" into place. 

In your shots of the Pepsi bottle, it is obvious that the third and fourth images are the problem shots. Perhaps the third was shot under 2700K CCT light, and the fourth, under the 80+ CRI, 5500K CCT source. Depending on the hour your morning shot was taken, the fourth image might also be that one. During the "magic hour," right after sunrise, I know that the nearly horizontal rays of the sun have a low CCT. Correcting the reddish tint from that might easily introduce the blue tinge that appears in the white background of your fourth picture. The long shadows in that picture are also consistent with an early hour.

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that within a certain range, any flashlight tint will look as "natural" as the well-corrected images in your pictures. Our brains will remove the color cast that laboratory tools can measure. We won't see the flashlight tints that haunt us in A/B white wall tests. 

I am not, as yet, totally comfortable with this notion. I am, however, about halfway there. As I sort this out further, perhaps I will end up going all the way. 

At present, my idea is to "cheat" only a little bit on white balance in my white-wall shots of flashlight beams. By "cheating," I mean shifting the camera's white balance in the direction of the tint of the flashlight I am shooting. My idea is not to go all the way. I want to lessen the tint, but not remove it. I want a hint of blue in white wall shots of cool white flashlights. I want a suggestion of red in the shots of 4000K beams. But, so far, this is only a thought experiment. The only thing I know for sure is that I am dissatisfied with using the daylight preset exclusively. I do not yet know what will satisfy me in practice.

I believe CRI has a big role to play. One of the simple tests I do with my flashlights is shine them on the lightly colored oak doors and flooring I have in my home. There are lots of reds and tans in the wood, so any light source that is deficient in red, will produce a ghostly, washed out color. The cool-white beam produced by the low-CRI Cree XM-L2 emitter in my stock ThorFire C8 is one of the worst. The 5000K CCT, 92+ CRI (Ra) beam from my BLF-348 is easily the best. By comparison, the 4500K, 92+ CRI (Ra) beam from my L3 Illumination L11C is almost as good, but in A/B comparisons, it is clear to me that it "pumps up" the reds a small amount. By itself, however, it looks just fine. This tells me that tint may not be as important as CRI.

When I talk about photographing a flashlight's beam, one of the things I am trying to capture is these subtle (and not so subtle) differences in CRI. When one beam looks decidedly better or worse to me in person, I want my photographs to show the same thing.


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 20, 2016)

Meanwhile back at the ranch...

Whatever happened to the original topic?

I used to read this thread with great interest.
But a wealth of info thread has turned into a bad opera without and ending or intermission....

I thought this was about whether one _prefers _warm ot neutral.


----------



## SemiMan (Mar 20, 2016)

KeepingItLight said:


> In your shots of the Pepsi bottle, it is obvious that the third and fourth images are the problem shots. Perhaps the third was shot under 2700K CCT light, and the fourth, under the 80+ CRI, 5500K CCT source. Depending on the hour your morning shot was taken, the fourth image might also be that one. During the "magic hour," right after sunrise, I know that the nearly horizontal rays of the sun have a low CCT. Correcting the reddish tint from that might easily introduce the blue tinge that appears in the white background of your fourth picture. The long shadows in that picture are also consistent with an early hour.
> 
> If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that within a certain range, any flashlight tint will look as "natural" as the well-corrected images in your pictures. Our brains will remove the color cast that laboratory tools can measure. We won't see the flashlight tints that haunt us in A/B white wall tests.
> 
> ...



I pm'ed you which picture is which.

It depends on what you mean by tint. Anything on the blackbody <5000K has not tint. Anything on the blackbody also <5000K has 100CRI. There is a relationship between CRI and Tint.

Yes I am suggesting that under light adaption, within a range, the impact of CCT is greatly reduced, and even, to a point, the impact of CRI and TINT is reduced. This can be more true for LED than some other light sources due to the somewhat smooth spectrum (at leasts compared to tri-phosphor fluorescent. Things that are white will best approach "white", but other colors may not seem awful, like the one image I posted where the red is a bit washed out. Across the images, there are from subtle to not so subtle differences between the red/blue and green targets though the white always looks close to white, but with slight color cast.

Any quick A/B comparison, evaluation in a room with another primary light source, or without giving reasonable time for adaption will give skewed results. Here is a simple experiment many can do. Many people have at least one room in their house/dwelling without windows that likely is or can be lit with 2700K bulbs. In the middle of the day, while sitting in your sunlit room, go into that room, close the door and turn on the light. Look at the likely white sink/toilet. They will look yellow. Now for the next 10 minutes, read your favourite piece of bathroom reading that is printed on paper that is close to white. Now look at the toilet/sink. It's no longer yellow but quite close to white. Likely not a perfect white, but close. I do have one bathroom that has lots of browns and reds in it, and right now, it just has pretty basic 2700K, 80+ CRI lights. I can't say I have ever felt the room was "washed-out", if anything, some of the color feel a bit over-saturated.


----------



## Tachead (Mar 20, 2016)

SemiMan said:


> I pm'ed you which picture is which.
> 
> *It depends on what you mean by tint. Anything on the blackbody <5000K has not tint. Anything on the blackbody also <5000K has 100CRI. There is a relationship between CRI and Tint.
> *
> ...



This statement is erroneous. And, the more I read of your posts the less I trust your "experience"/expertise. 

Tint is the colour of the light(chromaticity). All light has chromaticity whether it is on the black body radiation line or not. Just look at a LED manufactures spec sheet. LED's are even binned based on their tints(chromaticities). The upper part of the 3D bin(Cree spec) for instance falls directly on the black body radiation line as does the 3A bin. All light has colour and it varies whether it is right on the bbrl or above or below it. It also varies depending on the CCT. And, no anything on the black body radiation line is not 100CRI. Here is a measurement of a Cree Easywhite emitter at 5000K nominal(4760K measured)...







As you can see H1 falls almost perfectly on the black body radiation line. This emitter only measures at 84 CRI.


----------



## KeepingItLight (Mar 20, 2016)

bykfixer said:


> Meanwhile back at the ranch...



Sorry, good fellow, if you think we have taken this too far afield. My intent was not to stray too much off topic. 

In my post, at least, one of the issues is whether I have a preference. Photography aside, one of my messages is a suggestion that color adaption makes tint less important that all the hullabaloo would have you think.


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 20, 2016)

^^ It's all good. Thanks for your input.
Not pointing fingers at anybody in particular...

'Cept for all the "you're wrong" stuff being thrown around... it's an informative read in general. 

In terms of being off topic it has slowly turned from a "do you prefer coke or pepsi" thread into a pepsi is better because it bubbles 6 more suds per second than coke so anybody who disagrees needs to be informed the err of their ways.... 
Wars have been fought over less.
That's all I'm saying.

I prefer warm.


----------



## Woods Walker (Mar 20, 2016)

Overall I prefer NW. See, it doesn't have to be so complicated. Personal preference.


----------



## neutralwhite (Mar 20, 2016)

as long as it's hcri I don't mind WW or NW.


----------



## twistedraven (Mar 20, 2016)

Managed to nab a DSLR so I can take some better shots for yall. 

From left to right: Zebralight SC600 MK3 Cool white, Jaxman E2 Neutral White, Zebralight SC62D, L3 Illumination 219B, Zebralight H600FD











A wealth of good HI CRI emitters here with minimal greening, with the exception of the XHP35 on the Zebralight SC600 MK3 Cool white. I'd be happy to use any of them (minus the XHP), but I prefer the Jaxman E2's 219B V1 5700k tint the best, followed by the L3 Illumination's Nichia 219B at 4500k, then the Zebralight SC62D at 5000k, then the H600FD's XML2 Easywhite at 5000k. The XHP35 is obviously, not in the same ballpark as the rest of the HI CRI LEDs when it comes to rendering flesh tones. In terms of practicality and what gets the most use from me, however, it's the H600FD, because it's a headlamp.


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 20, 2016)

Woods Walker said:


> Overall I prefer NW. See, it doesn't have to be so complicated. Personal preference.





neutralwhite said:


> as long as it's hcri I don't mind WW or NW.



That intermission sure seemed short.


----------



## tops2 (Mar 21, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> Managed to nab a DSLR so I can take some better shots for yall.
> 
> From left to right: Zebralight SC600 MK3 Cool white, Jaxman E2 Neutral White, Zebralight SC62D, L3 Illumination 219B, Zebralight H600FD
> 
> ...



Thanks for all your comparisons. I especially like the first pic with all the lights together. I ended up ordering the Jaxman E2 also since it was so cheap online. Can't wait for it!


----------



## kreisl (Mar 21, 2016)

jon_slider said:


> moral of the story, I prefer Warm in full dark, I prefer Neutral indoors after sunset, I prefer CW outdoors during the day.. which is why I have more than one light...


Awesome post, very clever and thoughtful, thanks!!
Admit it, it took hours to complete between the idea of creating such a post and hitting the Submit button 

most of my lights are AAA lights too. haven't tried a tool copper yet, and my next try should be a maratac aaa.


----------



## Woods Walker (Mar 22, 2016)

bykfixer said:


> That intermission sure seemed short.



*Do you prefer Warm White or Neutral White?*



It seemed like such a simple question. LOL!


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 22, 2016)

Woods Walker said:


> *Do you prefer Warm White or Neutral White?*
> 
> 
> 
> It seemed like such a simple question. LOL!



Yeah, I kinda thought so too WW. 

Yet I suppose pouring milk onto cereal can lead to a lively debate in some circles. 
Pouring from the side leads to quicker soggy, but pouring from the center leads to air bubbles kinda thing.


----------



## markr6 (Mar 22, 2016)

bykfixer said:


> Yeah, I kinda thought so too WW.
> 
> Yet I suppose pouring milk onto cereal can lead to a lively debate in some circles.
> Pouring from the side leads to quicker soggy, but pouring from the center leads to air bubbles kinda thing.



Everyone knows you need to spin the bowl as you pour a slow stream to equally cover the cereal! And blow the dried up crusty milk off the spout before pouring, or else you could render that bowl inedible. I thoroughly enjoyed my Cap'n Crunch this morning...I'll be 35 tomorrow :laughing:

And I like that photo WW. Nice comparison, but work fine. But I like the warmer for outdoors.


----------



## Woods Walker (Mar 22, 2016)

bykfixer said:


> Yeah, I kinda thought so too WW.
> 
> Yet I suppose pouring milk onto cereal can lead to a lively debate in some circles.
> Pouring from the side leads to quicker soggy, but pouring from the center leads to air bubbles kinda thing.



LOL! I totally hear you. Though I appreciate the work some people put into their posts.  Perhaps problems can occur when "what do you prefer" morphed into "what you _*should*_ prefer".


----------



## Tachead (Mar 22, 2016)

Woods Walker said:


> LOL! I totally hear you. Though I appreciate the work some people put into their posts.  *Perhaps problems can occur when "what do you prefer" morphed into "what you should prefer".*



I wouldnt say that is what happened. More a debate on what CCT is neutral and what is warm. And, which has what qualities and which is more tailored for what situations. There are opinions, and then there are facts with every topic.


----------



## scout24 (Mar 22, 2016)

Fact had nothing to do with the OP. It was a preference poll. Some like cool white for everything, feeling for them it shows more contrast. Some can't own a light over 3500k. I respect everyone's opinoin, have fought for their right to have it, but no manner of waving fact filled pages in someone's face will change someone's opinoin of what they prefer, or what works best for them in a given situation. Sometimes not trying to prove someone wrong because in black and white you know better is the high road...  Back on topic- 3500-4500k, the higher the CRI the better. I voted neutral, because I feel those numbers fall in that spectrum. Someone may be along to correct me shortly...:nana:


----------



## Woods Walker (Mar 22, 2016)

markr6 said:


> Everyone knows you need to spin the bowl as you pour a slow stream to equally cover the cereal! And blow the dried up crusty milk off the spout before pouring, or else you could render that bowl inedible. I thoroughly enjoyed my Cap'n Crunch this morning...I'll be 35 tomorrow :laughing:
> 
> And I like that photo WW. Nice comparison, but work fine. But I like the warmer for outdoors.



Sure. Works great!





I Use warm most of this winter because of a simple decision to add primaries to a 6P with M61WL so the cold wouldn't be a factor. Very nice in the snow. It was a psychological boost for lack of better words.





Brings back good memories of warm things.


----------



## Woods Walker (Mar 22, 2016)

scout24 said:


> Fact had nothing to do with the OP. It was a preference poll. Some like cool white for everything, feeling for them it shows more contrast. Some can't own a light over 3500k. I respect everyone's opinoin, have fought for their right to have it, but no manner of waving fact filled pages in someone's face will change someone's opinoin of what they prefer, or what works best for them in a given situation. Sometimes not trying to prove someone wrong because in black and white you know better is the high road...  Back on topic- 3500-4500k, the higher the CRI the better. I voted neutral, because I feel those numbers fall in that spectrum. Someone may be along to correct me shortly...:nana:



You are wrong! :laughing:


----------



## Alex1234 (Mar 22, 2016)

markr6 said:


> Everyone knows you need to spin the bowl as you pour a slow stream to equally cover the cereal! And blow the dried up crusty milk off the spout before pouring, or else you could render that bowl inedible.



You Understand !!! I thought i was alone Getting that little piece of crusted milk into your cereal. Morning Ruined !!! I make sure i wipe the carton threads but be careful so it does not fall inside the milk carton. Milk ruined. Must Toss


----------



## Tachead (Mar 22, 2016)

Woods Walker said:


> You are wrong! :laughing:




You are wrong about him being wrong!


----------



## scout24 (Mar 22, 2016)

SemiMan said:


> **Here is the thing. You are trying to make an impossible comparison. You have a multivariable system, and you are trying to hold all the variables except one constant while varying that single variable. Until we figure out a way to hack the brain, that will be impossible as you can?t hold all the variables constant and adjust just one.



Re- reading my earlier post, it seemed a bit harsh. That wasn't my intent, and I apologize if anyone was offended. I think SemiMan's point above, even with my taking it wildly out of context, sums all this up perfectly. Facts on paper are absolute, but the human brain and how individuals perceive things are variables that can't be made to fit a formula or conform to what's on paper. Everyone sees things just a bit differently. As much as I appreciate a technical discussion and realize that it's fact, it does not always translate the same way for everyone. Again, no offense was meant, and I apologize. :buddies::grouphug:


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 22, 2016)

scout24 said:


> Re- reading my earlier post, it seemed a bit harsh. That wasn't my intent, and I apologize if anyone was offended. I think SemiMan's point above, even with my taking it wildly out of context, sums all this up perfectly. Facts on paper are absolute, but the human brain and how individuals perceive things are variables that can't be made to fit a formula or conform to what's on paper. Everyone sees things just a bit differently. As much as I appreciate a technical discussion and realize that it's fact, it does not always translate the same way for everyone. Again, no offense was meant, and I apologize. :buddies::grouphug:



I have no idea what you just said but will fight until the end for you to have the right to confuse me.

- Hawkeye Pearce

The episide where Radar was explaining to Hawkeye how to fill out a form and later had to take rabies shots after being scratched by a stray dog. Season 3 iirc.


----------



## tab665 (Mar 23, 2016)

nice outdoor pic woods walker!


----------



## chillinn (Mar 24, 2016)

What I object to is that a lot of wrong-thinking people are right. I am certainly not, and I'm sick and tired of thinking that I am. Frankly, I find all the beam shots too ambiguous to make a firm choice between WW or NW. I'm going to have to ask they all be reshot with positive slide film, preferably Kodachrome, but if you're too busy to roll your own K-14 chems, then Fujichrome prints will be more than adequate. Any prints digitally rastered or made from negatives will be returned to sender postage due with a complimentary original incan Solitaire and alkaline cell.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Nov 2, 2020)

Sad to say, I went back to cool white. Maybe I am used to it.


----------



## bykfixer (Nov 3, 2020)

No need to be sad. You prefer what you prefer. 

My eyes like a nice warm beam at 2am nature call events. They prefer a blast of cool white light when brightness is paramount like "what was that noise out in my shed?" And they prefer something in between for everyday general use like seeing fine print better or peering into a crevice, or (as Poppy likes to say) finding a crayon under a sofa.


----------



## Katherine Alicia (Nov 3, 2020)

I`m a similar mix too, I like 2700k for reading, ~4000k (high CRI) for everyday use, and 5000K+ for larking about outdoors at night, throwers look really good the Higher the color temp, though they throw further with a lower temp they don`t look as Wow!


----------



## Olumin (Nov 3, 2020)

Warm all the way for me, certainly if I have the choice. Anywhere In-between 3000k and 4000k with 90+ CRI is about perfect. I don’t mind most tints out there as long as its mostly white. A noticeable yellow, green or blue hue however is something I don’t find acceptable. "White light" is a big spectrum that spans over 2000k, from less than 4000k to over 6000k.


----------



## Jean-Luc Descarte (Nov 3, 2020)

I like all tints so long as they don't have any egregious green or purple aberrations. Which tint I pick depends on my mood for the day. 

Still, I love warm white the best, because of incan nostalgia as well as how relaxing it is to just lounge at night with like I'm doing right now, under the dim light of a 3300K XM-L2 on a Convoy at 0,1% power. Life is good.


----------



## wayben (Nov 4, 2020)

Warm!! Probably nostalgia like Jean-Luc said, in both flashlights and lamps at home. It's a more soothing tint.


----------

