Hello,
I’m new here, but I’ve been following your posts closely. You haven’t mentioned the ‘discontinuous spectrum’. Why not? The biggest problem is when you use old-generation fluorescent lamps for photography, because they contain very few primary colours. All fluorescent tubes achieve their energy-saving effect by not covering the entire spectrum. Incandescent bulbs have a full spectrum – that is, all the tonal ranges, like the keys on a piano – except for the blue regions (the last 8 keys), because unfortunately they don’t reach that far, unless they turn white-hot and burn out quickly. Energy-saving bulbs do have this blue, but the yellow, green and red undertones are missing (so four out of every five new keys are missing), which is why you can tell from the image that it isn’t very colourful. Whilst incandescent bulbs lack blue in the image, fluorescent lamps have a negative colour cast – certain colour tones are simply missing (again, four out of every five piano keys). This shouldn’t be the case with newer tubes, or at least with yours, but when I see these spectra that are always used there, it suggests that they probably don’t want to or can’t address this problem at all. It isn’t primarily decisive whether the colourful mountain retains its mountain shape with only slight ‘lanterns’, i.e. the imbalances. I’d go so far as to say that, in principle, the, let’s say, one million colour spectra of the incandescent bulb are, for example, different-coloured dots placed side by side, whereas only 200,000 are contained within the spectrum of the energy-saving bulb. As our eyes are relatively simple, we don’t notice this at first, but when the sun comes out—which also has that one million hues plus another 500,000—then you realise that even the best lamps are no good and certain shades are simply missing. I just want to raise an issue here. The ‘crap’ incandescent bulbs and the even worse ‘crap’ fluorescent tubes of the past have now been/are being replaced by a bulb that many see as finally solving a problem; we’re investing a lot of money in everything again, and what do we get out of it? Not much, apart from costs! ... because the problem is simply being shifted to another corner.
If you look at the images of the latest Osram Daylight 954, it is certainly a light that is usable, but far from what is desired. I would even go so far as to say that incandescent bulbs produce a more pleasant image. One should always bear in mind the camera’s ‘white balance’, which can effectively ‘reset’ every colour tone, but there is one thing it cannot do: replace colours that are missing – namely the 800,000 that are simply absent from the fluorescent tube and are, after all, merely a compromise.
http://www.fotolaborforum.eu/index.php?sho...t=10&#entry5337
You (Mirko?!) have been asked about this before, a few replies back, but you skilfully sidestepped the issue. I’m missing that answer, so I’m asking again clearly in the hope of getting one, as this problem of missing colour tones annoys 90% of all studio light users. The first compromise is, for example, having to wait 10–20 minutes until the lamp is warm and all its rays are fully lit, meaning it already has only 200,000 colour temperature units, but you still have to wait another 10 minutes to reach 50,000, which is a problem for 50% of keen photographers, as the photo needs to be taken ‘now’, the moment you have an idea, rather than having to ‘warm up’ the lamp every single time.
Please have a listen to this!!!
