woodfluter
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 142
Ready to enter the Twilight Zone, filled with enigmas? Here's one for you.
Picture yourself (or rather, me...) in a typical wooded terrain in Georgia, or most any eastern US forest. Let's say you have with you something like a Surefire L2 (two levels of flood, one quite bright) and a pathetic little Inova X1 (a weak, long running spot with absolutely no spill whatsoever).
In the foreground, leaves on soil; from 45 feet (15 meters) in front of you onward there are tree branches to either side and overhanging a trail. In the distance, about 75 feet (25 meters) out is a stone bridge over a creek.
Without any added light you can just barely make out the presence of the bridge, but only as a vague, dim object whose form is fleshed out by your imagination. You shine the low-level flood light on the scene to illuminate the bridge and...it totally disappears. The trail, the ground, the tree branches are well-lit, but no bridge at all. So much foreground light that your pupils have immediately closed down to the point of extinguishing the dimly-lit bridge.
So you ramp up the lumens and hit it with the Surefire on high. Of course that will reveal the bridge. And guess what...everything around you is much brighter, but the bridge is still invisible. Totally gone. Everything in the depths of the woods plunged into total blackness.
Now you extinguish the beam and give your eyes only a brief time of 15 seconds to recover, and turn on the X1 with its dim spot, and you can now see enough of the bridge to make out some details.
My point is less pertinent to the desert, the plains, open fields, on water. But my point is, sometimes less is way more. Sometimes fewer lumens reveals more. Sometimes flood reveals less than spot. I walk in dark woods a lot, and find a dim light far more effective most (not quite all) of the time. What are your observations?
- Bill
Picture yourself (or rather, me...) in a typical wooded terrain in Georgia, or most any eastern US forest. Let's say you have with you something like a Surefire L2 (two levels of flood, one quite bright) and a pathetic little Inova X1 (a weak, long running spot with absolutely no spill whatsoever).
In the foreground, leaves on soil; from 45 feet (15 meters) in front of you onward there are tree branches to either side and overhanging a trail. In the distance, about 75 feet (25 meters) out is a stone bridge over a creek.
Without any added light you can just barely make out the presence of the bridge, but only as a vague, dim object whose form is fleshed out by your imagination. You shine the low-level flood light on the scene to illuminate the bridge and...it totally disappears. The trail, the ground, the tree branches are well-lit, but no bridge at all. So much foreground light that your pupils have immediately closed down to the point of extinguishing the dimly-lit bridge.
So you ramp up the lumens and hit it with the Surefire on high. Of course that will reveal the bridge. And guess what...everything around you is much brighter, but the bridge is still invisible. Totally gone. Everything in the depths of the woods plunged into total blackness.
Now you extinguish the beam and give your eyes only a brief time of 15 seconds to recover, and turn on the X1 with its dim spot, and you can now see enough of the bridge to make out some details.
My point is less pertinent to the desert, the plains, open fields, on water. But my point is, sometimes less is way more. Sometimes fewer lumens reveals more. Sometimes flood reveals less than spot. I walk in dark woods a lot, and find a dim light far more effective most (not quite all) of the time. What are your observations?
- Bill