Best color rendition CFL's

[tronester]

I just bought a house and am wanting to upgrade most of the lightbulbs to CFL to save electricity. However, most CFL's I have seen look TERRIBLE. Worst are the 5500k and higher, they look like a pure blue light to me. The 2700k look almost as bad, they look almost orange. These are the GE bulbs.

So I was planning on buying some bulbs from 1000bulbs.com but what would be a good choice? I bought a couple of 3500k CFL's and they look much better, but still not quite right. I think 3500k is the color temperature I would want to be getting though.

The CRI of the bulbs doesnt seem to go much above 82, is there any source with bulbs that are greater than 90, yet arent more than $5 for a 23w bulb?

 

[jtr1962]

Honestly, unless you go with 5000K to 5500K I just haven't seen any made with CRIs higher than the low 80s, and you won't find high CRI CFLs anywhere outside of maybe eBay for $5 each. They usually run about twice that or more. Here's a bunch with a CRI of 93, for example, but they're all 5500K. As for why this situation exists, probably the rationale is that the low 80s is good enough for almost everyone, and those who want something better are usually also seeking to duplicate sunlight.

I'll add that some inexpensive 5500K CFLs in actuality may be as high as 8000K. That could account for the bluish appearance you mentioned. Also, the low 80s CRI could. The 5500K CCT line can actually be slightly blue or purple as you move away from the black body line, and this is more likely to occur with lower CRI lamps. A good 5500K lamp with high CRI should appear pure white.

I agree the 2700K are awful though, and it has little to do with color rendering. Even incandescent with a CRI of 100 running at a 2700K CCT looks pretty bad IMO.

You'll probably hate me for suggesting this, but the way to go for lighting is 4-foot linear T8 tubes running on electronic ballasts. Granted, it's a real pain changing out all your fixtures, but once done you have a pretty wide selection of tubes in all color temperatures. 3500K tubes with a CRI of 86 are readily available. The tubes also tend to be more consistent in tint from manufacturer to manufacturer than the CFLs. And they don't cost much over $2 each in 25s.

 

[tronester]

Thanks for the info. I realize the fluorescent fixtures would be the best option, but for right now I cannot really do that. In my bathroom I plan on replacing the fixture and when I do, I'll put a fluorescent tube fixture in, but for the rest of the house, socket based CFL's will have to do .

Is there a particular brand of bulb that is better than others in terms of color rendition and temperature? I see a lot of different brands on 1000bulbs, but Im not sure which ones to get without buying one of each.

 

[jtr1962]

Is there a particular brand of bulb that is better than others in terms of color rendition and temperature? I see a lot of different brands on 1000bulbs, but Im not sure which ones to get without buying one of each.

Unfortunately that's really subjective. What one person may find pleasing you may not. I've personally been pleased with the n:vision CFLs sold by Home Depot. I buy the daylight (5500K) ones but to me the bright white (3500K) ones also look pretty good in the store. Really, the only way is to buy and try until you hit upon what you're looking for. It's a shame that there is so much variability in CFLs compared to linear tubes that it's necessary to do this.

 

[blasterman]

Worst are the 5500k and higher, they look like a pure blue light to me. The 2700k look almost as bad, they look almost orange.

Combine +5500K with a low CRI and you have a light that looks fugly - like the morgue in a horror flick. Why big box stores sell these darn things as 'full spectrum' defies me, but the light they put out is not full spectrum and is pretty horrid. I use them as outdoor floods on my house, and that's the best application for them since they are bright as well as obnoxious.

True, 'full spectrum' 5000k+ CFLs are available from specialty web-sites, and the higher CRI (90+) makes them much more tolerable. Still, not something I'd want in my living room or bathroom.

3500k is about ideal for living room light with 4100k (close to visible white) better for work areas or perhaps the kitchen. Problem is, high CRI versions don't seem to exist. I have several 3500k CFLs from 1000bulbs and they are all very nice, but they aren't high CRI.

Try Sylvania for a bit better color rendition.

 

[purduephotog]

We use 6500K daylight CFLs in our lab all the time- and we do imaging work. I can't understand why it looks blue to you, other than you have mistaken 'daylight' for 'tungsten'.

 

[comozo]

One full spectrum light that's been around for decades is Vitalite. Somefurther searching revealed this company is out of business. You can still buy then from here
http://www.lightbulbkenny.com/vitalite.html?gclid=CPy6ltmolJgCFQquGgodTUfunQ
I also found out this company has an equivalent bulb so they claim
http://www.starlightingproducts.com/Products/default.aspx?doThis=ctlProductViewer&prodId=1

 

[blasterman]

We use 6500K daylight CFLs in our lab all the time- and we do imaging work. I can't understand why it looks blue to you

Again, if they are high CRI, which they might be given it's lab, then the bulbs won't appear as blue because they are filling in the color gaps.

http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com/full_spectrum_light_bulbs_30_ctg.htm

CFLs designed for color work fit this bill. Cheaper CFLs in this kelvin range, which is almost everything sold at Home Depot, etc., look like hell and have a horrid blue cast because there isn't enough red to fill in the gaps.

In any respect, you can't find high CRI CFL (or fluorescent) in lower/warmer kelvin temps which I believe the original poster is asking. Even if you had 100CRI 5000K bulbs I wouldn't want them in my living room.

Also, I've had Vitalights. I believe they were among the first tri-phosphor Fluorescent tubes on the market. Very efficient and bright, but we measured them around 5800K, and they looked cyan/green compared to a decent 4100K. Plants like them though.

As for 'everything being subjective', try putting a 5500k CFL in your Wife's favorite lamp -vs- an incan or 2700K and she might file for divorce

 

[2xTrinity]

Combine +5500K with a low CRI and you have a light that looks fugly - like the morgue in a horror flick. Why big box stores sell these darn things as 'full spectrum' defies me, but the light they put out is not full spectrum and is pretty horrid. I use them as outdoor floods on my house, and that's the best application for them since they are bright as well as obnoxious.

True, 'full spectrum' 5000k+ CFLs are available from specialty web-sites, and the higher CRI (90+) makes them much more tolerable. Still, not something I'd want in my living room or bathroom.

3500k is about ideal for living room light with 4100k (close to visible white) better for work areas or perhaps the kitchen. Problem is, high CRI versions don't seem to exist. I have several 3500k CFLs from 1000bulbs and they are all very nice, but they aren't high CRI.

Try Sylvania for a bit better color rendition.

Agreed. I like 3500k for living room/ casual living spaces. I prefer 4000k or 5000k for workspaces. A high CRI light at ~4300k would be good for almost any application.

 

[purduephotog]

Again, if they are high CRI, which they might be given it's lab, then the bulbs won't appear as blue because they are filling in the color gaps.

http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com/full_spectrum_light_bulbs_30_ctg.htm

CFLs designed for color work fit this bill. Cheaper CFLs in this kelvin range, which is almost everything sold at Home Depot, etc., look like hell and have a horrid blue cast because there isn't enough red to fill in the gaps.

In any respect, you can't find high CRI CFL (or fluorescent) in lower/warmer kelvin temps which I believe the original poster is asking. Even if you had 100CRI 5000K bulbs I wouldn't want them in my living room.

Also, I've had Vitalights. I believe they were among the first tri-phosphor Fluorescent tubes on the market. Very efficient and bright, but we measured them around 5800K, and they looked cyan/green compared to a decent 4100K. Plants like them though.

As for 'everything being subjective', try putting a 5500k CFL in your Wife's favorite lamp -vs- an incan or 2700K and she might file for divorce

Actually, I bought a couple of the bulbs we use at work for use in the tubes here. No problems

You're right though, it is all about cost- if you're not willing to shell out the bucks to do it right....

Anyway, we just found some 10W LED bulbs at work that we're starting to take a look at deploying at sites. We need to get a lifetime study on them going, but so far they're dead on on color coordinates (even if I find them too 'stiff' pin point light source) but they'll cut our lighting costs for bulb replacements by 80%- even if they cost 70$ a bulb.

 

[blasterman]

but so far they're dead on on color coordinates

Even Red? I've found even the better Cree's have a big problem discerning wide gamut Reds, magentas, etc., even in the same zipcode as my Solux. Reds in Fuji RA-4 papers tend to look as anemic as Kodak Reds, etc.

It all depends on the chart you are using though. At one time I had a very expensive, 98 CRI MacBeth tube that cost a fortune, but found some generics about as good for 95% of the application

 

[ponygt65]

Combine +5500K with a low CRI and you have a light that looks fugly - like the morgue in a horror flick. Why big box stores sell these darn things as 'full spectrum' defies me, but the light they put out is not full spectrum and is pretty horrid. I use them as outdoor floods on my house, and that's the best application for them since they are bright as well as obnoxious.

True, 'full spectrum' 5000k+ CFLs are available from specialty web-sites, and the higher CRI (90+) makes them much more tolerable. Still, not something I'd want in my living room or bathroom.

3500k is about ideal for living room light with 4100k (close to visible white) better for work areas or perhaps the kitchen. Problem is, high CRI versions don't seem to exist. I have several 3500k CFLs from 1000bulbs and they are all very nice, but they aren't high CRI.

Try Sylvania for a bit better color rendition.

One full spectrum light that's been around for decades is Vitalite. Somefurther searching revealed this company is out of business. You can still buy then from here
http://www.lightbulbkenny.com/vitalite.html?gclid=CPy6ltmolJgCFQquGgodTUfunQ
I also found out this company has an equivalent bulb so they claim
http://www.starlightingproducts.com/Products/default.aspx?doThis=ctlProductViewer&prodId=1

There are no 'TRUE' full spectrum CFLs. Full spectrum was a marketing ploy by G-E decades ago to help push the 'daylight' color, commonly referred to as a 5k + lamp.

Agreed. I like 3500k for living room/ casual living spaces. I prefer 4000k or 5000k for workspaces. A high CRI light at ~4300k would be good for almost any application.

The best 'kelvin' lamps are subjective to reflective colors. I wouldn't put a 5k lamp in a 'brown' accented room. Just liek I wouldn't put a <3500k lamp in a white/pearl/green room. You'll get color mixing.

 

[blasterman]

There are no 'TRUE' full spectrum CFLs. Full spectrum was a marketing ploy by G-E decades ago to help push the 'daylight' color, commonly referred to as a 5k + lamp.

Indeed, I hope that's the point we've been trying to get across.

The term 'Full Spectrum' and 'Daylight Balanced', as you indicate, has no marketing legality applied to it just like 'All Natural Ingredients', and is technically false. Matter of fact, I'm not even sure if it's feasible to get all the phosphors inside a single FL or CFL tube to make it literally 'Full Spectrum' from an emission standpoint. An incan of halogen bulb by nature is 'Full Spectrum'.

Also note that even though CRI standards have advertising legitimacy, the standard is ancient and not enforced. CRI could actually be simplified given manufacturing trends into three basic grades; industrial/economy(-79CRI), commercial/living space(80-89CRI) and technical (+90CRI) . There just isn't much in between. To get above 90 with a FL/CFL typically requires visiting a very specialty lighting source because those bulbs are more expensive to make. At one time I had 98CRI Macbeth FL tubes for color checking, and they cost a fortune and had low hour times because of the volatility of the phosphors.

Just liek I wouldn't put a <3500k lamp in a white/pearl/green room. You'll get color mixing.

I consistently joke that some of you may have evolved on a planet orbiting Vega or something, but 5K+ CFL bulbs need to stay at my dentist office, the morgue on CSI, or a warehouse . You need to get to a CRI of the mid 90s before these nasty things are tolerable. Color mixing is inevitable with any light source below 90CRI.

4100k CFL/FL or LED, even if it's low CRI, will appear subjectively 'white-ish' to a drastically greater percentile of people than 3500k or +5000k - period, colors be damned. However, neutral 'white' is boring in your living room or dining room while it's more usefull in the office. A bit of 'warmth' is what most people prefer in their living spaces with the trend for homes the past 20 years being white/off white walls with recessed lighting and faux wood floors, blah, blah, blah. This way architects didn't have to think and could churn out homes faster (and be more bland, devoid of any character and consequently tougher to sell because they all look the same on the inside).

Anyways, 3500k compromises nicely, but the problem as we were discussing is that these CFLs tend to only be available in mediocre CRI grades. However, I've used CFLs lately by Sylvania that while they claimed to be 2700k, were pleasantly cooler than budget 2700K CFLs (more like 3000k) and dramatically better CRI. Given a choice I'd take the warmer but higher CRI bulbs than the more ambiguous 3500K ones even though I prefer the later color temp. I also believe real estage agents avoid 5000k bulbs like the plague when they are trying to sell all those bland, cookie-cutter McMansions and use warmer bulbs to make the house seem more inviting.

 

[yuandrew]

I have some 18 watt and a 23 watt Greenlite brand CFLs

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000F0QOBE/?tag=cpf0b6-20


I haven't paid much attention to the 18 watt ones that are in my parent's bedroom but I have the 23 watt one in a table lamp in my own room and the color temp is very close to what you'd get from a 75 watt incandescent bulb. It's a nice warm white/yellow color without that pinkish tint that one commonly sees from a compact fluorescent bulb. Since it's in a table lamp with a shade, one may even think there's an incandescent bulb in there walking into my room but a look under the shade itself will reveal that it is in fact a compact fluorescent.

 

[JohnR66]

I personally like 3500K CFLs. They retain the warmth without all the yellow look. They seem to be more common in retail and restaurants now. They seem to be brighter than cooler color temps.

Next is 4100K. They retain just a hint of warmth and look white. Although the CRI of CFL is much better than the linear tubes that used the old phosphors, they may look too cold for some in the home. To me, the 5000K and up looks wrong for home lighting.

When I replaced some fixtures, I went with electronic ballasted T8 linear lamps. The typical CFL is around 60 lumens per watt while the 4 foot T8s can exceed 90 l/w which is a huge improvement. They also have less of a point source effect.

 

[ponygt65]

Indeed, I hope that's the point we've been trying to get across.

The term 'Full Spectrum' and 'Daylight Balanced', as you indicate, has no marketing legality applied to it just like 'All Natural Ingredients', and is technically false. Matter of fact, I'm not even sure if it's feasible to get all the phosphors inside a single FL or CFL tube to make it literally 'Full Spectrum' from an emission standpoint. An incan of halogen bulb by nature is 'Full Spectrum'.

Also note that even though CRI standards have advertising legitimacy, the standard is ancient and not enforced. CRI could actually be simplified given manufacturing trends into three basic grades; industrial/economy(-79CRI), commercial/living space(80-89CRI) and technical (+90CRI) . There just isn't much in between. To get above 90 with a FL/CFL typically requires visiting a very specialty lighting source because those bulbs are more expensive to make. At one time I had 98CRI Macbeth FL tubes for color checking, and they cost a fortune and had low hour times because of the volatility of the phosphors..

I agree. I was just trying to clarify. I personally can not stand 'full spectrum' in terms of Fluorescent lighting...there is no 100 cri rated lamp with an even kelvin temp to distribute even across the color spectrum.:thumbsup:

I consistently joke that some of you may have evolved on a planet orbiting Vega or something, but 5K+ CFL bulbs need to stay at my dentist office, the morgue on CSI, or a warehouse . You need to get to a CRI of the mid 90s before these nasty things are tolerable. Color mixing is inevitable with any light source below 90CRI.

4100k CFL/FL or LED, even if it's low CRI, will appear subjectively 'white-ish' to a drastically greater percentile of people than 3500k or +5000k - period, colors be damned. However, neutral 'white' is boring in your living room or dining room while it's more usefull in the office. A bit of 'warmth' is what most people prefer in their living spaces with the trend for homes the past 20 years being white/off white walls with recessed lighting and faux wood floors, blah, blah, blah. This way architects didn't have to think and could churn out homes faster (and be more bland, devoid of any character and consequently tougher to sell because they all look the same on the inside).

Anyways, 3500k compromises nicely, but the problem as we were discussing is that these CFLs tend to only be available in mediocre CRI grades. However, I've used CFLs lately by Sylvania that while they claimed to be 2700k, were pleasantly cooler than budget 2700K CFLs (more like 3000k) and dramatically better CRI. Given a choice I'd take the warmer but higher CRI bulbs than the more ambiguous 3500K ones even though I prefer the later color temp. I also believe real estage agents avoid 5000k bulbs like the plague when they are trying to sell all those bland, cookie-cutter McMansions and use warmer bulbs to make the house seem more inviting.

Again, I agree. Colors of fluorescent lamps come down to personal taste. In general though, the color spectrum should be taken into consideration. If I have a kitchen that is on the red/brown side of the CS then I will suggest a more warmer Kelvin. If it is white with blue accents I would suggest a cooler temp. Ironically, Auto Paint booths use 5000k lamps to similulate 'daylight'. However, casting a bluish look over a red painted car will not match so nicely.
I also agree with OSI's 2700 vs. 3000k. I have seen lamps rated at 3000k that are closer to 3500k.......kind of funny how they do that.

I have some 18 watt and a 23 watt Greenlite brand CFLs

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000F0QOBE/?tag=cpf0b6-20


I haven't paid much attention to the 18 watt ones that are in my parent's bedroom but I have the 23 watt one in a table lamp in my own room and the color temp is very close to what you'd get from a 75 watt incandescent bulb. It's a nice warm white/yellow color without that pinkish tint that one commonly sees from a compact fluorescent bulb. Since it's in a table lamp with a shade, one may even think there's an incandescent bulb in there walking into my room but a look under the shade itself will reveal that it is in fact a compact fluorescent.

I don't know if I'm allow to say this and I do not want to break any site rules, but the company I work for distributes Greenlite CFLs. For the quality, look, and price, they are very hard to beat. I have them all throughout my house.

 

[jtr1962]

I consistently joke that some of you may have evolved on a planet orbiting Vega or something, but 5K+ CFL bulbs need to stay at my dentist office, the morgue on CSI, or a warehouse . You need to get to a CRI of the mid 90s before these nasty things are tolerable. Color mixing is inevitable with any light source below 90CRI.

I tend to think the kind of light people prefer is influenced somewhat by their lifestyle. I've seen a lot of people on these forums say they prefer 3500K or 4100K for interior lighting, with a smaller percentage even preferring 2700K or 3000K. At first this seemed odd given that we evolved under a ~5500K light source, but now I think I know why. In a word, it's lifestyle. Think about the light sources an average person is exposed to. First they wake up, and usually leave for work or school when the sun is low in the sky. Hence they're exposed to natural light with a CCT in the low 4000s at best, even lower in the winter. Now they arrive at work or school. These days most places use either 3500K or 4100K T8s. They may or may not go out of the building during midday for lunch. Even if they do, exposure to midday sun at a higher CCT is comparatively low. Finally, they leave for home. By then the sun is low in the sky. Again, more light with a CCT in the low 4000s, perhaps even less. Basically, they're exposed all day to either natural or artificial light with a CCT in the mid 3000s to low 4000s. To them anything much different just looks "wrong". Granted, many might light their homes with 2700K incandescent, and this may be tolerable, but in general if asked to choose among a variety of light sources, they would probably also go with 3500K for home.

Now consider those of us who either don't work "normal" hours, don't work at all, or may spend considerable time outdoors. As a child I spend lots of time outdoors, mostly bike riding. I still cycle, but mostly at night. However, I go for walks, sometimes during the day, sometimes at night. And I'll do gardening, occasionally at times when the sun is highest in the sky. Between my childhood and lifestyle now, I have a lot of exposure to midday sunlight. As a result, 5000K or thereabouts looks "normal" to me. My eyeballs are permanently calibrated to it. Anything much different just looks wrong. I can tolerate 4100K, even 3500K, just fine, but it's not ideal for me. I totally can't stand 2700K. Couldn't stand it 40 years ago, can't stand it now. It isn't even borderline tolerable for me. On the other end, 6500K seems a little off, but I don't have the reaction of it being horribly blue like lots of people do.

Basically, if we spent more time outdoors, as we did 100 years ago, I'd venture to guess almost everyone would prefer 5000K.

 

[ponygt65]

I tend to think the kind of light people prefer is influenced somewhat by their lifestyle. I've seen a lot of people on these forums say they prefer 3500K or 4100K for interior lighting, with a smaller percentage even preferring 2700K or 3000K. At first this seemed odd given that we evolved under a ~5500K light source, but now I think I know why. In a word, it's lifestyle. Think about the light sources an average person is exposed to. First they wake up, and usually leave for work or school when the sun is low in the sky. Hence they're exposed to natural light with a CCT in the low 4000s at best, even lower in the winter. Now they arrive at work or school. These days most places use either 3500K or 4100K T8s. They may or may not go out of the building during midday for lunch. Even if they do, exposure to midday sun at a higher CCT is comparatively low. Finally, they leave for home. By then the sun is low in the sky. Again, more light with a CCT in the low 4000s, perhaps even less. Basically, they're exposed all day to either natural or artificial light with a CCT in the mid 3000s to low 4000s. To them anything much different just looks "wrong". Granted, many might light their homes with 2700K incandescent, and this may be tolerable, but in general if asked to choose among a variety of light sources, they would probably also go with 3500K for home.

Now consider those of us who either don't work "normal" hours, don't work at all, or may spend considerable time outdoors. As a child I spend lots of time outdoors, mostly bike riding. I still cycle, but mostly at night. However, I go for walks, sometimes during the day, sometimes at night. And I'll do gardening, occasionally at times when the sun is highest in the sky. Between my childhood and lifestyle now, I have a lot of exposure to midday sunlight. As a result, 5000K or thereabouts looks "normal" to me. My eyeballs are permanently calibrated to it. Anything much different just looks wrong. I can tolerate 4100K, even 3500K, just fine, but it's not ideal for me. I totally can't stand 2700K. Couldn't stand it 40 years ago, can't stand it now. It isn't even borderline tolerable for me. On the other end, 6500K seems a little off, but I don't have the reaction of it being horribly blue like lots of people do.

Basically, if we spent more time outdoors, as we did 100 years ago, I'd venture to guess almost everyone would prefer 5000K.

I agree. To further the point a tad more, kelvin temps are also favored pending age due to light filtering of the human eye.

Kelvin temp rating selections should take into account, design/purpose of the room, age of the 'inhabitants', and overall personal preference.

 

[Hellbore]

I am suffering with this issue too. Almost all of the CFL's I have seen lately have been way too yellow, even slightly orange-looking. Then there are the ones marked "daylight" (I assume 5500k or something like that) and those look pretty blue. Neither looks very good.

One idea I had is, what about mixing one of the "orange" bulbs with one of the "blue" bulbs, in a 2 bulb fixture? Could that perhaps give an acceptable compromise?

 

[tronester]

One idea I had is, what about mixing one of the "orange" bulbs with one of the "blue" bulbs, in a 2 bulb fixture? Could that perhaps give an acceptable compromise?

I already tried this. It looks even worse. It casts very odd looking shadows on everything; one orangish and one blue due to the bulbs being slightly offset from one another.