Why so many preferences when it comes to tint?

*No more posts needed simply stating that someone has a preference, because that is the foregone understanding of this thread.

So far we've got gravelmonkey and ledmitter on board and capable of understanding what the discussion is about, so thanks guys.

Understanding the wide range of variance in tint preference from a positive and congenial perspective is the topic.

A members post just reminded me that I've wanted to start a thread focused not on which tint is best, but the reasons behind why there can be so much disagreement over what would appear to be such a simple proposition - finding the perfect tint.

Theron said:

It's funny how different people's tint preferences can be. Maybe someday we'll be able to customize the tint like we can with Philips Hue.

Click to expand...

I really like Theron's perspective because he naturally understands that it's okay for everyone to have a different preference, and looked at it from the viewpoint of making everyone capable of satisfying the search for their own preferred tint.

However, he may have hit onto something even more important than just finding a perfect tint, and that would be, addressing the desire for a range of tints, selectable by the user.

Imagine being able to not only select your tint, but to choose what tint you would have dependent on output level.
Go one further and imagine different tint automatically selected by ambient surrounding tint, for example harder, cooler light for navigating city streets with their high range of light contrast, but changing to a user selected warmer tint when there is no ambient light, which is typically what you find in the woods.

There are a couple things to understand about peoples thinking on tint preference that helps to muddy the waters and of no little importance is the fact that virtually everyone actually has several tint preferences which they then are forced into choosing between when it comes to choosing which one they want their flashlight to produce.

This is easily evident in cooler light sources being the norm in workplaces, kitchens and hospitals, while warmer light sources are more commonly found in living rooms, bars and places of comfort.

Anyone for a cool tinted campfire?

It sounds preposterous, and it is, but imagine what it would do for the atmosphere if you had, instead of a warm, rosy light emanating from your fireplace or campfire, the cold, harsh light of cool white florescent fixtures.

I'd be the first to allow that if that's what someone preferred, then there's nothing wrong with it, for them. Not the campfire I want to be around, but not my choice to decide what someone else should like, though I doubt you'd find anyone that would choose cool white over the comforting light that a fire naturally produces.

So here we are in a flashlight forum, where being allowed to be picky is the norm, as it should be with all specialized interests, but so much discussion surrounding tint over the years has been naturally boundaried by the understanding that you can't have it all.

We want high output levels, but then there's run time to consider; wide beam spread, but can't see far enough; throw, but it's too blinding up close; bullet-proof construction in a compact and lightweight package; bling and custom features priced affordably.
These are just a couple of the considerations we go through when choosing a new light, dream light or just which one to carry every day.

Once we can acknowledge that there is no perfect tint for even a single individual, let alone the masses, the sooner we can focus on the more important point of how to perfect technology to allow the user to make their own choice.

kaichu dento said:

...though I doubt you'd find anyone that would choose cool white over the comforting light that a fire naturally produces.

Click to expand...

I would.

Light color temperature and our circadian response to it is hardwired into our DNA.

Here's a good read on why cooler lights keeps us in alert mode by suppressing melatonin, while warmer lights seems to do the opposite.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-light-affects-our-sleep/

An excerpt:

"That's during the day, though, when blue light exposure is normal and expected. Nighttime exposure to blue light disrupts our sleep hormones. Television, computer screens, even digital clocks with blue numbers – they're all common sources of late night blue light that can affect our production of melatonin."

^^^ With that writeup in mind, I guess some people respond and feel better around cooler lights while others prefer warms and keep things relaxed.

And then there's this:
www.justgetflux.com

"During the day, computer screens look good—they're designed to look like the sun. But, at 9PM, 10PM, or 3AM, you probably shouldn't be looking at the sun. f.lux fixes this: it makes the color of your computer's display adapt to the time of day, warm at night and like sunlight during the day. It's even possible that you're staying up too late because of your computer. You could use f.lux because it makes you sleep better, or you could just use it just because it makes your computer look better."

I'm sure parallels can be drawn from this and how it effects our tint preferences.

ledmitter_nli said:

Light color temperature and our circadian response to it is hardwired into our DNA.

Click to expand...

That's one of the reasons for differing preferences, and then there's an endless number of other factors ranging from what type of light one grew up with in the house, if at all, variances in latitude and surround countryside with their influence on how much shadow or snow reflected light one becomes accustomed to.

Add in that some peoples have traditionally spent almost no time deliberately awake at night, while others live in a world of dark on a regular basis.

"That's during the day, though, when blue light exposure is normal and expected. Nighttime exposure to blue light disrupts our sleep hormones. Television, computer screens, even digital clocks with blue numbers – they're all common sources of late night blue light that can affect our production of melatonin."

^^^ With that writeup in mind, I guess some people respond and feel better around cooler lights while others prefer warms and keep things relaxed.

And then there's this:
www.justgetflux.com

"During the day, computer screens look good—they're designed to look like the sun. But, at 9PM, 10PM, or 3AM, you probably shouldn't be looking at the sun. f.lux fixes this: it makes the color of your computer's display adapt to the time of day, warm at night and like sunlight during the day. It's even possible that you're staying up too late because of your computer. You could use f.lux because it makes you sleep better, or you could just use it just because it makes your computer look better."

I'm sure parallels can be drawn from this and how it effects our tint preferences.

Click to expand...

I'd never even considered my computer screens tint and your post adds a lot of food for thought in the ongoing discussion.

Ryp said:

I would.

Click to expand...

Same here. I find nothing comforting or pleasing in the type of light emanating from camp fires or candles. Light serves one purpose ultimately-to enable me to see things. Light which bathes everything in a monotone yellow haze such that it's near impossible to distinguish most colors is not a type of light I find useful. If we had camp fires that emit 5000K blackbody radiation I would literally be one happy camper.

Just to clarify the meaning of the title, the discussion is based not on what you think of various tints, but what some of the widely varying preferences.

Express why you think we like various tints and not why others should share your own personal view, which is no more right or wrong than those of others. Any posts attacking any given tint range are OT and we already understand that everyone has a different preference, so that horse is already dead and gone and I ask that everyone refrain from beating that dead horse here.

Ledmitter and I have disagreed before on this general subject, but at least we understand our differences in preference and his post is the only one made so far that shows an understanding of what this thread is about.

Understanding, that's the focal point.

I hear what you are saying about yellow lights!!!!! I hate agreed lights that are yellow! Some kind of sodium bulb I understand, I can't see bugger all, luckly newer ones are white, much better!

ledmitter_nli said:

<Snip>
And then there's this:
www.justgetflux.com

"During the day, computer screens look good—they're designed to look like the sun. But, at 9PM, 10PM, or 3AM, you probably shouldn't be looking at the sun. f.lux fixes this: it makes the color of your computer's display adapt to the time of day, warm at night and like sunlight during the day. It's even possible that you're staying up too late because of your computer. You could use f.lux because it makes you sleep better, or you could just use it just because it makes your computer look better."
<snip>

Click to expand...

WOAH! I'm sure this is worse for my eyes :laughing:. I'll give it a few days and see how it goes!

Back on topic- It's like asking "what's your favourite flavour of crisps/chips". You can find the most popular flavour but there's always going to be others who are unhappy with that choice due to personal preference. A good argument would be whether the preference is primarily because of biological or environmental factors.

I'm 100% certain both play a part, just not sure on the proportions. Where biology is concerned, everyone views the world differently- I don't see the same colours as any of you do. Environmental factors probably play a reasonably significant part in both the long term of 'developing' a tint preference and short term of choosing a tint that's suitable for the surroundings (even neutral white lights can look too cold VS a fire, and too warm VS CFL lighting). As you've mentioned, kaichu, the environmental variables involved are numerous, I also wonder what the effect of increasing age has on tint preference.

gravelmonkey said:

Back on topic- It's like asking "what's your favourite flavour of crisps/chips". You can find the most popular flavour but there's always going to be others who are unhappy with that choice due to personal preference. A good argument would be whether the preference is primarily because of biological or environmental factors.

I'm 100% certain both play a part, just not sure on the proportions. Where biology is concerned, everyone views the world differently- I don't see the same colours as any of you do. Environmental factors probably play a reasonably significant part in both the long term of 'developing' a tint preference and short term of choosing a tint that's suitable for the surroundings (even neutral white lights can look too cold VS a fire, and too warm VS CFL lighting). As you've mentioned, kaichu, the environmental variables involved are numerous, I also wonder what the effect of increasing age has on tint preference.

Click to expand...

Actually it would be more like asking "why do you think you have a preference for those chips, while I prefer these ones."

It should never be a point of contention that we like different things, but rather a reality to ponder.

I hadn't thought of biological factors, and that's an interesting thing to think about, but I definitely agree with you on the environmental influence, especially since I can see it in others posts when they show a preference for one tint or another dependent on locale.

Now that you bring up the way we see colors differently, that really needs to be taken into strong consideration.



No more posts needed simply stating that someone has a preference, because that is the foregone conclusion established in the OP.
So far we've got gravelmonkey and ledmitter on board and capable of understanding what the discussion is about, so thanks guys. :thumbsup:

I'm going to go with preference being 90% cultural/environmental and 10% biological. If we use the analogy to food, we can all agree that tastes in food vary far more widely than tastes in light preference. After all, few people would light a room with light which is heavily tint green or purple, and yet some people prefer foods which are totally off-the-charts disgusting for others. With light preferences at least we all more or less agree that white light approximating a black body is close to a universal preference. It's just the preferred CCT of that blackbody where we all differ. Getting back to my food analogy, generally your preferences for food were shaped by what you experienced growing up, which in turn is shaped by where you grew up. In many cases we even learned to prefer food which is unhealthy for us. Same thing with light preference. There are plenty of studies out there showing what type of light is optimal for seeing. This isn't necessarily the type of light which we prefer. Just as you can learn to get used to, or even prefer, bad food, you can also end up preferring "bad" (i.e. non-optimal) light. And then generally preferred CCT increases with light intensity (Kruithof Curve), accounting for different tint preferences even for the same individual.

My prevailing theory on why you might prefer one CCT over another (or not prefer it) is that you learn to associate that CCT with positive or negative events. I sometimes wonder why so many people hate flourescent lighting but then remember they most likely learned in classrooms lit with flourescent. Early childhood associations of fluorescents with the teacher from hell could easily account for a lingering hatred of them much later in life. The opposite could be occur if you associate a type of light with positive events in your life.

There is also the amount of time spent under different types of light. If you grew up spending a lot of time outdoors, then you consider sunlight natural and normal. As such, you might see household incandescents as very yellow. On the flip side, if you didn't go out much, cooler light might seem harsh or unnatural. In any case I feel environment and culture shapes most of our lighting (and food) preferences.

The 10% biological preference could be due to the fact that we don't see things exactly the same. The cornea tends to yellow with age, biasing our lighting preferences towards higher CCT to compensate. And not everyone has the same proportion of red, green, and blue cones. Someone with more red cones, for example, might be able to perceive reds well even from a light source which is relatively deficient in red. Indeed, a warmer source heavy in red might saturate reds, making them appear unnatural. Therefore, such a person might prefer a higher CCT light source. Or if you have more blue cones you may prefer a warm light source to "tone down" the blues. I'm sure others will come up with more theories but these are mine.

As an anecdote for the biological aspect: if I'm near going to sleep, or woken in the night, and look for something with a flashlight >=4K nominal (anything but a high-CRI XP-G, out of what I have), turn on some (but not all) computer monitors, or turn on any big fluorescent, it's harsh to my eyes, while a brighter incandescent or low-CCT CFL isn't. However, up until I'm getting sleepy, that is not the case, nor is it from the moment I wake up after resting, nor is it if I was awoken in some way that started me.

During most of the day, even if it is near dawn or dusk, and I have no other man-made illumination, or if jolted awake in the night, I find pretty much anything under 5K seem a bit on the warm side. Less than 4K looks yellow/orange, not white, even if it is white at that lower CCT, and would look plain white after dark with no other illumination. Not counting color perception, nominally 5K white light, "feels right," throughout most of my waking hours.

I grew up very much indoors, mostly, with fluorescent at schools, and incandescent at home.


As far as fluorescent goes, I think a lot of it is experience with bad ones, especially given that most people my age or younger don't seem to have a particular dislike of them. Not at all unlike diesel being bad because of what people knew from old NA and old tiny turbo diesel engines. At one place I worked, they felt like mid-day winter sunlight, and everything looked washed out. Nobody wants to be in that for several hours per day. If that was normal for a lot of people at any point, I could very much understand hating on the technology in general. CFLs were also problematic in several ways, until quite recently, as well (poor color, not many warm ones, whining/buzzing, long warm-up times, short lifespans...).

Cerbie makes a point that was stuck in my head... the noise of florescents, the flicker rate, only in the last few years have I been able to look at them without discomfort, I wore sunglasses to the dentist because those lights hurt after a few seconds. A slightly off topic since every tint did that.

I grew up mostly outdoors, a sunny day on virgin snow feels good, looks good, I had a lot of that, I like white lights, there's something to consider for me.

At night a hunters moon over snow for me is nearly magical, maybe another link to enjoying that white light in a dark winter, maybe feeling empowered, 'now I can see' is powerful when I was afraid of what's in the dark.

When I was a kid I wondered if everyone saw the same colors or not, I know that I see pink when others see light purple, so biology probably drives more than most of us know, I'm not a sample of mankind, I can't even guess at what others see.

I am 60yo. I have been dealing with depression for approx 10 years. When I first started dealing with it, incans were too yellow so I switched to 3500K CFL. After a while, that warm tint was too yellow, so I switched to 4100K. For me 4100K is the perfect color ie: perfectly white with no tint whatsoever. Cool CFL bulbs hurt my eyes. Same goes for HID headlights in cars. For depressed people, "little" things like tint are a BIG deal. Yellow tints make me depressed. Cool tints are just VERY VERY annoying. Read an article one time that said some women have a 4th cone insead of the normal 3. The acticle said that women with 4 cones see red much different than males. Met a guy one time who had 3 types of color blindness. He couldn't pass any of the color charts. Approx 10% of the population is colorblind, most of them are male. Even though we all have eyes, we don't see colors/tints the same way.

ledmitter_nli said:

And then there's this:
www.justgetflux.com

"During the day, computer screens look good—they're designed to look like the sun. But, at 9PM, 10PM, or 3AM, you probably shouldn't be looking at the sun. f.lux fixes this: it makes the color of your computer's display adapt to the time of day, warm at night and like sunlight during the day. It's even possible that you're staying up too late because of your computer. You could use f.lux because it makes you sleep better, or you could just use it just because it makes your computer look better."

Click to expand...

Anyone else really liking what this program does?

If you install it you can also switch it off during the programs evening 3400K effect for an interestingly jarring refresh of what the daytime 6500K looks like in comparison.

ledmitter_nli said:

Anyone else really liking what this program does?

If you install it you can also switch it off during the programs evening 3400K effect for an interestingly jarring refresh of what the daytime 6500K looks like in comparison.

Click to expand...

I haven't played around with it yet as I've not done any long/late laptop stints. I do find the 3400K> 6500K a bit disorientating, I've had to turn it off a few times when trying to work, I think it's nice for all the email/CPF/social media/to-do list writing faff I end up doing at the end of the day though.

ledmitter_nli said:

Anyone else really liking what this program does?

If you install it you can also switch it off during the programs evening 3400K effect for an interestingly jarring refresh of what the daytime 6500K looks like in comparison.

Click to expand...

I meant to take a look at it and then forgot about it. Well it's up and seamlessly running on my computer now at 3900k which seems pretty comfortable for now in the middle of the night, and I'm looking forward to doing some daylight comparisons in a couple days too.

It's a well known fact that blue light/high kelvin tints affect the circadian rhythm, and staring at a smartphone or laptop screen right before bed can interrupt the ability to fall asleep.

This linked program (that I have yet to look at or play with) would be great for those that work late into the night, and can drop the CCT of the screen to make that jump into bed a bit easier.

There's something more 'natural' about low CCT lighting at night, and higher CCT lighting during the day. I'm sure there's a biological/evolutionary reason for it that I'm not in a position to explain. This appears to be the case for a great percentage of the population, at least - with a deviation as there is with all things ( my favorite chip is Salt and Vinegar)

I have lights ranging from 3000K to 5000K - and I use them differently depending on intended function and time of day/night and the ambient conditions. Usually I find the usage naturally falls into the afore mentioned pattern of high CCT during the day and lower CCT at night.

mvyrmnd said:

There's something more 'natural' about low CCT lighting at night, and higher CCT lighting during the day. I'm sure there's a biological/evolutionary reason for it that I'm not in a position to explain. This appears to be the case for a great percentage of the population, at least - with a deviation as there is with all things ( my favorite chip is Salt and Vinegar)

Click to expand...

I think intensity is more important than CCT. Natural lighting at night is very high CCT. The moon is above 4000K and most of the visible stars are higher CCT than the sun. However, the intensity is much lower than natural daylight. I don't think humans were meant to be under lighting much more intense than a full moon for at least 9 to 10 hours per day. As a good example that CCT doesn't matter, you have birds chirping and other creatures doing things they usually only do in daytime under HPS/LPS, and yet those lights have very low CCT.

Of course, there are always exceptions. I'm a night person, so when my bedroom is flooded with full sunlight it actually makes me sleepy. I don't suffer from the problem of bright artificial lighting keeping me awake as my body tells me I should be awake during the hours when most people are sleeping. It helps that my cats largely follow the same schedule.

Light Sabre said:

I am 60yo. I have been dealing with depression for approx 10 years. When I first started dealing with it, incans were too yellow so I switched to 3500K CFL. After a while, that warm tint was too yellow, so I switched to 4100K. For me 4100K is the perfect color ie: perfectly white with no tint whatsoever. Cool CFL bulbs hurt my eyes. Same goes for HID headlights in cars. For depressed people, "little" things like tint are a BIG deal. Yellow tints make me depressed. Cool tints are just VERY VERY annoying. Read an article one time that said some women have a 4th cone insead of the normal 3. The acticle said that women with 4 cones see red much different than males. Met a guy one time who had 3 types of color blindness. He couldn't pass any of the color charts. Approx 10% of the population is colorblind, most of them are male. Even though we all have eyes, we don't see colors/tints the same way.

Click to expand...

Same issues here, even when I didn't suffer from depression. I found yellow lights always had depressing/deenergizing effect on me. Now looking at the biological aspects of it that's probably because the lack of blue tends to prepare your body for sleep. When we switched most of the lighting in the house to 4-foot fluorescents about 30 years ago (to save energy), I suddenly felt a lot better. About 15 years ago I upgraded to T8s and electronic ballasts. A big improvement over the old halophosphor cool-white T8s which made red objects look more like brick red. I tried some 5000K CRI 91 tubes and never looked back. I also tried some 6500K CFLs in some of the few A19 sockets we had left. It was too jarring a change from incandescent at first but after a few weeks I more or less acclimated. That said, I've more or less standardized on 5000K. Anything lower is too warm and anything higher is too blue. Now I'm putting a few LED bulbs I obtained to test for someone in some of my A19 sockets. I tried modding some with better LEDs. I'm finding a combination of half high CRI Nichia 219s and half 6500K Cree XP-Gs works well. The 4500K are just a tad too warm for my tastes while the Crees are a bit too cool. Combined they're perfect. The Nichia takes care of the slight red deficiency of the Crees. I don't know what the overall CRI of the combo is, but it's probably above 90. All I know is I like it even better than my 5000K, 91 CRI T8s.

mvyrmnd said:

This linked program (that I have yet to look at or play with) would be great for those that work late into the night, and can drop the CCT of the screen to make that jump into bed a bit easier.

Click to expand...

This little proggy does it automatically according to your time zone. Pretty nifty. I just figured out you can set the kelvin to around the candle light range as well.