beam shots on white walls? Must we?

I've brought this up in the past but feel compelled to do so again. The best shots I've seen are always outdoors with a distance stipulated lighting up identifiable objects from which we can gather just how effective each light is at doing what it's supposed to do. If I recall correctly, many people brought up many divergent views on what they view with wall beamshots, however,I personally like to be able to see what the light actually lights up. I shine my lights on walls all the time, but when I want to see how effective the light is in actual use, I step out onto my back deck and shine it at trees and across several darkened yards. It is always easy to see relative brightness comparisons, and what the effective throw of each light is. I always appreciate the efforts put into any kind of beam shot. If I ever need to use a flashlight it is because I want to see something in the dark or make some level of darkness less so. I can safely predict that the only time I will shine a light on a wall is if I'm too lazy to step outside or I need to see how smooth or what artifacts a beam has. Anyone else here like to see real world shots of objects either in doors or outdoors that is something besides a blank white wall? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dedhorse.gif

IMHO we need both.
Real life shots to see how the unit performs outside in the wild /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ... and white-wall shots to be able to judge the beam quality (yes, it does matter to a lot of us anal guys here /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif ) and hotspot / corona as well as color etc.
bernhard

beam quality and corona are important but not as important in my opinion. I can understand how wall beam shots turn some people on, just not me unless I'm using my light meter directly in front to aim it. Subjectively, if someone was to conduct a blind a,b,c test to see what could be discerned from looking at a white blob on a white wall other than beam characteristics, I say that I don't know if anyone here could tell me what was creating the blob they are looking at, it's like double blind listening tests in audio, if you can't here a difference and correctly identify it, there isn't any. Of course there are exceptions like the tigerlight and the maxabeam etc, but comparing common lights with similar lumens output, I just don't think that one could get any idea what so ever of what the beam would actually show in a real world situation. I've been religiously looking at most of the beam shots on this site for 14 months and the only shots that give me any idea what I might expect to see out on my back deck at night are the ones that are taken inside or out of real world things, like the garden shed 50 ft away or the neighbors fence 150 ft away etc.
I'm started this thread to try and encourage people trying to compare beam shots to try and take shots that are more telling and granted, I'm probably not as much of a pure aficionado looking at white wall beam shots which cause me to mutter under my breath everytime I see one now.
I've seen a lot of those pictures with 3 lights side by side on the carpet, one foot away from the wall, whopee. Please, no one take offense, I'm never encouraged to buy anything that has a white wall beam shot to back it up.

Well, yes. Yes, we must. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Why? Because while rigourous, documented and controlled illumination photographs would provide more useful data for analysis, it's just plain hard to do and tedious. To use an automotive analogy, while you would ideally want to get your car to an instrumented dynamometer facility to determine precisely how many wheel-horsepower and pound-feet it would produce under controlled conditions, sometimes you just wanna lay rubber...for the fun of it. Remember fun?

Besides, I personally feel there is no better way to examine the details of the filament, capsule and reflector characteristics with respect to the fine beam performance. What you see on a blank, white wall is often useful in diagnosing and understanding optical effects of the chain of devices between the electricity and your eye.

Respectfully,
Wilkey

i think what Keith wants is a real-situation beamshot for every white wall shot.

@ least that's what i want!

but like Wilkey said, it's just not easy for everyone to get outdoors to take them.

the main reason i don't like white wall shots is the camera exposure.. from about 5 feet away from the wall, my FT3C is very bright, but not blindingly so.. move it in a couple feet and THEN it starts to blind me.. but thru the eye of a camera, a posted beamshot would've probly looked blinding from 5 feet away..

noone can really help that tho.


Edit:
unless they're Wilkey or another hot wire guy's beamshots.. then of course, we know they're blinding from any distance within a home. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Hello Keith,

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.

I use my light at work all the time. Through a lot of experimentation and studying reviews, I have found that the beam that works the best for me has a good hot spot and a fair amount of spill as well.

When you shine lights on outdoor objects, the emphasis is usually on the ability of the hot spot to illuminate an object. That is fine, if that is the way you use your light all of the time.

If you shine a light against a wall, you get a feel for the ratio of the hot spot to spill, as well as an indication of how large the hot spot is.

My situation may be a bit different. I am inspecting things that may have a bit of clutter in front of them. I use an ARC LSH-P as my primary inspection light. I am very please with the ratio of spot to spill, and I love the shape of the hot spot. I tried an L4, but it is too much a flood for my use. I had a lot of stray light bouncing off near field things and obstructing my clear view of what I was looking for. I tried an ARC LSHF-P. It did not have enough spill to provide an indication of what was coming up during the inspection. I found myself moving the light back and forth trying to light up an area.

The X990 is like having a piece of the sun along. It works great, but sometimes it is too bright. The 8 cell DragonHID is about perfect. It has a very well defined hot spot, and an ample supply of spill. The TigerLight with the GenI lamp also fits into this category. The TigerLight GenII lamp sacrifaces a bit of spill for a more defined hot spot. It is not bad, but not as good as the original lamp. Jim Sexton's modification with the SL 35X lamp is once again a good ratio of spill to hot spot, but the lamp doesn't like being overdriven to the voltages we are putting to it. The Carley reflector with the WA1274 lamp is once again leaning to improving the hot spot at the expense of the spill. It is not bad, but a little on the hot spot side of things.

I bring up all of these comparisons to give you an indication of what I see from looking at a beam shot on a white wall. I think there is a lot of information there and it is easy to do.

The other thing to remember is that outside shots will show different things depending on how reflective the object and surroundings are. I take my lights out on a walk and am constantly surprised at how different things show up. Evergreen trees and peeling paint on buildings seem to absorb all the light you can throw at them. Brand new paint jobs, vinyl siding, and metal buildings seem to stand out and reflect all the light that is pointed in their direction. In my opinion, this adds a level of complexity that is difficult to evaluate.

I love to see how a light performs outside, but give me a wall beam shot for critical evaluation and I will be very happy.


Tom

Hello Ryan,

I agree, camera exposures leave something to be desired when comparing one light to another. I usually find that someone who has the light also has a light meter and will publish a reading. From that reading you can get an idea of throw. Doug (Quickbeam) has several lights listed with throw (in meters) down to 1 lux. He also lists an overall output value. You can check a light that you have and put together a ratio of throw to overall output and decide what ratio suits you best.

Once you find a light that has the proper ratio, look at a white wall beam shot and check out the size of the hot spot and the ratio of the spill and see if it seems to be what you are looking for.

I usually end up with a choice of several lights, and will try a few of them, or all of them. The ones that don't work for me, have problems with fit and finish. It usually is not because of the overall beam qualities. Sometimes the artifacts in the beam are too much, but I have not been disappointed with the overall ratio of spill to hot spot.

Tom

doesn't your use of the light become the definitive test for your useage? I guess I'll never make the upper levels of the cpf because after I shine my lights on the wall on the way outside I still have to see if I have the proper amount of light that I find pleasing. Of course it could just be that I'm so compulsive about everything that I haven't been able to devote enough time to focus on just lights. Of course I've owned most of the desirable lights that i've discovered while here and find I most like those which I can carry somehow without attracting too much attention to myself. The light I will most likely covet will be the the versatile VIP which I have purchased two and expect to have shortly.

What Wilkey said. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

And yes, I like outdoor, real world shots as well. But these often tell you very little about "useful" light out put. They are pretty much just for Throw. While throw is nice, if that's all you want, get a laser.

Long distance "throw" shots typically tell you little of beam quality. In fact, lights with poor beam quality frequently have the best throw. Hot artifacts within the hot spot will usually throw further than a nice smooth spot.

So proper evaluation really needs both types of pictures.

Or better yet; just send me all your lights and let me play with them, then I can post a really subjective opinion. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Aloha, iG

I think Keith has brought up an excellent point. Though, I do appreciate & find some use of the wall beam photos, it is real world application that ultimately matters. There seems to be 2 basic types of flashoholics in here: Those that have become almost obsessed with indoor light evaluation with instrumentation, and those that spend more time actually using their lights in the real world. Neither is good or bad, but lets face it: If a light appeared flawless in an indoor beam evaluation, but performed poorly "in the field", then the evaluation becomes worthless. On the other hand, it really depends on what the light is being used for. But I must believe that the average flashlight owner would much prefer a photo of a real life use. I was looking at some reviews and beam shots of a particular flashlight on Flashlightreviews.com one day, which is a fantastic website, second to none /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif. Then I discovered another beam comparison of this same light (not sure what website, could have been the same), only this time in a real world application. This revealed much more to me for my buying decision than the wall beam photo did, and saved me from wasting my money. Thanks Doug /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif. When a person is actually using, not critiquing, his light, he cares very little that it showed .0005 less lumens in the instrumentation test. Or that it had a black spot in the beam on the wall. He is more concerned as to how well it lights up the area he is trying to see more clearly.

Hello Jbret14,

The point I was trying to bring up is that my real world may be quite different than your real world use of flashlights.

For example:

If the lights go out, I need a bit of a glow.

If something goes bump in the night, I need to be able to identify what it was.

If I am a Doctor, I need something that lights up tissue and helps me identify problems.

If I am inspecting welds, I need to light up the weld and heat effected area and care little about everything else.

If I am inspecting for leaks, I need to be able to have good contrast.

If I am inspecting diamonds, I need ample light and good color rendition.

If I am going for a walk, I need enough light to keep from falling in a hole.

If I am hiking, I need to be able to identify a trail.

If I am climbing, I need to be able to identify purchase positions.

If I am in a cave, I need watch for hazards, figure out where I am as well as have enough light to enjoy the elements of the cave.

If I am inspecting a car with tinted windows, I need a light that is powerful enough to penetrate to the interior of the car.

If I am sweeping a warehouse, I need a combination of spill and hot spot to quickly identify threats.

If I am looking for a perfectly smooth beam...

I could go on and on, but I think you can see the differences. If someone shows me a beam shot of a building alongside a road, I have to abstract from that to my intended use. I think a white wall shot is easier to abstract from.

I find outdoor real world beam shots very interesting and I encourage people to do them, but please include the wall shots as well.

Tom

keithhr,

What's that expression? "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth" or is it "Don't look a beam shot in the wall"?

In any case, when someone goes to the trouble of taking images, uploading them to a server, and posting them on CPF, we should all say "Thanks!" even if the shots are not to our specifications or will not be useful to us, or even if you think they are in some way misleading. They are only misleading if you misunderstand what can and can't be gleaned from a white wall beam shot.

Instead of complaining about white wall shots, why don't you focus on trying to point out what strengths they have, and where they may be misleading.

And I wonder, should we all look forward to keithhr's own acceptable out-doors only beam shot data base? That would be a really great project!

So ... to characterize a light properly, we have:

White Wall Shot #1 ... The Hotspot

White Wall Shot #2 ... The Corona

Real Life Shot

Ceiling Bounce Test

Light SAber Beam Shot

IMHO this is a bit overkill, since in additin to that line-up you'd need a well known light for comparison with equal shots in the same enviroment.
Too much trouble, even if it is desirable.

And please note that there is valuable info in each one of those shots, the info is just different from shot to shot.

Jim raises a good point here ... we should be grateful for what we get. It is a lot of work, and it is free.

bernhard

"I always appreciate the efforts put into any kind of beam shot."
the above remark was in my first post on this topic. I've been reading enough in these forums for the past 14 months and I've looked at a huge amount of beam shots on walls , trying in vain to see what others see. When viewing beam shots that someone has taken a photo of, the brightness of the image that was photographed cannot be quantified in any way, and the result is much more easily understood in person than online. I guess that's why I shine a lot of beams on walls myself and use the bounce test and take my lights outside. But when puting shots on the cpf, it isn't the same as looking at them in person. I still say that unless someone can tell the difference in wall beamshots in a blind viewing test and identify what light made them............I love beam shots that indicate what I might expect if I were to try to use it as a light. I wouldn't be here if I didn't have the same type of odd perspective that everyone else here has and when I shine a light on a wall it does tell me something but not when I'm looking at someone elses photo of it, at whatever setting. Most lights don't exhibit beam characteristics in real world use. And please, corona,sidespill,hotspot and smooth beams are all things that I can appreciate. I guess I should have just done a poll, which do you prefer, white wall beam shots, or real world comparisons of actual examples of how much light a light will provide. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dedhorse.gif

Both shots are better as I have learned to test lights close and far. Some lights are just better close up (Wall shot type analysis). Some beam off real far (Night shots against buildings). Have not found 1 light is the best yet multiple shots with comparison of known lights revealls most information. Hey a candle throws good light 3 inches from the wall but 100 yards? What light?

NikolaTesla /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon6.gif


An Arc lamp is the Spark that takes away the Dark--HID Forever!
Recent additions to My Lights: *** http://www.tjtech.org/gallery/NikolaTesla/Dscn3236

Keith,
I think most folks would say it ain't an "either or" thing. Do what you can and share it. That's the real value.
Wilkey

I live in a dense urban area, and a place to go shooting lights just isn't at my disposal. That's the primary reason why I do not have outdoor shots on my website; and use a target at 12" and a nearly-white wall at ~6' to test most of the flashlights with.

Hello Keith,

A most interesting thing happened tonight. I have been testing some TigerLight improvements for Jim Sexton. I tend to approach the technical side and to get a more complete picture, I often drag my wife into the discussion for another point of view.

We went outside and I showed her beam shots against the wall of the house. She looked at me with total disgust and told me "Shine it on the wheelbarrow and the car so I can see the differences." I laughed and remembered this thread.

I'd say that qualifies as an outdoor shot being more useful...

It seems that there are in fact different types of people. Some of you are more artistic and can immediately recognize the attributes from an object shot, and others dig into the technical side of things and make sure the beam shot verifies what we have already discovered in reviewing the specifications.

I'm still chuckling about this. Bring on the outdoor shots.

Tom