| |
Main
Date: 01 Feb 2007 07:22:43
From: ramboorider@gmail.com
Subject: Another useless newbie observation - flourescent lights
|
I'm about three months into this grand experiment and am pretty happy
with where I am. I make very good milk drinks and usually good shots,
with an occasional great one. But the COLOR of my shots has never
impressed me - I thought I might be doing something wrong. Instead of
the golden honey-brown color of the crema that you generally see in
the coffee-porn shots and videos, mine were a washed out looking tan
color. Not impressive or all that appetizing, but the taste was good
enough that I decided to leave well enough alone. My machine is in the
kitchen and, when I drink a shot, I generally drink it in the kitchen
too - milk drinks I take in the other room and savor, but shots go
down pretty quickly and I'm usually still by the kitchen sink when I
finish it. The kitchen, as you've probably guessed by now, has all
flourescent lighting.
The other day, I took a shot into my office, which is mostly natural
light (and regular light bulbs when I need additional light). The damn
thing looked phenominal! The same golden brown I'd figured was beyond
my abilities. Jeez, it looked so good. Since then, I've been taking
most of my shots into my office and they ALL look like that. The
lighting in the kitchen is all flourescent, with one light right above
the sink and right next to the Silvia. The lighting had been washing
out the color of the pour to an amazing degree.
Don't trust your eyes.
-Ray
|
|
| |
Date: 03 Feb 2007 02:35:08
From: CrackAddict
Subject: Re: Another useless newbie observation - flourescent lights
|
>But if you look thru a diffraction grating (a sort of
> prism) at a fluorescent you'll see a handful of narrow lines representing
> the different phosphors - a red line, a blue line, a green line, a couple of
> extra lines in a deluxe bulb, with nothing in between.
Ah - the theoretical Black Body. If only it existed!
Look at the spectral energy distribution curves for fluorescent lights
and you will see all consumer tubes show a low-level continuous
spectrum IS produced. Typically greenish, but continuous. It is, of
course, overwhelmed by the higher power bar emissions. Some lamps,
like low-pressure sodium, produce only bar spectra (in that example, a
single couplet and essentially pure yellow light) and then there are a
multitude of metal halide lamps with their own properties.
As far a s the IR from incandescent being in unwelcome places (still
*inside* the insulated home envelope, though) I welcome the comfort of
my winter evening's reading lamp - allows me to turn the thermostat
down at least three degrees.
|
| |
Date: 02 Feb 2007 16:51:24
From: wff_ng_7
Subject: Re: Another useless newbie observation - flourescent lights
|
<ramboorider@gmail.com > wrote:
> The other day, I took a shot into my office, which is mostly natural
> light (and regular light bulbs when I need additional light). The damn
> thing looked phenominal! The same golden brown I'd figured was beyond
> my abilities. Jeez, it looked so good. Since then, I've been taking
> most of my shots into my office and they ALL look like that. The
> lighting in the kitchen is all flourescent, with one light right above
> the sink and right next to the Silvia. The lighting had been washing
> out the color of the pour to an amazing degree.
The first place I really noticed the color difference with various
fluorescents was at the superket. I'd pick up a package of beef that
looked really nice, but when I got to the checkout line, it no longer looked
so good. They put special "warm" fluorescent bulbs over the meat case, while
using normal ones in the rest of the store. Otherwise the meat would not
look as palatable.
I finally got around to putting these "warm" fluorescent bulbs in my
kitchen, and what a difference it made! For sure, don't put in the super
cheap "workshop" bulbs which do a horrible job at color rendition.
--
( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )
|
| |
Date: 02 Feb 2007 01:58:10
From: CrackAddict
Subject: Re: Another useless newbie observation - flourescent lights
|
Very good points all. Some comments - Blue is "cold" and red "hot" in
lighting-speak. 'Cause Red is Hot. Everybody knows that :-) Colour
temp is measured in degrees Kelvin, with higher being cooler (more
blue) - go figure. Incandescent lights emit a continuous spectrum as
noted, but as noted by another WAY redder in colour in most cases (the
lower wattage bulbs tend to be more red). Two-thirds of an
incandescent bulb's energy is radiated as heat (IR) but that is not
"wasted" in many cases. Should you live in Maine, for example, where
you will be heating your home for six months or more of the year, the
IR emitted heats your home and reduces (by a tiny amount) the load on
your main heating source. Those Green folk who like simple answers
often ignore this. Incandescent bulbs are also simple to manufacture
and contain minimal hazardous waste.
Fluorescent bulbs' colour is all over the place. Even tow tubes ked
identically can be quite different. The light is created by a UV-
producing arc stimulating a phosphor coating inside what used to be
mercury vapour. Very nasty. The light starts as a discontinuous
spectrum with spikes of colour spaced out. The phosphor coating
absorbs most of the UV and re-emits it as a continuous spectrum (at a
lower power) so much tuning must be done to make a "real light"
fluorescent. Hence the cost of tubes for graphic arts/photo purposes.
Newer natural or warm white fluorescents are energy-efficient (at
least in use if not in manufacture) last for a long time and render
colours very well. I don't see the need for spending lots of bucks on
high-CRI lamps in the house as today's perfect shot will be
illuminated by the same light as yesterday's - the "system" is closed
and repeatable. As long as the light is reasonably balanced, it will
be fine. Pros get all worked up about lighting (and monitor
calibration) because they don't know what the final consumer's
situation will be. Ideally you would create a visual product to appear
correct in the final viewing environment.
BTW - I find a reliable, repeatable light source most important in
roasting. I have been in several pro roasters that had not even
considered their lighting!
|
| | |
Date: 02 Feb 2007 13:38:51
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Another useless newbie observation - flourescent lights
|
"CrackAddict" <smppix@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1170410290.843883.47780@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Two-thirds of an
> incandescent bulb's energy is radiated as heat (IR) but that is not
> "wasted" in many cases. Should you live in Maine, for example, where
> you will be heating your home for six months or more of the year, the
> IR emitted heats your home and reduces (by a tiny amount) the load on
> your main heating source. Those Green folk who like simple answers
> often ignore this. Incandescent bulbs are also simple to manufacture
> and contain minimal hazardous waste.
First of all, at least where I live, electricity is a much more expensive
way to heat your house than say gas or wood. If I want an electric heater,
I'll buy an electric heater, not a lightbulb. A lot of the heat is not in a
useful place since light fixtures tend to be overhead and heat rises, so
your room is warm near the ceiling where you dont need it (or IN the ceiling
if you have recessed fixtures). And then there is the summer where the
lightbulb adds to your cooling load, so not only do you have to pay for
something that produces very little light but then you pay again to remove
the waste heat. Roughly speaking the total power usage in the summer would
be double the wattage of the bulb in an air conditioned space.
While incandescents are simple (and cheap) to manufacture, keep in mind that
CFL's last maybe 10x longer than an incandescent, so if you compare the cost
and materials in 10 Edison bulbs to 1 CFL, its not as lopsided any more.
The big savings though is in power - that $3 CFL will save $30 on your
electricity bill over its lifetime.
>
> Fluorescent bulbs' colour is all over the place. Even tow tubes ked
> identically can be quite different. The light is created by a UV-
> producing arc stimulating a phosphor coating inside what used to be
> mercury vapour. Very nasty. The light starts as a discontinuous
> spectrum with spikes of colour spaced out.
That's how it ends too. Actually it starts out as pure UV - unless they
coated the inside of the tube with phosphors you wouldn't get any light in
the visible spectrum.
The phosphor coating
> absorbs most of the UV and re-emits it as a continuous spectrum (at a
> lower power)
No it doesn't. Just like you said, the phosphors give off a discontinuous
spectrum with spikes of color spaced out. There is a blend of phosphors in
the tube - at a minimum 3 to create red, green and blue (the difference
between tubes is what goes into the blend - some phosphors are better and
more costly than others and using more than the basic three adds frequencies
for better color rendering and also to shift the balance) . Each phosphor
emits at a characteristic and narrow frequency (though some have more
"bandwith" than others or emit several spikes). In a color TV tube , the
phosphors are kept separate so you see them as red, blue and green dots when
you look up close but from a distance, our eye interprets a blend of the
priy colors together as "white". In the fluorescent tube they mix the
powdered phosphors together so you can no longer see the different colors
with the naked eye. But if you look thru a diffraction grating (a sort of
prism) at a fluorescent you'll see a handful of narrow lines representing
the different phosphors - a red line, a blue line, a green line, a couple of
extra lines in a deluxe bulb, with nothing in between. None of them emit a
true continuous spectrum, which can only come from a "black body" , which a
hot glowing incandescent filament happens to be (its only good quality).
so much tuning must be done to make a "real light"
> fluorescent. Hence the cost of tubes for graphic arts/photo purposes.
> Newer natural or warm white fluorescents are energy-efficient (at
> least in use if not in manufacture) last for a long time and render
> colours very well. I don't see the need for spending lots of bucks on
> high-CRI lamps in the house as today's perfect shot will be
> illuminated by the same light as yesterday's - the "system" is closed
> and repeatable. As long as the light is reasonably balanced, it will
> be fine. Pros get all worked up about lighting (and monitor
> calibration) because they don't know what the final consumer's
> situation will be. Ideally you would create a visual product to appear
> correct in the final viewing environment.
>
> BTW - I find a reliable, repeatable light source most important in
> roasting. I have been in several pro roasters that had not even
> considered their lighting!
>
>
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 21:10:22
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Another useless newbie observation - flourescent lights
|
On 1 Feb 2007 07:22:43 -0800, "ramboorider@gmail.com"
<ramboorider@gmail.com > wrote:
>I'm about three months into this grand experiment and am pretty happy
>with where I am. I make very good milk drinks and usually good shots,
>with an occasional great one. But the COLOR of my shots has never
>impressed me - I thought I might be doing something wrong. Instead of
>the golden honey-brown color of the crema that you generally see in
>the coffee-porn shots and videos, mine were a washed out looking tan
>color.
i've got white (w/bluish tint) LEDs illuminating the deck of my
zocco at home, with compact flourescent lighting above, and noticed
the same problem. the shot colors were always unimpressive and
unappetizing... until i carried the cup to another light source.
--barry "it poured wonderfully, why does it look so horrid?"
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 10:50:52
From: ramboorider@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Another useless newbie observation - flourescent lights
|
On Feb 1, 1:16 pm, "Jack Denver" <nunuv...@netscape.net > wrote:
> That being said, giving up true color is a small price to save the planet -
> if we all switch to CFLs we'd save zillions of tons of carbon emissions (and
> a lot of $ as well).
Not to worry - we have flourescent bulbs all over our house except for
the few places where we have spotlights. I wasn't contemplating
changing the bulbs to improve the appearance of the espresso! I was
just pleased to see that, under natural light, the espresso looked as
good (and often better) than it tasted. My office is in the sunroom of
our house and there's great natural light, even on a grey day like
today.
-Ray
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 13:16:59
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Another useless newbie observation - flourescent lights
|
Fluorescents differ greatly in the colors they produce (actually the "cool
white" ones are closer to natural daylight than incandescents which give off
a very reddish light. Cool is a misnomer because blue is actually a "hotter"
color - compare a gas flame to a wood flame ) and also, most importantly in
something called the "color rendering index" which is a scale of how true
colors appear under it (look for a CRI as close to 100 as possible, at least
in the 80s). Incandescants emit light evenly in all frequencies but
fluorescents give off a few sharply defined colors which blend to a
semblance of white - hold up a diffraction grating to a fluorescent light
and instead of a rainbow you'll see a few isolated lines. The better ones
use a blend of more and different phosphors to produce a light closer to a
full spectrum.
That being said, giving up true color is a small price to save the planet -
if we all switch to CFLs we'd save zillions of tons of carbon emissions (and
a lot of $ as well). Edison's 130 year old light bulb design wastes most of
its energy making heat (this is doubly bad in the summer when AC is on) and
very little is converted to light.
Not all CFLs or tubes are created equal - if you don't like the colors you
have, play around with different ones - they won't be the same as the
incandescents you are used to ( a lot of this is just habit - incan. light
is quite reddish and not at all "natural") but some are clearly better
than others.
<ramboorider@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1170343363.114318.78480@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm about three months into this grand experiment and am pretty happy
> with where I am. I make very good milk drinks and usually good shots,
> with an occasional great one. But the COLOR of my shots has never
> impressed me - I thought I might be doing something wrong. Instead of
> the golden honey-brown color of the crema that you generally see in
> the coffee-porn shots and videos, mine were a washed out looking tan
> color. Not impressive or all that appetizing, but the taste was good
> enough that I decided to leave well enough alone. My machine is in the
> kitchen and, when I drink a shot, I generally drink it in the kitchen
> too - milk drinks I take in the other room and savor, but shots go
> down pretty quickly and I'm usually still by the kitchen sink when I
> finish it. The kitchen, as you've probably guessed by now, has all
> flourescent lighting.
>
> The other day, I took a shot into my office, which is mostly natural
> light (and regular light bulbs when I need additional light). The damn
> thing looked phenominal! The same golden brown I'd figured was beyond
> my abilities. Jeez, it looked so good. Since then, I've been taking
> most of my shots into my office and they ALL look like that. The
> lighting in the kitchen is all flourescent, with one light right above
> the sink and right next to the Silvia. The lighting had been washing
> out the color of the pour to an amazing degree.
>
> Don't trust your eyes.
>
> -Ray
>
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 08:59:59
From: DavidMLewis
Subject: Re: Another useless newbie observation - flourescent lights
|
On Feb 1, 7:22 am, "ramboori...@gmail.com" <ramboori...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> I'm about three months into this grand experiment and am pretty happy
> with where I am. I make very good milk drinks and usually good shots,
> with an occasional great one. But the COLOR of my shots has never
> impressed me - I thought I might be doing something wrong. Instead of
> the golden honey-brown color of the crema that you generally see in
> the coffee-porn shots and videos, mine were a washed out looking tan
> color. Not impressive or all that appetizing, but the taste was good
> enough that I decided to leave well enough alone. My machine is in the
> kitchen and, when I drink a shot, I generally drink it in the kitchen
> too - milk drinks I take in the other room and savor, but shots go
> down pretty quickly and I'm usually still by the kitchen sink when I
> finish it. The kitchen, as you've probably guessed by now, has all
> flourescent lighting.
>
> The other day, I took a shot into my office, which is mostly natural
> light (and regular light bulbs when I need additional light). The damn
> thing looked phenominal! The same golden brown I'd figured was beyond
> my abilities. Jeez, it looked so good. Since then, I've been taking
> most of my shots into my office and they ALL look like that. The
> lighting in the kitchen is all flourescent, with one light right above
> the sink and right next to the Silvia. The lighting had been washing
> out the color of the pour to an amazing degree.
>
In our kitchen, we sprang for C50 tubes for just this reason. Also
known as "chroma 50", they're used in the graphic arts business. They
have a 5000 Kelvin color temperature, and a color rendering index of
91, which is pretty good. Most good lighting stores will carry them.
The ones sold elsewhere as "full-spectrum" can also be used, but they
tend to be more blue, more expensive, and the extra phosphor isn't
very long-lived, or at least didn't used to be.
Best,
David
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 17:15:17
From: Mathew Hargreaves
Subject: Re: Another useless newbie observation - flourescent lights
|
Hi David,
When taking photos of the vacpots and other stuff for the book, I
am using balanced flourescents but with the camera setting for that in
mind. It was not completely about the light but also about eliminating
the heat from conventional photography bulbs. I built my photobooth with
plastics and it would have melted.
The work goes on.
CHEERS...Matt
DavidMLewis wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 7:22 am, "ramboori...@gmail.com" <ramboori...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I'm about three months into this grand experiment and am pretty happy
> > with where I am. I make very good milk drinks and usually good shots,
> > with an occasional great one. But the COLOR of my shots has never
> > impressed me - I thought I might be doing something wrong. Instead of
> > the golden honey-brown color of the crema that you generally see in
> > the coffee-porn shots and videos, mine were a washed out looking tan
> > color. Not impressive or all that appetizing, but the taste was good
> > enough that I decided to leave well enough alone. My machine is in the
> > kitchen and, when I drink a shot, I generally drink it in the kitchen
> > too - milk drinks I take in the other room and savor, but shots go
> > down pretty quickly and I'm usually still by the kitchen sink when I
> > finish it. The kitchen, as you've probably guessed by now, has all
> > flourescent lighting.
> >
> > The other day, I took a shot into my office, which is mostly natural
> > light (and regular light bulbs when I need additional light). The damn
> > thing looked phenominal! The same golden brown I'd figured was beyond
> > my abilities. Jeez, it looked so good. Since then, I've been taking
> > most of my shots into my office and they ALL look like that. The
> > lighting in the kitchen is all flourescent, with one light right above
> > the sink and right next to the Silvia. The lighting had been washing
> > out the color of the pour to an amazing degree.
> >
> In our kitchen, we sprang for C50 tubes for just this reason. Also
> known as "chroma 50", they're used in the graphic arts business. They
> have a 5000 Kelvin color temperature, and a color rendering index of
> 91, which is pretty good. Most good lighting stores will carry them.
> The ones sold elsewhere as "full-spectrum" can also be used, but they
> tend to be more blue, more expensive, and the extra phosphor isn't
> very long-lived, or at least didn't used to be.
>
> Best,
> David
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 08:52:37
From: Randy G.
Subject: Re: Another useless newbie observation - flourescent lights
|
We have CFL lights all over the house but when pulling shots after the
sun comes up I always open the vertical blinds next to the espresso
machine. I never thought of it as affecting the look of the shots, but
it certainly can be a factor.
As Robert mentioned, lighting can have a lot to do with photography.
If you want to drive your camera nuts, take a digital pic in a room
with a blind up but with bright fluorescent lights, or a mix of
fluorescent and incandescent lighting. Suddenly you appreciate
Photoshop! ;-)
At the World barrista Championships they place high intensity LED
lights on the machines that shine on the shots being pulled so that
judges can watch the process. I always thought that some lighting
would be cool under the overhang of Silvia (Silvia's overhang... tee
hee).
Randy "Yummm... green espresso!" G.
http://www.EspressoMyEspresso.com
"ramboorider@gmail.com" <ramboorider@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>I'm about three months into this grand experiment and am pretty happy
>with where I am. I make very good milk drinks and usually good shots,
>with an occasional great one. But the COLOR of my shots has never
>impressed me - I thought I might be doing something wrong. Instead of
>the golden honey-brown color of the crema that you generally see in
>the coffee-porn shots and videos, mine were a washed out looking tan
>color. Not impressive or all that appetizing, but the taste was good
>enough that I decided to leave well enough alone. My machine is in the
>kitchen and, when I drink a shot, I generally drink it in the kitchen
>too - milk drinks I take in the other room and savor, but shots go
>down pretty quickly and I'm usually still by the kitchen sink when I
>finish it. The kitchen, as you've probably guessed by now, has all
>flourescent lighting.
>
>The other day, I took a shot into my office, which is mostly natural
>light (and regular light bulbs when I need additional light). The damn
>thing looked phenominal! The same golden brown I'd figured was beyond
>my abilities. Jeez, it looked so good. Since then, I've been taking
>most of my shots into my office and they ALL look like that. The
>lighting in the kitchen is all flourescent, with one light right above
>the sink and right next to the Silvia. The lighting had been washing
>out the color of the pour to an amazing degree.
>
>Don't trust your eyes.
>
>-Ray
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 07:52:32
From: ramboorider@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Another observation - flourescent lights
|
On Feb 1, 10:34 am, "daveb" <davebobbl...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Lighting is vital when shooting espresso porno!
>
> now about "wet pucks"
Its a VERY good thing the 'p' and 'f' keys on the keyboard are far,
far apart!
-Ray
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 10:34:26
From: daveb
Subject: Re: Another observation - flourescent lights
|
Lighting is vital when shooting espresso porno!
now about "wet pucks"
dave
www.hitechespresso.com
<ramboorider@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1170343363.114318.78480@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm about three months into this grand experiment and am pretty happy
> with where I am. I make very good milk drinks and usually good shots,
> with an occasional great one. But the COLOR of my shots has never
> impressed me - I thought I might be doing something wrong. Instead of
> the golden honey-brown color of the crema that you generally see in
> the coffee-porn shots and videos, mine were a washed out looking tan
> color. Not impressive or all that appetizing, but the taste was good
> enough that I decided to leave well enough alone. My machine is in the
> kitchen and, when I drink a shot, I generally drink it in the kitchen
> too - milk drinks I take in the other room and savor, but shots go
> down pretty quickly and I'm usually still by the kitchen sink when I
> finish it. The kitchen, as you've probably guessed by now, has all
> flourescent lighting.
>
> The other day, I took a shot into my office, which is mostly natural
> light (and regular light bulbs when I need additional light). The damn
> thing looked phenominal! The same golden brown I'd figured was beyond
> my abilities. Jeez, it looked so good. Since then, I've been taking
> most of my shots into my office and they ALL look like that. The
> lighting in the kitchen is all flourescent, with one light right above
> the sink and right next to the Silvia. The lighting had been washing
> out the color of the pour to an amazing degree.
>
> Don't trust your eyes.
>
> -Ray
>
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 15:30:13
From: Robert Harmon
Subject: Re: Another useless newbie observation - flourescent lights
|
Howdy Ray!
From my amateur photographer days I seem to recall having to use a rose
filter to correct the green overtones of fluorescent lighting. If you really
want to see coffee in an unusual light, pull your shot under a 'black' light
& tell me what the crema looks like. Weird shit, man.
--
Robert (I used to do a lot of "flashing"!) Harmon
http://tinyurl.com/pou2y
http://tinyurl.com/psfob
http://tinyurl.com/fkd6r
<ramboorider@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1170343363.114318.78480@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm about three months into this grand experiment and am pretty happy
> with where I am. I make very good milk drinks and usually good shots,
> with an occasional great one. But the COLOR of my shots has never
> impressed me - I thought I might be doing something wrong. Instead of
> the golden honey-brown color of the crema that you generally see in
> the coffee-porn shots and videos, mine were a washed out looking tan
> color. Not impressive or all that appetizing, but the taste was good
> enough that I decided to leave well enough alone. My machine is in the
> kitchen and, when I drink a shot, I generally drink it in the kitchen
> too - milk drinks I take in the other room and savor, but shots go
> down pretty quickly and I'm usually still by the kitchen sink when I
> finish it. The kitchen, as you've probably guessed by now, has all
> flourescent lighting.
>
> The other day, I took a shot into my office, which is mostly natural
> light (and regular light bulbs when I need additional light). The damn
> thing looked phenominal! The same golden brown I'd figured was beyond
> my abilities. Jeez, it looked so good. Since then, I've been taking
> most of my shots into my office and they ALL look like that. The
> lighting in the kitchen is all flourescent, with one light right above
> the sink and right next to the Silvia. The lighting had been washing
> out the color of the pour to an amazing degree.
>
> Don't trust your eyes.
>
> -Ray
>
|
|
