Upload & Sell: On
It's a good question ... one that Doug's point @ CRI factors into as well.
The +100 saturation is just used to help find the cast and the temp's that are in play that need correcting for to get to neutral. Correct in PP and go on your merry way. That should be the end of the story.
However, when we have a situation that is problematic to correct, then I start asking why is it being so difficult to correct, ... i.e. what gives, something isn't right here, why do I still see a cast (at normal saturation levels) even after I've made some corrections, what did I miss (and why)?
Sure, you can dial down the saturation for the offending cast and that has its place. B&W is the extreme example of how saturation reduction can mitigate color (although a cast can still show up there in tonal value impact) ... but for me, that isn't correcting, that is throwing away some of the good stuff unnecessarily.
I find that the more neutral my color is to start with, the more latitude I have when trying to color correct. And to Doug's point @ CRI (which I alluded to when speaking @ full spectrum) the fewer "gaps" there are in your lighting, again, the easier/more latitude you have for correcting.
As I've said, I haven't used fluorescent, so I can't tell you from the voice of experience that it will be better. I don't know where the gaps are and how difficult it will be to fill them or ignore them. I just know that casts & gaps steal from image quality. So, for me, elimination of those casts & gaps in my lighting is the goal.
Yesterday, when looking through their T-8's, the 6500 seemed to have better CRI @ 85.
Taking another look through the Philips offerings, I see where their T-12 Daylight Deluxe has a CRI of 90. But, looking through the T12's I also now notice their Colortone (C50) with a temp of 5000K and a CRI of 92. I did also now find a T-8 (different section than the 735) model TL950TG that has a 5000K temp and a CRI of 98 that I missed going through yesterday. Now, THAT T-8 might be a better choice (vs. T-8's in general as mentioned above).
5000K and 98 CRI ... I think that would be a significantly better option than 3500K and 78 CRI ... but likely at a significant price point differential, as there is no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to lighting (and life in general).
As to the "can't see it with the human eye" ... well, that becomes a matter of training to a certain degree. Some people can see color issues better than others.
There are some people that are pretty amazing at seeing subtle color issues ... referring to agency professionals, etc. The general populace for portraits is much more forgiving than those who are judging from years of experience based on industry standards.
Here's a link to an interesting (and sometimes humbling) test.
Edited on Oct 19, 2012 at 09:21 PM · View previous versions