How to improve your WFH lighting to reduce eye strain

Post by wyager » Thu, Jan 23, 2025, 4:59 PM UTC

namibj wrote: post #161

wonger_ wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you buy the surplus cinema lighting equipment? And how do you mount it inside your house? I went down a high CRI office lighting rabbit hole last year and I could only find expensive, new photography lights.

Just get modules or strip from Yuju; I have zero bad experience over many years with them. Sure, it's not cheap, but IMO ~1$/W plus simple PSU (either some standard voltage, or dimmable current, depending on what you got) for good and 1.5~2$/W for very good CRI is quite fine.

Post by Auracle » Thu, Jan 23, 2025, 5:06 PM UTC

bongodongobob wrote: post #130

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #23

A lot of the guidelines that are used to light a scene for a camera are also quite useful for lighting a room for yourself, just with less light needed as the human eye has a much higher dynamic range than a camera sensor: * Use diffuse light. This usually means multiple light sources bouncing and diffusing light off surfaces (ceilings, walls, etc) or diffusers. * Minimize shadows. Shadows lead to contrast which can…

I agree up until golden hour. It's a very specific style of lighting and isn't any better or worse. It's not the best time to take a picture, it doesn't have the best light. It's a specific kind of light.

Post by y-c-o-m-b » Thu, Jan 23, 2025, 5:15 PM UTC

toddmorey wrote: post #46

michaelteter wrote: post #2

This is another +1 for WFH. Many office environments have terrible lighting, and there's very little you can do about it.

I remember standing up on office chairs to twist the florescent tube bulbs above my desk just enough to turn them off. That light was just awful. It helped a lot until maintenance would come in at night and "fix" the light and I'd have to do it all over.

Post by nothrabannosir » Thu, Jan 23, 2025, 5:46 PM UTC

BenoitEssiambre wrote: post #154

BenoitEssiambre wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in a basement and had fairly good success with certain "led shop lights" to make the space feel more like it has natural light (though I could improve things further). I do find however, that using diffuse lighting and minimizing shadows is what makes lighting feel artificial. Natural sunlight has very parallel rays that create very evenly lit surfaces with very sharp shadows. Whereas most artificial light has ra…

What I'm trying to achieve is lighting a bit like in these "Artificial Skylight" concepts: https://architizer.com/blog/practice/materials/let-there-be-... They claim their technology is about "Rayleigh scattering" but I think that's mostly marketing mumbo jumbo. Sure that might add a bit of diffuse blue but their main secret, I would bet, is parallel rays which explains why their fixtures require so much space above…

Post by sberens » Thu, Jan 23, 2025, 5:53 PM UTC

sebmellen wrote: post #177

sberens wrote: post #155

I'm working on something like the lamp depicted in the images[0]. It's bright, diffuse, dimmable, flicker free, and high CRI. [0] https://getbrighter.com

How would this compare to something like the Godox LA 200D, which claims an output of 100,000 lumens? I use two of these lights on tall stands pointed at my ceiling, which seems to work very well