[QUOTE="Noons"]\nMichel, I asked you to stop the semantics.[/QUOTE]\n\nAnd I asked you to stop making claims you can't substantiate\nand to stop misrepresenting what I wrote.\n[QUOTE]\nI never said you did. Read properly, Michel.[/QUOTE]\n\nQuoting: "Because according to you it varies from 2700K to well over\n3200K all the way to daylight. " Show me where I made that\nclaim.\n[QUOTE]\nReally? Amazing...[/QUOTE]\n\nI guess physics is amazing to you.\n[QUOTE]\nSo I guess all those lights with 4500K colour tempo are what? Figments?\nI've > got over 30 of those figments in my house alone...[/QUOTE]\n\nThey ain't tungsten. Sorry.\n[QUOTE]\nNo you did not. You did it NOW, not before you tested.[/QUOTE]\n\nYou only mentioned it NOW.\n[QUOTE]\nDude, you have no clue what is sold in supermarkets here.[/QUOTE]\n\nI looked at the website for the very stores you mentioned.\n[QUOTE]\nNo, I did not.[/QUOTE]\n\nQuoting: "Ektar 100 is great indoors with tungsten light."\n[QUOTE]\nAgain imagining things, Michel?[/QUOTE]\n\nOld joke. Never mind.\n[QUOTE]\nBut it does! Check the specs in the site I provided.[/QUOTE]\n\nI did. No tungsten there. Just a halogen.\n[QUOTE]\nSome quotes is not ALL quotes, Michel.\nHere are a few more, which you conveniently omitted:\n4000 840 Cool White Gives a more clinical or “high tech” feel.\n6000 860 Daylight Fluorescent or compact fluorescent lamps simulating\nnatural daylight.\n6500 865 Cool Daylight Extremely “white” light used in specialist daylight\nlamps.[/QUOTE]\n\nNotice the word "flourescent?" Notice the absence of the word tungsten?\n[QUOTE]\nDid you check the spotlights? Are they fluorescent?\nLike I said, Michel: R-E-A-D. Don't imagine.[/QUOTE]\n\nYes. The spotlight you linked to is a halogen, not a tungsten\nlamp.\n[QUOTE]\nLike I said, Michel: R-E-A-D.[/QUOTE]\n\nYou _assumed_ they were tungsten. They aren't. Next cite?\n[QUOTE]\nNo, I did not.[/QUOTE]\n\nQuoting: "Commerce and most public venues changed their lighting\nhere ages ago, for a lot of economic reasons." What other economic\nreason would they have besides power savings?\n[QUOTE]\nWhat is it dependent on? And what has that got to do with this?[/QUOTE]\n\nIt's dependent on the phosphors used. Which is why an 11 watt\nWW bulb would be the same color as a 23w WW bulb.\n[QUOTE]\nOh, I dunno. Probably because you wanted to "prove" that "tungsten" can\nproduce a warm colour balance? As if anyone ever denied it?[/QUOTE]\n\nI wouldn't need two sources for that. T-H-I-N-K.\n[QUOTE]\nYou provided the 3200 quote when asked what lighting you used, and you\nclaimed 3200 photoflood as the "standard from the 50s":\n"They are still 3200K black-body light sources, just like in the 1950's. "[/QUOTE]\n\nThe full quote: "While household lights have changed a bit,\nphotofloods have remained the same. They are still 3200K\nblack-body light sources, just like in the 1950's."\n\nPhotofloods. Not all tungsten lights. The partial quote is\nevidence of another deliberate lie.\n[QUOTE]\nAnd they sell daylight balanced tungsten filament lights for the\nsame reason.[/QUOTE]\n\nWhere? Too bad you can't find one. 4500K isn't daylight and the\nspot you cited is a halogen. The 12V input _might_ have been a\ntipoff if you could read, or the MR16 designation.\n\nSo your score on providing links to daylight balanced tungsten\nlights: Zero.\n[QUOTE]\nI said *modern* indoor tungsten lighting, Michel. Not the 50 year old\nstandard.[/QUOTE]\n\nIf, as you claim, *modern* indoor tungsten lighting is no different\nthan daylight, then again there's nothing unusual about Ektar and\nany C41 film would work. And it's clear that you were making the\nclaim specifically about Ektar. Quoting: "Don't ask me what Kodak\nhas done with that film."\n\nI've looked at your posts. The only time you mention the word\n"modern" is for film, not lights. Revisionist History again.