I have finally worn Rachel down on the subject of energy-efficient Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs. Today, we replaced nine of our incandescent bulbs with spiral and flood-style CFLs manufactured by GE. The quality of the light, while sicklier than tungsten, was deemed acceptable in non-living spaces such as the laundry room, hallway and garage.
Eager to prove that the diminished light quality was more perceived than real, I conducted a test. The photos below feature a traditional incandescent lightbulb on the left, candles in the middle (for some color), and a CFL on the right. The camera’s white balance was set to tungsten, allowing the incandescent bulb to be used as a white reference.
The first photo was exposed normally, roughly simulating what the eye would see. Because the bulbs are grossly overexposed in this photo, they both appear to emit nearly-pure white light. Notice the lamp stands, however. The lamp on the left, illuminated by the CFL, is noticably greener than the stand on the right.

Photo 1: Normal exposure
The second photo was merged from ten individual photos at different exposures using Photoshop’s HDR tool. This composite approach allowed every area of the photo to be properly exposed, including the bulbs and even the filament within the incandescent bulb. Here, the CFL bulb is clearly greener than the incandescent.
Side note: In the faster exposures, I noticed that the CFL light was continuous, even down to 1/8000 sec. I expected the light to pulse at 120 Hz (double the frequency of the power grid), but I saw no artifacts as the shutter speeds climbed above 1/60. This should dispel any notion of flickering with CFLs, but I have to admit that I still “feel” like these bulbs are flickering. It must be in my head.

Photo 2: HDR (pardon the excessive flare and color noise)
Conclusion: I was wrong about the light quality of CFLs (it truly is sicklier than incandescent), but the energy savings make it a perfectly acceptable alternative in certain areas of the house.
Comment from DAD on 27 Feb. 2007, 9:02 am :
Maybe “Chicken Broth” is a treat for chickens, like “Dog Food” for dogs or “Cat-Nip” for cats. Would that reduce the infinite regression to an illusory regression?
Comment from Tammy on 27 Feb. 2007, 11:08 am :
It’s gross. Imagine the process that must occur to turn a chicken into a liquid form.
Comment from EMBO on 28 Feb. 2007, 3:20 pm :
Um, it’s not actually liquified chicken….they just boil the carcass. Not that this process is any more appetizing, but still.