Received: by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.6.450.8)
          for photo{at}fanciful.org; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:05:27 -0800
Received: from ns5.tzo.com ([216.55.16.67]) HELO=saf.tzo.com
          by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP v5.6.450.8) with SMTP
          id 30779046; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:05:24 -0800
Received: from 67.95.238.9 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2004011712032711027 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:03:27 GMT
Received: from QTHBHRGM [67.95.238.194] by mail.netway.net
  (SMTPD32-8.05) id AB532B790100; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 10:05:23 -0700
Message-ID: 
From: "Richard Prentiss" 
To: "photoecho" 
Subject: Strange light
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:53:00 -0700
X-Orig-MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Orig-Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0899_01C3DCDF.B1741B60"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165



> thousands of hours sounds much better than a $15
> lamp that could pop after a few hours running time
> and is best bought by mail order. Maybe using a
> permanent filter would bring the contrast range closer
> to normal.

Better yet, check to find one with a high CRI (colour rendering index). 
The
closer the number gets to 100, the closer it is to actual spectral light 
from a
continuous source such as the sun or an incandescent bulb.

I thought about that, but settled for a locally bought one, lucky
to find a 100 watt equivalent for this cheap experiment.

Rich
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5