Full-spectrum lighting: genuine need or passing fad?

Full-spectrum bulbs or incandescent nostalgia?

Is it worth hunting for the perfect bulb that mimics the sun, or is that just a geek obsession? The debate over full-spectrum lighting pits fans of the latest LED technology against those nostalgic for the old filament that warmed the room and gave off a light "like firelight".

On one side, the numbers are stark: incandescent bulbs had a CRI of 100, but turned 97% of their energy into heat, ran at over 200 ºC and were ten times less efficient than a modern LED. Today's LEDs offer a CRI of 80-90, good enough for almost any household use, and pose no fire risk. On the other, some people prefer the continuous spectrum of the old bulbs and the warmth that, they claim, does not disrupt the circadian rhythm.

The myth of healthy light

The idea that incandescent light is "the healthiest" runs into physics: emitting mostly infrared is not exactly good for your eyes. What's more, metal halide lamps or full-spectrum lamps designed for photography can outperform any conventional LED in quality, but at a prohibitive cost for everyday use.

What about your wallet?

Special full-spectrum bulbs are sold as a premium alternative, but their price is several times that of a standard warm-white LED. Most households neither need them nor would notice the difference. As has been pointed out, it is "a disproportionate obsession" for everyday use.

In the end, LED technology has solved a problem nobody should have: lighting well, spending little and not getting burned. Anyone who misses tungsten can buy a candle. Just don't expect your electricity bill to thank you for it.