Kitchen light suggestions

[ebee]

Not things I`d be thinking of myself but as I have seen them then some folk like them so its another choice if needs be.

 

[JohnW2]

Not things I`d be thinking of myself but as I have seen them then some folk like them so its another choice if needs be.

True. I suppose that oil lamps and candles are also 'other choices'

To be serious, though, I was only really thinking of considering 'mainstream' things - so I guess primarily LED tubes, LED panels and, perhaps pendants (and also 'maybe', if circumstances made it desirable, also 'supplementary' things like wall lights and spotlights) and (if I had wall cupboards) under-cupboard lighting.

 

[SUNRAY]

True. I suppose that oil lamps and candles are also 'other choices'

To be serious, though, I was only really thinking of considering 'mainstream' things - so I guess primarily LED tubes, LED panels and, perhaps pendants (and also 'maybe', if circumstances made it desirable, also 'supplementary' things like wall lights and spotlights) and (if I had wall cupboards) under-cupboard lighting.

Bear in mind that the kitchen is almost unique in that a majority of the time you are working close to and facing the wall and hence creating a high risk of shadow on your work space, as such I'd avoid point lighting and my choice has always been linear fluo's and the longer the better simply to cut down shadows.
However the rental property I mentioned earlier was 2.4m x 1.5m with heck a sketch is easier

with a run of wall cupboards and cooker hood opposite the door, creating a shadow was nigh on impossible other than the wall cupboards themselves.

Roughly speaking this shows a 3m wide kitchen with 600mm worktops both sides, single light at 2.4m ceiling and 1.8m person standing at worktop

Dark grey shows shadow cast by the shoulders/body and light grey shadow cast by the head.

 

[JohnW2]

Bear in mind that the kitchen is almost unique in that a majority of the time you are working close to and facing the wall and hence creating a high risk of shadow on your work space, as such I'd avoid point lighting and my choice has always been linear fluo's and the longer the better simply to cut down shadows.

As you are presumably aware, that's what I have been thinking and saying all along. As I said very early (and have essentially 'stuck with') my main thinking (pending input and advice from others) was to replace the one 5' 'tube fitting' (now LED) which I now have, with two like that, in-line, so as to cover as much of the length of the room as possible.

However, on reflection, they don't need to be 'tube fittings' - a panel of similar length would presumably be as good, light-wise,and might well look better. Although, like so many others, I've used fluro tube fittings in places like kitchens, I have always felt that they look rather 'industrial' for a domestic environment - so I would probably regard it as a bit silly to go with things like flameport suggested, which do not contain tubes but have been made to look as if they do! I think that 'long panels' would probably look much more 'domestic'!

 

[JohnW2]

...... with a run of wall cupboards and cooker hood opposite the door, creating a shadow was nigh on impossible other than the wall cupboards themselves. ..... Roughly speaking this shows a 3m wide kitchen with 600mm worktops both sides, single light at 2.4m ceiling and 1.8m person standing at worktop
.... Dark grey shows shadow cast by the shoulders/body and light grey shadow cast by the head.

Whilst, as I have said, I certainly agree that 'point light sources' are undesirable in locations like kitchens and workshops etc. (maybe even some offices etc.), and whilst I don't disagree, conceptually, with anything you say and illustrate about shadows, I think that, in practice, the shadow issue is nothing like as bad as one might expect.

Particularly if (as is commonly the case) everything is fairly light-coloured, reflections off walls, ceiling, cupboard doors, work surfaces and even floor have light bouncing about all over the place, thereby mitigating the shadow issue to a very appreciable extent.

Certainly traditionally, and probably still today, the majority of rooms in domestic settings are lit by a 'point source' (very commonly a single pendant) and, although there are presumably always at least some shadows to be seen if one 'goes looking for them', in practice one usually does not notice, or become aware of, any shadows at all.

 

[JohnW2]

As you are presumably aware, that's what I have been thinking and saying all along. As I said very early (and have essentially 'stuck with') my main thinking (pending input and advice from others) was to replace the one 5' 'tube fitting' (now LED) which I now have, with two like that, in-line, so as to cover as much of the length of the room as possible. ... However, on reflection, they don't need to be 'tube fittings' - a panel of similar length would presumably be as good, light-wise,and might well look better. Although, like so many others, I've used fluro tube fittings in places like kitchens, I have always felt that they look rather 'industrial' for a domestic environment - so I would probably regard it as a bit silly to go with things like flameport suggested, which do not contain tubes but have been made to look as if they do! I think that 'long panels' would probably look much more 'domestic'!

@SUNRAY I think that you and I were very close in our thinking about this, so I'd appreciate your thoughts and advice as regards 'where I am now'.

You will recall that I currently have one 5' fitting in the middle of the ceiling of a 5m long (and about 3m wide and 3m high) kitchen, originally a fluoro, but now a retrofit LED tube which claims to be 17W and 2,030 lumens (which is providing 'not unreasonable' illumination throughout the room). In view of the theoretical potential 'shadows etc.' issue I would prefer to have a least a couple of linear fittings along the length of the ceiling but, aesthetics-wise I would prefer some sort of 'panels' rather than things look as if they ought to contain tubes (although they don't - like the ones flameport suggested). ... and nor do I really want 'big square panels' (600 x 600 mm is very common) or very wide (again e.g. 600 mm) rectangular ones (e.g. 600 x 1,200 or 600 x 1,500).

.. soI guess my ideal would probably be a couple of say, 1,500 mm x 200-300mm ones, but they seem very hard to find (do you know of any?). There are a few 1,200 x 300 ones around, which I suppose would do. However, the one illustrated below (click here) , which I found via several routes, seems somewhat "too cheap to be true" (£15 each or 6 for £80!). They claim to be 36 W /3,600 lumens, so a pair would be 72W / 7,200 lumen s. That still sounds an awful lot to me, in comparison with my current 17W / 2,030 lumens, but you and others are close to convincing me that it would not be 'far too bright'
It looks as if this cheapo ones are not designed for 'surface mounting' as such, so I'd probably have construct some sort of 'frame'
So, what are your thoughts about them and, perhaps more to the point, are you (or anyone) aware of anything similar (ideally 'surface mount') which was not quite as cheap?

 

[SUNRAY]

Have you looked at those linked by Rocky way back in the thread.
My first sensible hit is TLC

Surface Modular Fluorescent Fittings

I suspect you will feel somewhat different when you realise how much better the additional light level is.

 

[JohnW2]

Have you looked at those linked by Rocky way back in the thread. .... My first sensible hit is TLC ....

Surface Modular Fluorescent Fittings

Yes, I looked at them when he mentioned them 'way back'

I suspect you will feel somewhat different when you realise how much better the additional light level is.

I suppose that, despite what you and others keep saying, I remain a bit nervous about how bright a pair of those might be! In general, I'm a great believer in "everything in moderation" ("happy medium") - an this seems to be way beyond that.

A pair of those 5' (1,500 x 200mm -which is an ideal size) lights would appear to amount to 90W and 9,580 lumens - which, in broad terms is about 5 times more that the current 17W / 2,030 lumens which, as I keep saying, really is not doing too badly. That's an awfully big 'jump up'

Imagine that, in the days of incandescents, you had been asked about a room which was 'not too badly' (but not ideally) illuminated by, say, a 60W bulb -would you really have been suggesting that they should try 'upgrading' the 60 W to 300 W ?

You, and others, seem almost to be taking the view that there is not such a thing as 'too bright', but I would suggest that there is one, pretty common, situation in which that simply is not the case. As occurs in a high proportion of people, as I grew old my eyes very slowly, and very insidiously, developed cataracts. I eventually had surgery on both eyes about 18 months ago, and it is only when that happens, resulting in a sudden and dramatic improvement, that one realises how poor one's eyesight had become! The point is that what led me to realise that the surgery was needed was the fact that I had come to be in the position that bright light almost 'blinded' me - 'blinded by car headlights' is a very common feature of earlier cataracts and, talking to others, it seems that 'blinded by any bright light' is an almost inevitable phenomenon with advancing cataracts!

Despite my nervousness, I suppose I'm going to have to "grasp the nettle", put my trust in you guys and go with the sort of 'seemingly over-bright' lighting we're talking about! It's a pity that the TLC ones are not dimmable (does anyone know of any similar ones which are?). I fear it might be difficult (messy and disruptive) but I'm going to look and see how easily I could install separate switching for the two lights - since I could then at least switch one off if I had to!

 

[SUNRAY]

Yes, I looked at them when he mentioned them 'way back'

I suppose that, despite what you and others keep saying, I remain a bit nervous about how bright a pair of those might be! In general, I'm a great believer in "everything in moderation" ("happy medium") - an this seems to be way beyond that.

A pair of those 5' (1,500 x 200mm -which is an ideal size) lights would appear to amount to 90W and 9,580 lumens - which, in broad terms is about 5 times more that the current 17W / 2,030 lumens which, as I keep saying, really is not doing too badly. That's an awfully big 'jump up'

Imagine that, in the days of incandescents, you had been asked about a room which was 'not too badly' (but not ideally) illuminated by, say, a 60W bulb -would you really have been suggesting that they should try 'upgrading' the 60 W to 300 W ?

You, and others, seem almost to be taking the view that there is not such a thing as 'too bright', but I would suggest that there is one, pretty common, situation in which that simply is not the case. As occurs in a high proportion of people, as I grew old my eyes very slowly, and very insidiously, developed cataracts. I eventually had surgery on both eyes about 18 months ago, and it is only when that happens, resulting in a sudden and dramatic improvement, that one realises how poor one's eyesight had become! The point is that what led me to realise that the surgery was needed was the fact that I had come to be in the position that bright light almost 'blinded' me - 'blinded by car headlights' is a very common feature of earlier cataracts and, talking to others, it seems that 'blinded by any bright light' is an almost inevitable phenomenon with advancing cataracts!

Despite my nervousness, I suppose I'm going to have to "grasp the nettle", put my trust in you guys and go with the sort of 'seemingly over-bright' lighting we're talking about! It's a pity that the TLC ones are not dimmable (does anyone know of any similar ones which are?). I fear it might be difficult (messy and disruptive) but I'm going to look and see how easily I could install separate switching for the two lights - since I could then at least switch one off if I had to!

Oh no I'm certainly not one who says it can't be too bright, that is always one of my complaints about downlighters.
Some of those in my link are lower power.

 

[JohnW2]

Oh no I'm certainly not one who says it can't be too bright, that is always one of my complaints about downlighters.

OK - but, in that case, why do you not seem to share my fear that products supplying about 5 times more light than does my present lighting (which "isn't at all bad") might well be 'far too bright'??

 

[SUNRAY]

OK - but, in that case, why do you not seem to share my fear that products supplying about 5 times more light than does my present lighting (which "isn't at all bad") might well be 'far too bright'??

My impression of LM levels from Fluo and LED is there is a mismatch and I think it's due to the different colour spectrum between the 2 formats.

Comparing a CW fluo tube and a CW LED tube of similar stated light levels, shows a different colour rendition and brightness. This is especially noticeable via a video camera.

It's not a fair comparison due to the vastly different light spread but in a recent AmDram I basically had the stage flooded with RGB LED - using > 40 of this sort of 15 to 30W inexpensive kit

For the various murder suspects each was spot lit with a 500W light, either

spot or

fresnel -- depending on how well the thespian was able to stand in the right place (or even sit in the right chair!).

Each incident of highlighting was very short, around 1/2 to 3 seconds and each left the suspect bleached out on video cameras - BUT - the appearance was a brightly lit stage going to a lesser lit person and back.

 

[StephenStephen]

I really like the led strips we have under the top cupboards - cheap, easy to fit, dimmable excellent task lighting for the worktops, controllable via remote switch (so you can put the switches where you want them) - all from IKEA.

Then longer led strips (can't remember which website we got them from) around the top edges of the ceiling - I was too mean to pay for the diffuser covers for them, so installed them in (painted) wooden right angle profile instead.

 

[JohnW2]

My impression of LM levels from Fluo and LED is there is a mismatch and I think it's due to the different colour spectrum between the 2 formats. ... Comparing a CW fluo tube and a CW LED tube of similar stated light levels, shows a different colour rendition and brightness.

There's something about all this which I just don't get.

In terms of LEDs, per se, (e.g. lamps/bulbs as used in pendants, it's usually assumed that the lumens/watt is 5-10 times greater with the LED than with an incandescent - hence about7-9W of LED is generally considered roughly equivalent (in terms of light output) to a 60W incandescent and 12-14 W of LED roughly equivalent a 100W incandescents. Furthermore, the wattage of fluoro tubes is roughly in the same ballpark as for incandescents - hence, for example, 60-100 W incandescent OR 58 - 70 W fluoro.

However, the moment the LED elements find themselves in a 'tube' or panel on a ceiling, all of a sudden their lumens/watt appears to have fallen to roughly the same ballpark as incandescents and fluros, certainly never more than about half the lumens/watt of an incandescent or fluro.

Put another way, I don't think that anyone in their right mind would, even if they could get one, even consider putting a 40, 60, 80 or 100 W LED lamp/bulb into a pendant socket, would they, even though such wattages don't seem at all unusual for the ceilong-mounted LED lights.

What on earth is going on?

 

[SUNRAY]

There's something about all this which I just don't get.

In terms of LEDs, per se, (e.g. lamps/bulbs as used in pendants, it's usually assumed that the lumens/watt is 5-10 times greater with the LED than with an incandescent - hence about7-9W of LED is generally considered roughly equivalent (in terms of light output) to a 60W incandescent and 12-14 W of LED roughly equivalent a 100W incandescents. Furthermore, the wattage of fluoro tubes is roughly in the same ballpark as for incandescents - hence, for example, 60-100 W incandescent OR 58 - 70 W fluoro.

However, the moment the LED elements find themselves in a 'tube' or panel on a ceiling, all of a sudden their lumens/watt appears to have fallen to roughly the same ballpark as incandescents and fluros, certainly never more than about half the lumens/watt of an incandescent or fluro.

Put another way, I don't think that anyone in their right mind would, even if they could get one, even consider putting a 40, 60, 80 or 100 W LED lamp/bulb into a pendant socket, would they, even though such wattages don't seem at all unusual for the ceilong-mounted LED lights.

What on earth is going on?

Welcome to my world at last

 

[mikehammer69]

There's something about all this which I just don't get.



However, the moment the LED elements find themselves in a 'tube' or panel on a ceiling, all of a sudden their lumens/watt appears to have fallen to roughly the same ballpark as incandescents and fluros, certainly never more than about half the lumens/watt of an incandescent or fluro.

How can the led elements lumens/watt be in the same ballpark as incandescent “and” fluoro

Fluoro puts out way more lumens/watt than incandescent. About 5 times as much.