LED Magazine have published this article comparing the position of today’s lighting manufacturers with Kodak and Polaroid in the 90’s

It is an interesting discussion comparing the demise of film and chemical based photography in the onslaught of digital photogrphy with the demise of conventional lighting (possibly!) in the face of the rise of LED technology.

I have always maintained that LEDs are just another light source with some interesting capabilities that make them specifically useful in some areas. I still do not see reason to change my position on this. I am also now questioning whether LEDs can still, legitimately, be called a “new” technology. I used LED fittings in our CCA project 13 years ago partly as markers and in one area as the only light source. At that time we were still being promised 100,000 hour life and no one was defining what this meant. Many of the fittings failed early, not due to LED issues, simply because of poor installation and subsequent water ingress. These were interior fittings in concrete floors so the water was coming from simply mopping the floors!

13 years later the standards of installation are no better. The fittings have improved a bit, the LEDs have improved a lot in terms of colour rendering, colour stability, effective output and a more realistic life expectancy. Despite promises of massive energy efficiency improvements bouyed up by frequent announcements of massive efficiency exhibited in the laboratory the real plug top efficiency remains stubbornly around 70 Lumens per Watt for mediocre colour rendering predominantly cool white light fittings. The market is flooded with poor quality low output and often very short life fittings and supposed lamp replacement products that just do not achieve their manufacturers claims while industry lobbies and marketeers insist that LEDs are the future of lighting. I remain skeptical.

Kevan Shaw 7-7-10