Yes You can get the similar vignette mode in the Lightroom.

Here is an example for what happens when using "blue light hazard" metrics with LED to OLED.

Here's an iPad Pro:
https://fluxometer.com/rainbow/#!id=iPad Pro/6500K-iPad Pro&action=BlueLightHazard
0.0930 µW/cm2/lux

An iPhone X:
https://fluxometer.com/rainbow/#!id=iPhone X/6500K-iPhone X&action=BlueLightHazard
0.0808 µW/cm2/lux

The second screen would be "safe" according to one industry standard, but the change is only 13% less "hazard" light with the second spectrum.

But because these things happen over orders of magnitude - if there is a problem, you want 90% less harmful light or 99% less, not 13%.

Dimming your screen can do this kind of thing (and f.lux can do part of it too).

f.lux needs your approximate location to know when it's day and night. You don't have to specify it exactly - but give it a nearby city to work with, and it will do much better.

This is a 3 channel meter and only the OEM meter (which we ship directly) works. The retail one is not licensed for this.

If you want a spectrometer the retail version does work.

Did you succeed in finding some old cfl bulbs to use?

@Tungsten_smooth did you find the bulbs you were looking for? I too am interested in smooth, high aqua lights, but bios has terrible international shipping and SORAA I haven't checked out yet.

Thanks for the tip!!

Mainly it depends on the sensor.

We are supporting drag and drop upload of CSVs now, but you would need enough channels.

If you have 40 channels it's great, but like <10 you'd probably want to do your own fit.

status punjabi. Excellent share! I got helpful information

@herf Thanks for your reply... I guess I'll have to get an i1 Studio then.

Hi David - yes we have a long list of things to add to the client software. I regard the current efforts in the display industry as largely nonsense not founded in good science, and I will try to clarify why.

The main reason is that "ratio" is not a risk - instead, "dose" (total photons absorbed) is how risk is measured.

If you are concerned about hazard standards, you need a meter that can respond to extremely high light levels (usually as a spot meter), and currently the meters we recommend cannot do this. So for our research partners who are actually measuring hazard levels, we do not want to misrepresent our capabilities.

But what we are talking about here is the idea from people in the displays industry that levels 50x lower than the international standards may pose a risk, and simply put: there is no documented hazard at normal display radiance levels.

We can compute a hazard factor at lower light levels, but we do not think the TUV/etc. focus on this single number is appropriate, because it ignores overall radiance level. The retina is known to respond to total photons absorbed, not to a ratio, so without a measurement that corresponds to actual ICNIRP dose levels, we should not endorse a metric like this.

As for your worry that f.lux is not adequate: f.lux by default reduces the hazard factor by more than 90% (exceeding the levels of 10-20% that are being used in the market), so I would not worry about us in that regard. If there is a problem in these ranges, we are doing something to help, and I would submit that reducing this light by 10-20% does not do very much at all.

You can choose "Blue Light Hazard" from the blue action spectrum menu, e.g.,: https://fluxometer.com/rainbow/#!id=iPad Pro/6500K-iPad Pro&action=BlueLightHazard

IEC62471 specifies that there is no BLH under 500 lux for large sources, so there is just not much to say about computer displays.

The candela is an SI unit, so even though it's an imperfect measure, everyone is going to use "lux" forever.

The metric you reference is "actinic power per lux" and gives you a relative measure of how much of the action spectrum is active at a certain intensity level. Many many people have "lux meters", and lights are often specified in terms of lux, so this gives a way to compare two lights at the same lux level.