CRI is next to b.s. by itself, without further qualification. This is how we get craptastic lights where socks mismatch under a CRI 90+ light but not under dayl

CRI is next to b.s. by itself, without further qualification. This is how we get craptastic lights where socks mismatch under a CRI 90+ light but not under daylight. The whole point of CRI is to try to turn a complex evaluation into a simple one, and encourages ignoring the dirty filthy truth about certain kinds of light sources, i.e. its emission lines. If you compare the spectral power distribution of incandescent and daylight (sun light on earth filtered through the atmosphere) they don't look anything alike except that both are very smooth spectra. Whereas LED and fluorescent have very spikey spectra. We tend to not notice these spikes, but sometimes, depending on their location and depending on the materials being viewed under such a light source, they can have a pronounced effect that isn't predicted by CRI. CRI has been a pretty hot potato for some time with a lot of scientists trying to fix it, butting up against a lighting industry that doesn't give a flying crap about accurate color reproduction, they just want a high number CRI so they can sell their shitty lights.