I know the difference just by flicking a light switch. I don't pretend to be an engineer. Even with overhead fluorescent tubes, my old high-quality US-made GE ones lose their afterglow way way faster than the Sylvania or Phillips made-in-China substitutes, falsely claiming to also be 5000K, high CRI. And I'm stating "instant" in terms or my own perception. If they're completely off by the time it takes me to walk a few steps and fetch a piece of paper or film out of a paper safe, that's plenty fast for my purposes. I'm not referring to using LED sources in enlargers or other exposure systems. And I already mentioned the brand of LED room lighting floodlamps I'm using, which aren't cheap. About $30 apiece, and intended for color evaluation, art display purposes, and reducing eyestrain.
Another factor to consider is that CFL's were never fined-tuned and blended to the level that high-end fluorescent tubes were. They instantly gravitated into cheap consumer goods marketed as simulating "warm white" or "daylight", or whatever the BS marketing coefficient wanted people to think. Rarely were tested spectrograms published like with professional lighting, and like with
better LED lighting today. CFL bulbs barely reached their adolescent ugliness, and might not ever get beyond it. It's an interim low-E technology doomed by advances in LED options.
But this takes me back to a previous discussion, Koraks, about LED printing devices. I looked certain things up to jog my memory. The ZBE Chromira system is based on R&D at least 40 years old, involving a type of proprietary LED technology predating the kinds of off the shelf LED component options someone would choose from today if trying to make an LED enlarger head. Chromira printers are still being made today, but perhaps a little differently configured from the early ones.
I don't want to derail this present thread, but I am tempted to try the new Fuji Super C II version, which is now available in a full range of roll sizes in this country. But it's almost impossible to tell from their own literature exactly why it's "digital only". Too steep a dropoff into DMax in their opinion? - that would be an advantage to me. Different recip failure threshold than previous dual-usage
Super C? - no big deal. Doesn't dev full DMax without their own special RA4 tweak? I develop in drums, so can accommodate different time/temp variables as needed, or simply buy their own chemistry. Might need supplementary contrast masking? I can almost do that in my sleep. Maybe NOBODY has a correct PRACTICAL answer yet because it is such a small overall niche to them.
But if I have to drop two or three hundred dollars to find out the truth, well, that just comes with the territory of color printing. I've lost a lot more on other experiments. And I presume the DPii paper is lower contrast than Commercial Super C etc; but that's not available in the gloss surface I need. Somebody has to brave sailing past the Pillars of Hercules. And I've got a lot of good negs which just don't look right on the Supergloss finish I'm currently using; but those that do - Wow! It's a superb product for optical enlargements. Gotta process another big one in a few minutes. I exposed it earlier.