本出版物讨论了太阳能实用日光源的最新技术 比色法。它提供了有关这些灯具和照明设备的信息 在视觉评估和仪器测量中，非荧光和 荧光样本。灯具、展位和分光光度计的供应商提供了一些关于 日光源。四家机构的技术委员会成员和顾问对其余部分进行了衡量。 这些机构是德比大学（英国），香港理工学院。 大学（香港，中国），PANNION大学（VESZPREM，匈牙利） SENAI/CETIQT（巴西里约热内卢）。报告从这些数据得出结论，实际的日光来源是 符合相关国家标准和 视觉评估和仪器测量的国际标准。 过滤钨灯、过滤氙气灯和荧光灯目前提供最好的照明效果 视觉评估的结果。脉冲过滤氙气可提供最佳效果 仪器测量。发光二极管（LED）光源可能显示为 在不久的将来，这两种应用都有可行的替代方案。将任何特定光源标准化为“最能代表日光”是不可取的 推荐。这两种材料的光谱特性存在显著差异 目前在视觉评估中使用的来源和仪器评估中使用的来源 测量这些差异在渲染图像时会产生很大的差异 标本的颜色，尤其是荧光标本。

This publication discusses the state-of-the-art of practical daylight sources for colorimetry. It provides information on these lamps and devices used for illumination in the visual evaluation and instrumental measurement of non-fluorescent and fluorescent specimens.Suppliers of lamps, booths and spectrophotometers provided some of the data on daylight sources. TC members and advisors at four institutions measured the rest. These institutions are the University of Derby (UK), the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Hong Kong, China), the University of Pannonia (Veszprem, Hungary) and SENAI/CETIQT (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil).The report concludes from these data that practical daylight sources are commercially available that satisfy the criteria of the relevant national and international standards for both visual evaluation and instrumental measurement. Filtered tungsten, filtered xenon and fluorescent lamps currently provide the best results for visual evaluation. Pulsed filtered xenon provides the best results for instrumental measurements. Light-emitting diode (LED) sources may appear as viable alternatives for both applications in the not too distant future.Standardization of any particular source as "best representing daylight" is not recommended. There are significant differences between the spectral properties of the sources currently used in visual evaluation and the sources used in instrumental measurement. These differences produce large differences in the rendering of colours of specimens, especially fluorescent specimens.