electricmanscott
Senior Member
- Location
- Boston, MA
I have no problem with the fixture in that picture. Maybe a violation by the letter of the law but commonsense wise it's fine. I actually like it too. :grin:
electricmanscott said:I have no problem with the fixture in that picture. Maybe a violation by the letter of the law but commonsense wise it's fine. I actually like it too. :grin:
stickboy1375 said:Yeah, its great till the insurance company finishes its investigation... :roll:
electricmanscott said:True, but I'd still do it.
JohnJ0906 said:Cmon, Stick! Next thing you are going to say this is some kind of violation -
![]()
stickboy1375 said:Hows your renters insurance by the way?:grin:
stickboy1375 said:also, are you going to install a smoke and wire the required receptacles in this non closet?
JohnJ0906 said:Just fine.
So, I can't replace that with a chandelier? :wink:
480sparky said:A couple houses I've wired have ended up in magazine spreads. It amazed me what they edit out of the images. They must Photoshop every image.
I go through and look, and say, "I KNOW there's switches there, and what happened to the light fixture that's THERE?" And there is not a single device shown in any of the kitchen shots.
brantmacga said:I've had designers bring in pictures like that. I love the ones that only show one small light fixture in the room and its obvious the recessed lights have been cropped out. Its amazing how statues and pictures in the room are magically lit up w/ invisible spot lights. We did a home awhile back where the designer only wanted two small sconces above a 6' vanity; that was the only lighting in the entire bathroom. I tried to explain that it wasn't sufficient light, but she argued that "i've done this before. . ". Anyway, we hung two tiny sconces each w/ 40w candelabra base torpedos. You had to bring a flashlight to see if the lights were on. She never would admit that it was a terrible design.
stickboy1375 said: