Far too often, professionals focus almost solely on individuals' needs for magnification level for reading. Visual acuities are measured and decisions are made for low vision devices largely on the basis of acuity levels. Contrast sensitivity function is often overlooked as a critical need for and predictor of the selection and preference for low vision devices. This article discusses the correlation between contrast sensitivity function and illumination needs; measurements of the levels of the reflective illuminance of current illuminated stand magnifiers; and calls for further study of the relationship among contrast sensitivity function, illumination needs, and preferences for low vision devices for reading. BACKGROUND Christiansen and Gerritsen (2006, 2007) reported a strong correlation between a person's score on a test of contrast sensitivity function and his or her preferences for illumination with a low vision device for reading. For instance, persons with low scores, such as 25% or 10% on a test of contrast sensitivity function (such as the LEA test), manifested a strong preference for low vision devices with very bright illumination. These persons generally selected illuminated stand magnifiers with the brightest illumination and closed-circuit televisions (CCTVs) with the brightest screens. Persons with better scores (5% or 2.5% on a test of contrast sensitivity function) often did not need as high illumination with their low vision devices for reading. Persons with a high score (1.25%) on a such a test may select low vision devices with lower or no auxiliary illumination, such as microscopic reading glasses, loupes, or nonilluminated magnifiers. In the past, the choices of illuminated magnifiers used to be simply halogen, LED, or incandescent. Now, persons with low vision may choose among at least three types of handles (such as traditional halogen, xenon, and kryptolux). Also, there has been a proliferation of possibilities of LED handles. Previously, LED simply meant a light-emitting which is precisely what manufacturers of illuminated stand magnifiers used--a single diode. Then, some manufacturers began to use two or even three LEDs in a handle. Others began to use a chip, later followed by a multichip. Early multichips were generally 5 millimeters. In the past year, 8-millimeter multichips have been used, creating brightness in LED handles that outperforms even halogen handles. LED technology continues to evolve. In Christiansen and Gerritsen's (2006, 2007) studies, no distinction was made among various types of LED handles, largely because the range of choices was much smaller than there is now. Most units usually had a single diode, with not as great a difference among various brands or options as there is now. There were various colors (blue, white, yellow, and plum) of LEDs for illuminated stand magnifiers, but not the vast difference in intensities of LED handles that there is today. Therefore, at that time, all LEDs were included together in the category of midlevel brightness, despite slight differences in brightness. Also, no distinction was made among models that used halogen, xenon, and kryptolux bulbs. Because of the correlation between poor scores for contrast sensitivity function and individuals' preferences for illuminated stand magnifiers or CCTVs with the brightest illumination, the quest of professionals is to help individuals find the devices with the highest illumination. This study sought to measure objectively the reflectance illumination of the most common illuminated stand magnifiers, information that can be used as a resource for practitioners and individuals. The study did not measure and compare the brightness of various CCTV monitors. However, such a study would be helpful and is encouraged. PROCEDURE Careful measurements of reflectance illumination were made of the most common illuminated stand magnifiers that are on the market. …