Your eyesight goes bad. Your doctor says time for a choice.

[Heroique]

Let's say you enjoy perfect eyesight, a blessing indeed for our line of work.

Then quickly, your eyesight degenerates – in both eyes. :(

LF becomes too difficult – you decide it's time to see a doctor.

After examining your stricken eyes, your doctor, much to your relief, says don't worry, you're only aging, it's all quite natural, and he can help. He can fix your near vision, or your distant vision – not both – and prescribe spectacles for the other. He adds that you'd always need the spectacles for the type of vision you choose them for.

In a recent thread on cataract surgery (good luck, Bruce Watson), I mentioned that either choice, in the context of my personal landscape work, would be equally bad: Fix distant vision, but you'd still need spectacles for set-up, focusing, movements; contrariwise, fix near vision, but you'd still need spectacles to see distant (and not-so-distant) subjects from your tripod position. Scylla or Charybdis.

Such a choice would, of course, be based on many lifestyle considerations, not just your LF work in field, studio, and darkroom, and it would be a very personal choice indeed.

But when it comes to LF, what choice would you make – and why?

Also, would you order a special eyeglass design to ease your LF work?

[jp]

Tough.. I use the computer a lot, read, cook, setup camera equipment, I would appreciate natural closer vision. But for driving, I would prefer distant capabilities. But I also like sunglasses driving and many outdoor activities require safety or sun glasses anyways, so I suppose that could be all combined together. I guess you'd have to consider all the things you actually do in a day. I like pictorial stuff for LF, so perfect eyesight would not be a strict requirement, but my eyes are pretty good for now.

[lenser]

Having worn glasses since age 13, (five decades ago), I haven't any qualms about needing either reading or distance glasses. The frames have been a part of my life for so long that wearing them will be second nature. The choice will have to be based on which focus range will be more advantageous and that's a problem. I do a lot of computer work and love to read, so I lean that way. I also use smaller format cameras, most of which seem to be optimized for eye focus on the screens at near to medium ranges. However, the idea of being able to see at a distance without the annoyance of the damn trifocals I now wear is really attractive, so when I do get my catarcts removed, it will be a choice based on lots of consultation with the opthalmologist and anecdotal info from quite a few people who have had one or the other type of lens.

[Rory_5244]

I have myopia, so I always wore glasses and now I have presbyopia with limited ability to see close-up. I use progressive lenses optimised for infinity and normal reading distances. For looking right up at the ground glass I still have to remove the glasses. If you want progressive lenses get the best available as cheaper ones have greater 'hour-glass' distortion in the centre as the lens transitions from your near to far prescription. If you read Ctein on Michael Johnston's blog he has a description (with pictures) of a new type of glasses which allows the wearer to vary the refraction of the lens with a lever in the nose-bridge. I would have gotten one but the designs don't match my face and since I'm so vain...

Here's the link to the glasses: http://superfocus.com/

[Amedeus]

yep ... tough choice ... I'm on transitional progressive glasses and as Rory stated, get the extended progressive glasses ... well worth it ... mine are set to see the computer screen well at my normal viewing distance and then the top of the glasses is for infinity and everything else is in between. You get used real quickly to selecting the correct section in the lens for optimal viewing.

The challenge is the viewfinder of my SLR's ... all of them max out at +3 and I'm not a +3.5 and soon a 4 ... I use the viewfinders without glasses, just sliding them up on my head ... need to work on obtaining a different diopter for my cameras. For LF, I'm using a focusable loupe and that one is adjusted for my eyesight, so not an issue.

YMMV,

[Jerry Bodine]

My vision has been such that I first needed distance correction at age 21 but have slowly become more near-sighted over time. Now I can read without glasses all day long, but the computer's been getting fuzzy and distance demands correction. Then the cataracts arrived in both eyes, so I had cataract surgery in only the left eye last Halloween set up for close vision and had the left lens in my glasses remade for distance. This allowed me to pass the vision test for renewal of my driver license. Since the surgery cannot correct for astigmatism (which I have), a new lens was necessary in my frames to account for that. The right eye will be scheduled for sometime in January. Interestingly, I noticed that looking through only the repaired eye everything looked bright and bluish, but looking through the "old" right eye everything looked yellowish and dimmer. I asked the ophthalmologist about that and he said the cataract turns yellow with age and cuts the light down (think dark yellow filter). I mention this because some of you with progressing cataracts may get your color corrections messed up when working with trannies. My surgery in January should straighten things out for me. So when the oncoming headlights at night seem to coming out of a fog (i.e., lens flare), beware ... you're getting close to needing help.

BTW, one of my LF friends found that when he finally decided he needed glasses, it turned out he needed bifocals, so he had the near focus zone placed in the TOP of the lenses. That way he could comfortably view his groundglass under the darkcloth without having to tilt his back when leaning forward in order to see closeup. He's done a lot of strange things while I've known him, but that seemed to make sense to me.

[Jim Noel]

I think you are over-stressing about cataract surgery. i was the same way but am happy with my final decision.
I had both eyes done within 2 weeks. My implants are both for distance. I use +2 magnifiers from the 99cent store to read and to fine focus the cameras. I actually can see well enough w/o glasses to rough focus, or to read some text at 2-3 feet.
Having worn tri-focals for 50 years, I am more than pleased with my current vision.

[Jerry Bodine]

I think you are over-stressing about cataract surgery. i was the same way but am happy with my final decision.
I had both eyes done within 2 weeks. My implants are both for distance. I use +2 magnifiers from the 99cent store to read and to fine focus the cameras. I actually can see well enough w/o glasses to rough focus, or to read some text at 2-3 feet.
Having worn tri-focals for 50 years, I am more than pleased with my current vision.

Jim - if you're referring to my post, there's no over-stressing involved, just following doctor's recommendations. My wife had both eyes done separately (not close together) and is very satisfied with the results, same doctor, so I'm quite comfortable with his recommendations. I just didn't want to go for the driver vision test with one eye in recovery period and then the holidays following soon after.

[Pete Watkins]

Don't get stressed out. I've been short sighted since my early teens then in my early 60's cataracts arrived. Over here we have a National Health Service and I was sent to a specialist clinic where my cataracts were removed, painlessly, about a month apart. Lenses were inserted in my eyes during the procedure and corrected my short sightedness. I do need reading glasses now. The surgeon explained this to me and now instead of paying in excess of £100 for glasses for my short sight I go to the Pound Shop and get reading glasses for £1.
I developed another problem about 5 years on and membrane in my eye grew behind the lenses, this was sorted in about 1/2 hour by painless laser surgery. I'm happy as a pig in crap. I can see through a SLR without glasses but I need the reading glasses to focus the big cameras before the loupe comes out.
Pete.

[Mark Barendt]

I have had to wear glasses for distance for the last 15 years, a few years back I started needing a little close correction and that is becoming more significant.

I must say that the whole experience sucks.

Been fighting with bifocals during this time, tried progressives too but I am among the small percentage of non-adapters, they simply make me hurt, I couldn't keep them on my face for more than 20 minutes without starting a migraine. Normally I'm really quite a nice customer but I was livid when the Doc's staff told me essentially to suck it up for 2-weeks or buy new lenses myself.

I've given up on trying to make one set of glasses work, tired of tilting my head up or down to see, messing with the position on my nose, and 3 different opticians not being able to get the "line" in an acceptable spot, and quite frankly the opticians all seem to go to the same sales training that includes being told never take no for an answer.

The business model all our local offices seem to use sucks too. Based on my prior experiences I told the lady at the desk when I made my last appointment that if their sales people even mentioned transitions I'd walk out, I reminded her when I checked in, told the Doc the same thing during the appointment which she wrote in her notes, told the sales/optician the same thing as I sat down. The optician looks at the Rx and launches into his canned speech starting with "You look like a good candidate for Transitions". I walked out and got glasses elsewhere.

This next round I'm just biting the bullet and going to get 2 dedicated sets, one to see long, one to see short.

[N Dhananjay]

Similar problem here - need glasses for both up close and long distance. Growing old is not for wimps....

I tried progressives and found it quite unsettling. Tried two pairs of glasses but found it a pain to keep track of the pair not on my nose and the need to keep switching them. Eventually settled on a pair of bifocals with the line set quite high and that seems to work best for me. I sometimes have to tilt my head up a bit if my set up is very high but most of the time, it feels fairly comfortable.

Cheers, DJ

[StoneNYC]

In order to drive and get there, you need distance vision, once you're there you can take the time to wear them, I say go for distance... And wear the glasses for close up work. Plus get a special focusable loupe and you can still use that for focusing without needing to throw on the glasses.

[Mark Barendt]

Similar problem here - need glasses for both up close and long distance. Growing old is not for wimps....

I tried progressives and found it quite unsettling. Tried two pairs of glasses but found it a pain to keep track of the pair not on my nose and the need to keep switching them. Eventually settled on a pair of bifocals with the line set quite high and that seems to work best for me. I sometimes have to tilt my head up a bit if my set up is very high but most of the time, it feels fairly comfortable.

Cheers, DJ

Yes line high has been the best of the bifocal setups for me too.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Take heart, Heroique, for modern optics are very good.

I have profound astigmatism which cannot be corrected to 20/20, but I cope very well with quality tri-focals. My optometrist cringes a bit when he tests me with new spectacles because half the time they have to be remade. Always have a test with the newly ordered items.

[Dan Fromm]

Heroique, I've been near-sighted since early childhood. Less so now. So I've worn glasses nearly all of my life. First, single vision. Then, bifocals. Now, trifocals. I've tried progressives, hated them and couldn't or wouldn't adjust. My big problem with them is that when I looked at anything close the shape was distorted. For example, I saw the top of a perfectly normal ordinary cup as an oval.

If I were you, I'd try trifocals. You'll have to learn to use them, though. When first put on (I went through this with my first pair of bifocals, again with my first pair of trifocals) I thought that they were impossibly awkward. I had to look at things just so. And then I caught on.

What I don't like is that the standard distance for infinity is only 20 feet. My distance vision is corrected to 20/15 but I have trouble reading far distant road signs, can't focus on them.

[gleaf]

Have been a Bifocal fellow since 1972 (age 26) Eyes could not take the constant repetitive chalkboard to table top focus change day after day all day long. Since about age 55 or so I have had to select where I want the short range to be. Desk top, PC Monitor, car dash to go with my distance prescription. Being quite short sighted I opt to have far and Monitor / arm length in focus which includes dashboard instruments while driving. For close I use the wonders of nearsightedness. I see just fine at 1 foot uncorrected. Fellows I worked with in instruments had dual flip down lens loupes that clipped to their eyeglass frames for working small and close. See what is available in adaptive optical tools before letting the eye specialist be the only and expensive salesman.

[Bruce Watson]

...I mentioned that either choice, in the context of my personal landscape work, would be equally bad: Fix distant vision, but you'd still need spectacles for set-up, focusing, movements; contrariwise, fix near vision, but you'd still need spectacles to see distant (and not-so-distant) subjects from your tripod position. Scylla or Charybdis.

Turns out that it's not really true that either choice is equally bad. At least in my research, which as you correctly point out is current. :D

The world we work in is set up for majority conditions. Like right-handedness. And Far-sightedness. If your eyes are correct for distance vision (like the majority of people who don't need corrections), you can buy off-the-shelf sunglasses, and off-the-shelf readers. At any drug store you can find, and a lot of other stores too (the ubiquitous chain stores). So if you leave your sunglasses somewhere, drop them, sit on them, whatever... you can easily buy something to get you through. Same with reading.

But the opposite is not true. If you are corrected for near vision, and you loose your glasses, you're out of luck. You can't drive, can't see the scenery, can't do much beyond read maps and books. Off-the-shelf sun glasses are pointless in such a case, and you'll be "down" for a week or more waiting for a new pair of prescription glasses to be made. Just sayin'.

As you age, presbyopia is inevitable. At least at our current state of medicine. This means your near vision will be constantly changing, and your eyes' ability to accommodate (move the plane of fine focus nearer) will diminish. So trying to correct your near vision is a moving target. Better to track that moving target with glasses than with surgery IMHO.

Besides, once you figure out glasses, they are pretty darn useful. You can get a special pair made for you that lets you put your eyes about 5 inches away from the groundglass (5x4) that lets you see the entire ground glass without moving your head. A dynamite way to compose, and one that people who don't wear glasses struggle with even when their eyes are young and healthy. And once you have these glasses, you can get a set of flip-down jeweler's loupes (they clip to the glasses frame) that let you view the ground glass at 6x magnification like you would with a ground-glass loupe, but hands free! Again, not something the non-glasses wearers in the group can easily get away with. And yes, this is exactly the way I've been doing LF for a decade or so, so I know it works, and works really well.

I'm just sayin' that my research to date is pointing me toward good distance vision, and correcting the rest with glasses. Of course, YMMV.

Oh, yes, one other thing. Everything I'm finding out warns me away from split correction (one eye near, one eye far). Doctors and surgeons think this is cool, but don't do this to their own peers, or their children. Talk to an optometrist about this, and you'll find that people who have this done (lasik or cataract surgery) are the ones most likely to have trouble, and correcting with glasses after the fact is messy, expensive, and time consuming. My optometrist said: "Don't go there. Just don't."

[tgtaylor]

I've been wearing glasses since my mid thirties. I remember looking down a street in Des Moines, Iowa for an approaching bus and things looked "kind of blurry" way down there. Yep, I needed glasses and have been wearing them ever since. I also need glasses for reading but decided to go the dedicated distance and reading route from day one. This means always having two pairs of glasses with you as well as a third pair for sunglasses.

For my photography this translates to using the distance pair for finding and composing out of the camera. On a sunny day I often have to make a choice of whether to wear the sunglasses or the clear or carry both with me. Photographically speaking, the clear is the preferred choice but the sunglasses are physically the more comfortable. But I can't focus on the ground glass wearing glasses so whatever I'm wearing must come off...until I put the loupe to the glass and then I need the distance glasses. With the smaller 35mm and MF cameras I went with the diopter for vision correction si I have to remove my glasses to focus with them.

I guess that I'm fortunate in that my fading eyesight has so far been a mere inconvenience and has had no other impact on doing photography. Where I really notice my aging eyesight is when I'm out under the stars with the binoculars or telescope.

Thomas

[Jim Jones]

In order to drive and get there, you need distance vision, once you're there you can take the time to wear them, I say go for distance... And wear the glasses for close up work. Plus get a special focusable loupe and you can still use that for focusing without needing to throw on the glasses.

I agree. As inexpensive as reading glasses are, one can have a few for different tasks. This is cheaper and more effective than specialty glasses. I find a loupe less tiring than trying to use bifocal vision for ground glass focusing.

[Jim Jones]

. . . Oh, yes, one other thing. Everything I'm finding out warns me away from split correction (one eye near, one eye far). Doctors and surgeons think this is cool, but don't do this to their own peers, or their children. Talk to an optometrist about this, and you'll find that people who have this done (lasik or cataract surgery) are the ones most likely to have trouble, and correcting with glasses after the fact is messy, expensive, and time consuming. My optometrist said: "Don't go there. Just don't."

In the five weeks between two cataract removals, I had one eye well corrected for distant vision, and the other that focused without glasses at maybe six inches. It worked much better than expected, although I opted for good distant vision in the second cataract surgery for many reasons, including safety when driving.

[Steve Goldstein]

I gave up on transitions* after two weeks of headache-filled effort and went to bifocals, and later to trifocals, with which I've been very happy for several years now. The middle is set for computer work, but I also keep a dedicated set of bifocals configured for computer and reading (no distance) at work since I drive a computer all day. I'm sufficiently nearsighted that I just slide the glasses down on my nose for composing, then back up again for using the loupe. It's quick, painless, and became second nature very quickly.

Oh, and I have a set of bifocal sunglasses - distance and reading, no middle.

*I got those glasses at the evil empire (Lenscrafters), who guarantee happiness, so I didn't have to pay for the bifocals I got after my two weeks of hell (note they also wouldn't refund the price difference). I've since discovered that Lenscrafters is more expensive than some other places even after the 30% Eye-Med discount available through my employer, so I now take my business elsewhere.

[Brian Sims]

He can fix your near vision, or your distant vision – not both – and prescribe spectacles for the other.

By "fix" do you mean eye surgery? I know a lot of people who have had it done, but the thought of someone cutting on my eyes creeps me out. I have graduated trifocals which I can change as frequently as a I want as my eyes change. You can't do that with surgery.

Another option is contacts that correct each eye, one for distance and one for close work. Your brain figures out how to ignore the wrong eye. I have often wondered if I did that would I no longer have to shut one eye to render a scene flat?

[Heroique]

By "fix" do you mean eye surgery?

Yes, but more broadly – simply a choice between Near or Far for unaided vision, at the mandatory cost of using spectacles for the other.

In light of my personal LF habits (principally a landscaper in the mountains), it would be an agonizing choice, at least upon initial consideration.

But the posts so far have added illuminating insights either way, plus additional options.

[StoneNYC]

By "fix" do you mean eye surgery? I know a lot of people who have had it done, but the thought of someone cutting on my eyes creeps me out. I have graduated trifocals which I can change as frequently as a I want as my eyes change. You can't do that with surgery.

Another option is contacts that correct each eye, one for distance and one for close work. Your brain figures out how to ignore the wrong eye. I have often wondered if I did that would I no longer have to shut one eye to render a scene flat?

I had PRK (different than LASIK) MUCH longer recovery time, but much better results in the end, I have to say it was one of the best things I ever did, and the best $6,500 I ever spent... It's been 6 years and every day is a blessing...

[Jim Jones]

. . . Another option is contacts that correct each eye, one for distance and one for close work. Your brain figures out how to ignore the wrong eye. I have often wondered if I did that would I no longer have to shut one eye to render a scene flat?

A few days after the first cataract surgery, which left me with that eye corrected for distant vision and the other eye very nearsighted, there was no problem in near or far vision with both eyes open.

[BradS]

After examining your stricken eyes, your doctor, much to your relief, says don't worry, you're only aging, it's all quite natural, and he can help. He can fix your near vision, or your distant vision – not both – and prescribe spectacles for the other. He adds that you'd always need the spectacles for the type of vision you choose them for.

count your blessings...your Dr didn't tell you you have Gloucoma.

[Larry Gebhardt]

I had LASIK done about 8 years ago. My distance vision was corrected to 20/20. Now that I'm in my early 40s my distance vision is still good, but my close focus distance is receding. So I now need to keep my head fairly far back from the ground glass to compose. Soon I'll need reading glasses to fit under my darkcloth, or to see the details in the composition. I've always used a loupe to focus, so no change there. I've been using the reading glasses for closeup work for the last couple

If I had to choose again between closeup or distance being perfect I'd still keep my choice. It's not much of a burden to put on reading glasses, and I really like not needing contacts or glasses to go through most of my day.

[tgtaylor]

That's one of the reasons why I didn't have LASIK done years back when I was eligible to have it done. Your eyes change as you age and there was a risk, albeit small, that something could go wrong and your vision would be adversely affected. With glasses there is zero risk. Back then I was doing astronomy which meant that I had to put the glasses on to see the sky and take them off to look through the eyepiece - the same scenario as with the subject and the ground glass. Alter all these years of clenching my eyeglasses in my mouth when switching, my New Years resolution is to (finally) break down and buy neck strap for eyeglasses.

Thomas

[Cor]

About the only positive part about my eyesight (I have 2 different vari focus glasses (transitions): one for normal wear one for computer work) is if I take of my glasses can focus on the ground glass quite well, no need for a loupe..I still am a bit concerned if I am not fooling myself, but if I put on my glasses and use a loupe it's still spot on.

Also the occasional repair of a compur shutter works quite well with my glasses off..

best,

Cor

[Steve Smith]

I have worn glasses since I was nine (forty years ago) until now as I have changed to contact lenses.

Being short sighted with glasses is great for LF as if you take the glasses off, you have instant good close up vision - and the worse the short sightedness, the better the close up vision.

However, with contact lenses, I now need reading glasses for close up. I can still read books and computer screens without them but for close up, extra positive Dioptres are needed.


if I take of my glasses can focus on the ground glass quite well, no need for a loupe..I still am a bit concerned if I am not fooling myself, but if I put on my glasses and use a loupe it's still spot on.

I'm sure you're not fooling yourself as removing negative Dioptres is the same as adding positive Dioptres. It's probably better to do it with fewer lenses than extra lenses so the non-glasses method will probably be better.


If I had to choose again between closeup or distance being perfect I'd still keep my choice. It's not much of a burden to put on reading glasses, and I really like not needing contacts or glasses to go through most of my day.

If you started with 20/20 vision rather than had it corrected by laser, you would probably still be in the same situation now. Reduction in close up focusing is due to the eye's lens becoming less flexible.


Steve.

[Racer X 69]

I'm fortunate that I still read the bottom line on the eye chart every other year when I get a physical to renew my CDL medical certificate.

But about 15 years ago while rebuilding a carburetor I was trying to read the numbers stamped on the jets. For some odd reason I found my arms weren't long enough anymore, and even if they were, at that distance the small stuff can't really be read anyway. I added an illuminated magnifier to my toolbox.

Over time my close up vision degraded to the point where the magnifier wasn't convenient enough.

So I picked up some of those cheap reading glasses at the five and dime.

Now I have a pair in each of my cars, my pickup, my truck, my toolbox in the shop, next to the computer at my desk, a pair that I carry with me everywhere, and a backup pair somewhere.

I even have safety glasses with the cheaters built into them.

If I suddenly find myself without my readers I am blind closeup. Everything is blurry.

And lately I find that in a darkened room everything is blurry. So I asked the ophthalmologist during a checkup what he could do. Now I have a "prescription" set of glasses for watching TV in the evening, and they have the bifocals built into them.

They also work well when using the camera gear, the combination of the light prescription and bifocal helps me to focus, and move from looking at the close up things to the near distant stuff easily and quickly. I still find the need to either look over the top of them or remove them while outside in the daylight.

And when doing closeup detail work I am now finding the need for the jeweler's magnifiers.

Getting old can suck if you let it get to you.

Or you simply adapt and keep on doing what you love to do.

[catalinajack]

If you have the money and are willing to pay for them, lenses can be manufactured for each that will correct vision in the same way as contact lens. The doc will use an optical scanner to precision map each eye's shape so that the lenses can be made to correct the specific aberrations in each eye, rather than merely correcting for distance or near vision. Cost? $2,500 per eye when I had it done three years ago. Does it work? Yes, no glasses needed for terrific vision.

[Graham Patterson]

I have two sets of glasses, one for general wear, and one for reading/computer work. I have had short sight since my first decade, so wearing glasses has become normal. The reading glasses are not good enough for fine work (punching down ethernet cables, viewing ground glass screens), so I use a set of flip-up magnifiers on my general glasses. That way I have easy general vision, and my close-up work benefits from the astigmatism correction in my normal prescription.

I'd rather deal with the extra expense and minor inconvenience of multiple pairs than use bi/tri/transitional lenses at the moment. But I reserve the right to change my mind!

[Tin Can]

I wear Transitions with progressive and would never let anybody cut my eyes. Transitions are very dangerous when riding a motorcycle into a tunnel, they don't change fast enough. First time was insanity. Now I stop.

I am now 63 and my eye doctor tells me my eyes are getting better! I once was -8 and now -6, he claims this is normal. I still need glasses.

I find I focus best with them off and stick my face as close as possible to GG. Loupes don't really help, I use a Mamiya C3 focus hood when needed.

Last night I was doing some tinkering and I thought maybe I should try those LED Headlights I bought months ago. The Headlights were amazing and I am now going to use them all the time, of course they are not for focusing...

[E. von Hoegh]

Let's say you enjoy perfect eyesight, a blessing indeed for our line of work. (snip)

Let's not. In my right eye, without glasses or other aids I can focus from about 11 to about 14 inches. My left eye is more or less fixed at about 12 inches. Both eyes are astigmatic, I've never had normal vision or anything near it. I work with what I have.

[Harley Goldman]

I would always take sharp distance vision and reading glasses over the converse. I value being able to enjoy the scenery, drive, wear non-prescription sunglasses, etc without glasses. I would be willing to have to put on reading glasses to view the ground glass, read, etc. But of course, that is my preference. Yours may differ.

[Curt]

I can only say a couple hundred things about glasses, lenses, frames, and contacts but I won't. Optometrist or Ophthalmologist?

Contacts for extreme astigmatism: No
Cheap frames: No
Split bifocals: No
Hoya progressives: No
Varilux progressives: Yes
Transitions: No & No; explaination: My Ophthalmologist said transitions are not recommended for photographers, transitions are not recommended for driving in a vehicle in bright sunlight. They do not turn dark enough to protect the eyes. So it's Varilux and clipon's.
Convenient? No, no, no, no, and no.

What? I can't hear you! Sir I need hearing aids Sir, I still can't hear you!! Maybe you need them too, Sir.
Anyone have five grand for a pair? I need them badly. That's a little off topic.

[Drew Bedo]

In 2002 My eyesite went from best corrected at 20/35 to 20/200 over just a few days due to a stroke that affested only the optic serve. LF photography is much harder now, but I stil do it. Check out some of my images on www.artsyhome.com


To the OP, Heroique: Loss of vision is traumatic at any level of loss. Whatever you do regarding correction—keep shooting. Your creative vision may change as your vision changes, but keep doing photogrpahy.

[Blooze]

I feel sympathy for anyone with eyesight issues. I was diagnosed with keratoconus at age 13 in May of my HS freshman year. By the start of the school year in August I couldn't differentiate my fingers from anything else in both eyes no matter how close I held them to my face. 4 cornea transplants and 7 other surgeries later (I'm 44) my vision is correctable to 20/20 in my left eye, which is nearsighted, and 20/50 in my right eye, which is farsighted. My depth perception can get really interesting with my glasses off as you can imagine. I'm pretty much stuck with glasses as I've tried all the but the newest types of contacts which came out in the last two years and are very expensive per year, totally out of my budget. They make my progressive lenses look quite cheap. I've also never been a candidate for any kind of laser surgery until yesterday. Speaking with my new ophthalmologist yesterday they have come out with a new software upgrade for the ablation lasers that will do precise, specific correction based on orbscan mapping which is essential with my lopsided corneas Something I will definitely be looking into in the future.

Although I haven't yet gotten my feet wet in LF photography, I can say that I enjoy using my Yashica TLR's with the magnifying loupe to focus much more than any other camera I own. It's entirely easier to do, which is one reason I'm looking at getting a 4x5 in the next year.

[rdenney]

I've been wearing glasses for astigmastism since I was 7 or 8. Now, they are trifocals.

But they don't work for me. I have a congenital muscle imbalance that means I cannot fuse my vision (aka, binocular vision) when looking down or to the left. Bifocals require me to look down, so I end up reading and other things with one eye unfocused and unaimed. After a few minutes of that, it takes 10 or 15 minutes for that eye to focus on anything, near or far.

I've never not required glasses when using a camera.

For computers, I have glasses corrected to the middle lens on my trifocals for the whole lens. I use the same correction for playing music. The doc asked me why I couldn't just look up or down to read the music, when I told him I played tuba, and the tuba dictates where the face is, and the face dictates where the glasses are. I have trouble seeing fine movements of the conductor, though. Oh, well!

I may at some point have a pair made that have a very close correction over the whole lens, and use those for fine work. But that won't work, probably, for photography.

My standard strategy is to cuss loudly, throw my worthless glasses across the room, cuss some more, go find my glasses, cuss some more, whine to my wife, etc. Keeps me happy.

Rick "too afraid of the surgical options" Denney

[Tin Can]

Way too afraid to cut my eyes. Read up on what happened in Japan and elsewhere when Doctors started practicing...

Air bags are also rough on thinned eyeballs.

@ Rick D, top of the eyeglass or occupational lens can work real well, if you get used to it.

I just look at everything at 'viewing distance' and it all looks fine to me.

[Blooze]

Way too afraid to cut my eyes. Read up on what happened in Japan and elsewhere when Doctors started practicing...



Unfortunately in my case the initial surgeries were not an option. They have alternative treatments for the disease now if caught in time that can reduce the need to cut, but once it's done it's too late to try those. My vision will be bad enough in a few years that I'll be back to not being able to drive even with my glasses on, then I get to make the hard decision again.

[Tin Can]

I figure I may be a blind old man soon enough. Getting glasses at age 7 moved me from 'stupid' and the back of the school room to the front row, where I stayed. I often practice not seeing.

Good luck!


Unfortunately in my case the initial surgeries were not an option. They have alternative treatments for the disease now if caught in time that can reduce the need to cut, but once it's done it's too late to try those. My vision will be bad enough in a few years that I'll be back to not being able to drive even with my glasses on, then I get to make the hard decision again.

[faberryman]

I consider myself lucky. I wore glasses for years but as my eyes (and everything else) aged, I developed monovision. I can see clearly close up with my right eye and clearly at distance with my left eye, so now I don't wear glasses at all. My brain just chooses which eye to use depending on what I am focused on. I've heard some optometrists prescribe contacts with distance correction in one eye and close-up correction in the other eye for the same purpose. Something you may want to discuss with your eye doctor. May not apply to your particular vision problem, but it's worth asking about.

My vision was (and is) too important to me to risk (however slight) undergoing laser surgery to correct my sight.

[Michael Rosenberg]

I am blind in my left eye, and had cataract surgery on the right in 2011. The surgeon recommended an implant that would be for distance vision, and I would need reading glasses for near vision. Well, I still needed glasses for distance, and transition lenses for near vision don't meet all my needs, particularly working with my view camera (let alone the computer). If I had to do it over I would have the lens implant for near vision, and then needed glasses for distance (I still would have to wear sunglasses regardless).

I my experience helps you come to a decision.

[mlatterich]

I thought this day would never come, having had corrective lenses for myopic me all my life - I learned keeping the glasses on while focusing through a prism view finder or focusing loupe, and taking them off when focusing the image on the ground glass, putting them back on when I had to set shutter and aperture. This last year, I discovered the need for reading glasses - and am seriously considering bifocals or progressives.

Considering I shoot mostly architecture and landscapes, it is important I see straight lines :-) - heard great things about the Verilux S-fit progressives, but also heard great things about the Zeiss Individual. Has anybody compared the two? What kind of layout do you all prefer - top for long distance, bottom for near vision? I would expect to just use one pair for driving, reading and photography, unless this is too difficult.

Has anybody noticed an issue when using a prism view finder or a focusing loupe with progressives? I suppose we use the distance vision correction for this type of focusing?

Any help is greatly appreciated - I am about to pack all my LF gear and drive to my optometrist's office ... ;-) - but I can be convinced by your personal experiences.

[Bob Salomon]

I thought this day would never come, having had corrective lenses for myopic me all my life - I learned keeping the glasses on while focusing through a prism view finder or focusing loupe, and taking them off when focusing the image on the ground glass, putting them back on when I had to set shutter and aperture. This last year, I discovered the need for reading glasses - and am seriously considering bifocals or progressives.

Considering I shoot mostly architecture and landscapes, it is important I see straight lines :-) - heard great things about the Verilux S-fit progressives, but also heard great things about the Zeiss Individual. Has anybody compared the two? What kind of layout do you all prefer - top for long distance, bottom for near vision? I would expect to just use one pair for driving, reading and photography, unless this is too difficult.

Has anybody noticed an issue when using a prism view finder or a focusing loupe with progressives? I suppose we use the distance vision correction for this type of focusing?

Any help is greatly appreciated - I am about to pack all my LF gear and drive to my optometrist's office ... ;-) - but I can be convinced by your personal experiences.

I have been using Varilux progressive Tri vocals for years with no problem, other then having to buy them as my VA hospital only gives out Tri vocals. Those bother me.

[Richard Wasserman]

I use Zeiss progressive lenses and have been very happy with them. Bottom for near, top for far. I have no problem using a loupe or focus aid under the enlarger. I generally take them off for reading, because I can see better, but that's my eyes and not the lenses. I found the time to adjust to them was short and fairly painless.

[djdister]

I have myopia and use Varilux progressive lenses through a prism viewfinder and in all cases except when looking at the GG or with a loupe - no need for glasses then.

[cowanw]

Having had my cataracts done and using progressive glasses for closeup, I have also found a 4+ monocle to be of great use as an alternative to read GG or set fstops.
The best I have found so far have come from Britain.
http://www.themonocleshop.com/

[sun of sand]

Remove the eyeballs
Wear eye patches
Don't fix nothin
Not a damn thing
Continue with large format
Become a sensation
Grow old
Rich
Divorce
Buy new eyeballs
Enjoy your golden years with 30-somethings

[Jac@stafford.net]

For the record, I have profound astigmatism and my eyes have never been correctable to 20/20, but somehow I've managed photography of all kinds for fifty years. Trifocals are the rule for me, and a 4X loupe is just right. For reasons I cannot understand a more powerful loupe does not work as well. Others might find the same.

Cataracts are a whole different story. Thanks for those who commented. This has become a precious thread. And the monocle idea is terrific!
.

[mlatterich]

Thank you so much for your help and the encouragement! Short of taking my eyes out and replacing them with a CMOS sensor, or better yet, an eye-shaped polaroid camera, I will go the progressive lens route and also invest in that monocle. Great suggestions!

[neil poulsen]

I think that we're lucky if a vision problem can be corrected with eye-glasses. In this case, I would do whatever it takes. Get one, two or three pairs of glasses. We're very fortunate to have this option so readily available.

The real problems begin, when this is not the case. Examples would include (I think) cataracts, astigmatism (?), retinal detachment, etc. In this regard, I've twice dodged the bullet. First in the left eye, and then later in the right eye, my vitreous humor separated from the retina. The risk in these cases are that this separation can lead to a detached retina, crumpling of the retina, etc. Skipping a lot of technical stuff, I still have quite good eyesight. And, I plan to do as much photography as I can, while I can.

If indeed I were to end up blind (though not likely), I want to at least have the satisfaction of leaving behind a decent body of work.

[Wayne]

You can wear glasses or contacts to correct for astigmatism though there may be extreme cases where you can't

[Tin Can]

I have to agree, that modern glasses are a miracle in my life. I was considered an idiot until I was 7 when somebody finally figured out I couldn't see.

When I put on the first pair, my life changed immediately. I had thought everybody was doing magic tricks...on the chalkboard. I was placed in the rear of the class as a troublemaker.

And now, GG focus is very clear to me at 1.5 inches. No loupe necessary.

I consider them safety glasses as they have protected my eyes many times since.

We need a survey on how many photographers have poor vision. :)

[AtlantaTerry]

About 10 years ago I had cataract surgery on both eyes which had been stained yellow by chemotherapy.

The doctors said they could use the implants to allow me to see sharp either at a distance or close-up, but not both.

Since I was about 9 years old I could not see anything sharp unless it was about as close as the tip of my nose. So I immediately knew I wanted to be able to see the world sharp without glasses and would use corrective lenses for reading or other close work.

The surgery went well and I have been using inexpensive 1/2 frame +1.50 diopter reading glasses only when needed.

[Jim Jones]

I finally yielded to my ophthalmologist's recommendation to get cataract surgery at age 81. It was like removing a K1 filter, 8 diopter built-in close-up adapter, and diffuser from my eyes. The main downside was the loss of what little close focusing remained. For the month between operations, one eye was corrected and the other not. Adapting to this was easy, although I opted to have both eyes corrected to distant vision. Glasses continue to correct for considerable astigmatism and to provide bifocals.

[Drew Bedo]

[QUOTE=Heroique;1091197But when it comes to LF, what choice would you make – and why?

Also, would you order a special eyeglass design to ease your LF work?[/QUOTE]


Choice?
In 2002 I lost effective vision in both eyes within a few days. Right eye has paraciaclly nothing and the left one is at 20/200.

I use a 4x5 zone VI and an 8x10 Kodak 2D. I work slow. While I do some landscape photography, my best work has been with intimate compositions such as table top or building interiors.

Focus is the single most difficult element of the process (well sometimes the most difficult thing is screwing the camera to the tripod!). I often place a high contrast target in the composition, usually a bar code panel, to help determine what is in and whats out . . . and I work slow.

Even if you do not have a choice re near vs far, if you can see light and dark I think there may be a way. Several years ago I corresponded with a photographer in England who shot cathedral interiors using preset hyperfocal set-ups. He set the precalculated extension with a pre cut stick between the front and rear standard.

[rdenney]

Drew, a laser pointer helps by providing a bright dot on a near-field scene that is easy to see on ground glass even at f45. I have a really bright green one that works well.

A Maxwell screen really helped me. I still use a tilting loupe for critical focus, and a really good Blackjacket hood.

Progressives made me sick, and I wear regular trifocals in daily life, bifocals (medium and close) for desk work, and single-focus (at music-stand distance) for playing music. And I cuss at glasses routinely. But what are you gonna do?

Rick "whose astigmatism defeats contacts" Denney

[StoneNYC]

Drew, a laser pointer helps by providing a bright dot on a near-field scene that is easy to see on ground glass even at f45. I have a really bright green one that works well.

A Maxwell screen really helped me. I still use a tilting loupe for critical focus, and a really good Blackjacket hood.

Progressives made me sick, and I wear regular trifocals in daily life, bifocals (medium and close) for desk work, and single-focus (at music-stand distance) for playing music. And I cuss at glasses routinely. But what are you gonna do?

Rick "whose astigmatism defeats contacts" Denney

Umm... Can't lazer pointer light make you blind?...

[Jac@stafford.net]

Drew, a laser pointer helps by providing a bright dot on a near-field scene that is easy to see on ground glass even at f45.

Does the fact that laser light is within the deep red spectrum throw off focus accuracy?
.

[Drew Bedo]

Well, I think rdenny is using a green laser and shining it on something in the composition from his place behind the camera.

People have modified the rangefinder on late model speed graphics to throw laser light onto the subject through the RF windows. When the spots coincide, the image is in focus.

Do I have that right?

[StoneNYC]

Well, I think rdenny is using a green laser and shining it on something in the composition from his place behind the camera.

People have modified the rangefinder on late model speed graphics to throw laser light onto the subject through the RF windows. When the spots coincide, the image is in focus.

Do I have that right?

OH! Yes I see what you mean now, my misunderstanding. Thanks!

[rdenney]

Umm... Can't lazer pointer light make you blind?...

It's not pointed at your eye. It's pointed at the scene. You focus on the bright dot it creates.

Rick "who uses them in Kalarts, too" Denney

[rdenney]

Well, I think rdenny is using a green laser and shining it on something in the composition from his place behind the camera.

People have modified the rangefinder on late model speed graphics to throw laser light onto the subject through the RF windows. When the spots coincide, the image is in focus.

Do I have that right?

Check.

Rick "who doubts red would create a focus shift of any importance" Denney

[Jim C.]

Just out of curiosity has anyone encountered hi index eyeglass lenses that doesn't exhibit distortion at the edges ?

[Tin Can]

Just out of curiosity has anyone encountered hi index eyeglass lenses that doesn't exhibit distortion at the edges ?

No, but I can't see out the edges anyway.

Actually we use a tiny area of the whole lens. The rest is eye shield for me. I turn my head to see.