Loss of eyesight at 40 and keepers for over 40's a coincidence?

[Leonard Metcalf]

I only noticed my lack of focus at short distances last month, and quickly went in for my annual eyesight tests. The optician told me that most peoples eyes deteriorate at 42/3. Which made me reflect on the comments in an article by Brooks Jenson "How old is too old?" where he outlines the ages of many photographers when they took their famous images... the long and the short of the article was most were over 40.

Anyway I was just wondering if the coincidence between the ages and the loss of eyesight had much to do with it?

Many painters lose their eyesight, and their paintings often undergo a subtle transformation.

Any thoughts on this one?

Len

[Walter Calahan]

Can't wait till I'm completely blind, then I'll probably make my best images. HA!

[BrianShaw]

I don't listen to what optomotrists say anymore. When I was 45 I went in for my regular check of my mild case of myopia and the optomotrist asked why I didn't wear bi-focals. I explained that I was having no problem with accomodation and reading. He said "well, you should by now". That evening (not exactly, but it makes for a better story) I went home and couldn't read while wearing my glasses. I've worn bi-focals ever since and HATE them.

[MIke Sherck]

I had the same inclination to speculate a few years ago, when I noticed difficulty focusing at close distances myself. It has definately slowed me down, so perhaps that has something to do with it. I can no longer just glance at the ground glass: I have to look and move around a bit to focus (it's a matter of opinion as to whether bifocal glasses are more help or hindrance,) and I think that this alone makes me more aware of corners and edges. One item which you may or may not find useful as you get older and your eyesight continues to change: at some point you may find yourself where you can find a certain distance under the focusing cloth at which the image on the glass is fuzzy and indistinct. You may start seeing the masses and forms more easily without the distraction of all that detail. I think that it depends on your own particular vision abberations whether this happens for you or not, and of course whether you want it to or not, but the point is that aging eyesight has different effects for different people and some may find certain advantages in it which others don't. Your mileage may vary. :)

mjs

[Ralph Barker]

Interesting question. It might have to do with the fact that once you have to actually concentrate on seeing something, you slow down and start seeing more. Or, it could be one of life's little ironies. Once you've been at it long enough to really start refining your "vision", your other vision starts to go. The flip side of the coin, of course, is the effect of the single-minded passion of youth on art.

[robc]

its probably because once you can't resolve sharpness or resolution in anything, then you begin to pay attention to the important things in an image and give up being a print sniffer.

[John Kasaian]

Leonard,

My Bride suspects that that is the reason I finally married---in order to have someone around who can read the telephone book for me ;)

Bi-focals are indeed a trip. The first time out with 'em when driving can really create some work for body & fender shops---and watch out for those cement parking bumpers when walking across the parking lot to the car your are about to destroy.

A better idea is get someone to drive you home from the optometrist and swing by the cemetary to practice driving in an envirement where, if you do run over anyone they'll be dead anyway and not llikely to complain. Especially practice using the passenger side rearview mirror. For some reason that mirrors' "objects are closer that they appear" caveat is especially so when viewed through bi-focals. I'm getting dizzy just thinking about it!

For focusing on the gg, adapt! You'll do just fine.

As for changes in your photographic work, I know that in my case I find myself using longer lenses more aften as my field of vision has narrowed, perhaps because I'm used to seeing a narrower view rather than the wider view of more youthful eyes.

Hey, aging ain't for wimps!

[Brian Ellis]

There's a theory that Ansel Adams' prints became more dramatic - blacker blacks, whiter whites, fewer gentle mid-tone transitions (to the detriment of the photographs) as he got older and couldn't see as well.

And for decades photographic historians have been baffled by the fact that in his old age Adams' photographs started appearing on coffee cans. Maybe you've solved the riddle, i.e. his vision got so bad that he couldn't distinguish between a coffee can and photographic paper.

[Dan Ingram]

I was reading a map last year when I suddenly realized I was 45! I've never worn glasses (even sunglasses very much) so using reading glasses has been a big transition for me. However, it's been a bonus as far as photography goes, because I can see the ground glass (lupe-less) and compose much better than before. The only problem now is getting the glasses tangled up in the dark cloth (I guess this makes me a glasses newbie.)

Dan "Magoo" Ingram

[Greg Miller]

I got reading glasses at 42. The anecdotal evidence that I have sugggests that the 42/43 theory is accurate (My eye doctor dais somewhere between 38 & 42 and to be happy my eyes waited until 42).

My vision is very good except for reading small text or in dim light - I went to the eye doctor when I couldn't read the box scores in he morning paper anymore. So its a hassle to carry around glasses for the times I need to read the unexpected text that pops up.

I can see the ground glass OK but I have learned to use my loupe to set the aperture on my lens.

[Jim MacKenzie]

I just got bifocals (well, progressive lenses) this year... and I'm only 38.

I've been wearing glasses since I was 4, so it wasn't a huge problem... but it does take some adaptation.

I can focus well at 1 metre (the visual distance of most focusing screens for smaller formats) without assistance... but I always use a loupe when I am using LF (and truthfully, I started shooting LF after I got the new glasses). I need the magnification to attain critical focus on a dark ground glass.

I don't see the glasses being a real problem to my photography.

[Joe Smigiel]

Ditto on the 43 thing. Bifocals at first then about two years later my optometrist informed me I would be "an absolute presbyope" within six months and would need the holy trifocals. Imagine my chagrin being a recovering Catholic and all...

But, it probably contributed to my desire to go ULF and abandon 35mm and that newfangled digital stuff. My success rate has increased significantly with the move to larger cameras and bigger viewing screens. Increased film cost per exposure and the fact I developed each sheet individually in a tray also made me slow down and use the film more judiciously.

[Jack Flesher]

I remember very specifically the day I turned 40... It was my birthday -- a big one -- and I had just sat down with the morning paper and my cup of coffee ready to begin a relaxing day. And for the first time ever, I could NOT read the scores! Seriously, I swear I could read that small print the day before, but I hit 40 and wham,it was all over LOLOLOL!

I went in, had my eyes checked and when he was done the optometrist gave me a prescription for DS 100's. I ask him what DS 100's are and he replied "Dime store 1.00 reading glasses." Smart ass...

Anyway, I hit 50 and now use 1.75's for every day and keep a set of 2.00's in my camera bag. Those and a 10x loupe help a lot ;)

[Brian Ellis]

"I remember very specifically the day I turned 40... It was my birthday."

Really? How unusual. : - )

[Jack Flesher]

"I remember very specifically the day I turned 40... It was my birthday."

Really? How unusual. : - )

Okay, another comedian just like my optometrist!

:D,

[Donald Qualls]

Well, I'm 46, almost 47, and I don't wear bifocals. I wear small-lensed glasses for myopia, and when I need to read something too close to focus, I just look over the glasses and get *really* close. And when I'm working on tiny shutter parts, a pair of +2.75 readers replacing my usual -3.75 distance glasses is like wearing a stereo microscope. However, for routine things, going from reading a paperback to driving, I'm just fine with my current glasses (which, however, are an 8 year old presciption -- I wore rigid contacts for seven of those eight years).

[Ole Tjugen]

I'm another myopic.

My optometrist agreed that the time to get bifocals is when my nose gets too short to read by just sliding the glasses further down my nose, or the arms get too short. Until then I'll put up with my wife joking about my "focussing nose".

[Leonard Metcalf]

John, perhaps that explains why I sold my 57mm wide angle, and so rarely use my 80mm... (hmmm)

[N Dhananjay]

I think its just a correlation (or one of life's little ironies, as pointed out earlier). Maybe its just that you're older, so your eyes are getting on, but you've also been at photography longer and have the ability to make better and better images.

I'm aware of the romantic appeal of the young swashbuckling hero making sweeping changes in an area because of some innate talent. The reality is otherwise - it does take time to acquire expertise. If I'm remembering correctly, the research is that it typically takes about ten years to attain expertise (that's snot ten years of just being at something, but ten years of solid practise - setting aside time everyday to work on specific problems till you get good at it - e.g., practising scales etc). So, I would fully expect that the older you get, the more likely you are to be doing better work.

Cheers, DJ

[Paul Coppin]

Enjoy your bifocals, while you can...:( Wait till you get to experience of trying to focus with cataracts etc. There's a reason why autofocusing cameras are popular, especially with the geriatric set... :)

[BrianShaw]

I think its just a correlation (or one of life's little ironies, as pointed out earlier). Maybe its just that you're older, so your eyes are getting on, but you've also been at photography longer and have the ability to make better and better images.

I'm aware of the romantic appeal of the young swashbuckling hero making sweeping changes in an area because of some innate talent. The reality is otherwise - it does take time to acquire expertise. If I'm remembering correctly, the research is that it typically takes about ten years to attain expertise (that's snot ten years of just being at something, but ten years of solid practise - setting aside time everyday to work on specific problems till you get good at it - e.g., practising scales etc). So, I would fully expect that the older you get, the more likely you are to be doing better work.

Indeed, DJ! Just to expand on one of your thoughts... it's not just having the ime (or good sense) to set aside time everyday (or however often) to work on specific problems, it is the wisdom (or good sense) to know: what problems to work; the criteria for great, good, and good-enuf; how to work the problem in the most effective way; and when one should move on to working the next specific problem.

[Leonard Evens]

What happens to EVERYONE after about 40 is loss of the ability to accomodate. Small muscles in your eye automatically adjust the shape of a structure called the lens and that allows you to focus anywhere from infinity to ten inches or less. With age, the lens becomes less flexible and you gradually lose your ability to focus. This is called presybyopia. The nearest point at which you can focus gradually moves further out, and when it gets so far away that you can't read or even look at things at arms length, you need corrective lenses. But this has no effect on distance vision. Even with complete loss of accomodation, the hyperfocal distance for your eye in normal lighting is close enough that everything from from several feet to infinity will be in focus.

Presybyopia, by itself, should have no effect on viewing a typical photographic scene, all of which is going to be at least several feet away. Of course, you would have problems with looking at a ground glass or camera controls without corrective lenses. Typically people get bifocals or similar lenses which allow both distance vision and close vision by changing which part of the glasses' lenses you look through. This becomes second nature pretty quickly. For people with no other problems, the part of the lens for distance vision would have no correction and the part for near vision would vary from 1.25 to 2.5 diopters. If something happened to the work of some photographers when they reached 40, it wasn't because of presybyopia.

Of course, other things can also go wrong with the eye at any age. You may become nearsighted (myopia) or far sighted (hyperopia). That means, with your eye relaxed for normal distance vision, the image is formed either in front (for myopia) or in back (for hyperopia). The inability to focus simultaneously on vertical and horizontal lines is called astigmatism. All of this can be corrected by appropriate external lenses, either glasses or contact lenses. These days many people have laser surgery to correct vision by changing the shape of the cornea. Either way, there is no significant degradation of vision which would affect photography. Even if the correction is not perfect, you will be able to see more than well enough when evaluating a scene so that you can make technical and aestheitc judgements. The only significant change for a view camera user is that you will have to use bifocals or the equivalent to manipulate controls and to see the gg.

There are of course other things that can happen. In some people, the lens also gets clouded by so-called cataracts. Cataracts can seriously degrade vision and corrective lenses won't help. I more or less gave up serious photography for several years in part because of cataracts. But these days, an opthamologist in a pretty routine operations can remove the clouded lens and replace it by a plastic lens. That lens will generally be chosen to correct other problems like myopia. In my case, before cataract surgery, everything beyond a few inches from my eyes was out of focus because of high myopia. After surgery, I have close to normal vision without glasses. I haven't seen that well since I was 10. My only problem was getting used to using reading glasses or bifocals for close vision. Before the surgery, my normal 'infinity' point was so close that I could see close-up simply by taking off my glasses. Now I am in the same situation as someone with normal vision who has lost his/her accomodation.

Myopia results, it is thought, from a stretching of the eyeball, and people, like me, with high myopia show degenerative changes in the retina. Also, anyone in old age may develop what is called macular degeneration, which can lead to severe loss of clear vision. Also, in some cases, floaters , which are usually just an annoyance, can cause problems. At age 73, I have lots of floaters and while I have show no evidence of macular degeneration, because of myopia, my retina is not the same as it was when I was 40. Still, I find that I don't have any troubles with normal photography because of vision. I find that even something like seeing fine detail in a scene is more dependent on knowing what to look for. Because of years of experience looking at things photographically, I can often see things that much younger poeple with normal vision miss. I certainly have a lot of 'vision' problems but these involve my aesthetic judgement, not the physical vision provided by my eyes.

[Leonard Evens]

Narrowing of visual angle?

I don't understand John's remark about narrowing of visual angle. You actually only see clearly with a small part of the retina called the macula. The rest of the retina just provides peripheral vision. When you look at a scene, your eye scans it so different parts of the scene fall on the macula. The image of the scene as a whole is something that is formed in your brain as a pattern of excited neurons.

It is possible that wearing glasses might affect your effective visual angle, particularly if you have high myopiia. In that case, you might find that you see clearly only when looking through a small part of the lens, and that could conceivably affect how your eye scans the scene. But I wore +8 diopter lenses for years and never noticed any such effect. Presybyopia might conceivably affect how close you put your eye to the gg or to a print you were viewing. If you were used to viewing images from a few inches and you no longer can do that, there might be some effect. But that sounds rather doubtful to me.

If you find you tend to use longer focal length lenses, I suspect it is for reasons having nothing to do with the optics of vision formation in your eye.

[robc]

Your actual field of sharp vision is less than 1/2 a degree.

Take two matches and stand them up 1/4 of an inch apart, now stand back 5 feet and try to focus on both matches at once. You'll find you can't - your eye will track from one match to the other but you will not be able to see them both as being sharp at the same time. One of them will be in unsharp peripheral vision.

[Dan Fullerton]

My switch to dime store readers came at 50. Having always been involved with 4X5 I didn't have a problem with focus or lens settings. Gradually I moved up the scale with more magnification into the 2's. By accident I discovered by reversing and looking thru the front of the lenses (holding the glasses 2-4" from my eye) I could see the entire ground glass and with clarity from corner to corner. This works well for me and has been the start of several pleasant conversations with those observers interested in my process.

[Leonard Evens]

Dan,

I suspect that reversing the lenses had little to do with it. It was probably holding the lenses further from your eye that did it. You could probably accomplish the same thing by geting a large magnifier of low magnification and holding it at the proper distance from the gg. I tried that for a while, but I eventually got a prescription for high diopter reading glasses which allow me to get within 7 inches of the gg. I can see the entire frame with both eyes and focus well enough for most purposes without a loupe.

[Leonard Metcalf]

Pity, it would have been nice to get some sort of compensation. I have only started really taking lots of notice as my father had glaucoma (not to mention his cataracts), and if it is in the family you are at higher risk. Perhaps I should start a post about my dyslexia and photography. Leonard thanks for the in depth descriptions, as usual you explain it well, and better than the optician did. My understanding of presybyopia was that the lens hardened with age, which leads to the lack of ability to change shape.

As to the ten year thing... I started photography in my early teenage years, and was using a manual SLR at 15, printing at home... studied photography at art school for three years straight. So there was my first ten years of practice... Then twenty years latter I am still learning, still improving, and still making mistakes. I think it would be dangerous to put time specifications on it....

[sprouseod]

Hi All I am new to LF as well as this forum. I thought I would chime in on this topic. I am an optometrist in SC. And it was very interesting to read your comments and responses on this subject. Leonard pretty much nailed it with his description of refractive errors, with the exception that it is presbyopia not presybyopia. Leonard, It sounds like you had great success with cataract surgery. I have this discussion many time a day and what I like to tell patients is that this loss of accommodation (ability to focus images at near) is a process that starts when you are a child and gradually progresses throughout your adult life. your near point of accommodation hits arms length at about 40, that’s why you start noticing symptoms. So let me be clear your eyes do not degenerate at 40, you are simply noticing a process that has been going on for years. Reading glasses, BF, and other near corrections are not magnifiers, they are simply moving your near point back up to a comfortable range (replacing the optical power your natural lens is losing) Unfortunately there are no great surgeries for presbyopia. LASIK cannot correct this problem. There are handful of multifocal IOLS (intraocular lenses) and accommodation IOLs but they have significant side effects or poor results, we don't often recommend them to our patients.
Many patients like "monovision" a process where we correct your dominant eye for distance with a contact lens and you non- dominant eye for near with a contact lens.
This is the principle behind most of the corrective surgeries for near vision.

Well I will stop my rambling, just thought I would chime in

Richard

[Paul Metcalf]

Does not the "famousness" of one's art come from the critics' and/or casual observers' viewpoint ("beauty is in the eye of the beholder")? Perhaps there's a denial of a presbyopia pandemic amongst those that are the self proclaimed keepers (and definers) of famous art. I was once asked by a reviewer of some of my photographs if I spotted my prints (I didn't on these). She was wearing cheaters. I now wear them.

[John Z.]

I thought I would chime in too; I am an ophthalmologist. I agree with the previous posts that stated that it is more likely that the photographers over 40 were doing better work simply because they had reached the the point in there life where they had refined their craft, and not due to any change in their eyesight. Another curiosity of the visual system is that many older famous painters in the past would start to paint with much more vivid colors with age, probably due to the natural clouding of the lens, or cataract formation. Many well know painters were found to follow this trend in fact.
I think that most people become much more accomplished after 40, because life goes through phases; the wandering teenage years, then the college years, followed by early career, and raising little ones throught the diaper years. In all of this you have to obtain the expertise to photograph, and also learn about and aquire equipment, etc, etc.
I am currently in the chasing kids around phase for the past few years, and can tell you that large format photography definitely gets put on hold for a while. I wonder how Ansel or E.W. still managed to do it while raising many children...

[Wayne]

Lucky me, at 46 1/2 I beat the curve for bifocals by a few years. But it finally caught me at my last appointment a few weeks ago. But I still have plenty of nose and arm left, so I think I can stave off actually getting them till at least 50...


Wayne

[A.C.]

...I think I'll stick with the hope that age will just improve my work!!

[Salty]

I found the need for reading glasses around age 47. I still have excellent eyesight for seeing distances, but my arms got too short for reading. I still shred about 99% of my work because I nit-pick over it..... and I got into this hobby to relax.

[Dave Jones]

It wasn't until I just started recently with LF that I found my near vision around 8 -12" was so bad. For reading smaller print, particularly at night, I had been using 1.5 diopter readers from Sam's Club with no problems. These were just not cutting it for focussing. A friend suggested I try a pair of 3.5 diopter readers since they would act as a magnifier. They have worked great and have saved using a loupe.

[phaedrus]

People, don't worry!
you're NOT loosing your eyesight, just the ability to focus your eyes to near distances. As this thread amply demostrates, there are lot's and lots of optical aids to compensate that.
As to the original question, I think achieving consistent quality in one's photographic work has more to do with having lived a long enough time than with diminishing sensory functions. Basically, you have to have been down a few times to get on up really high ...
Peace, sistas and bros ;-)
Christoph

[Gary L. Quay]

I got bifocals last week. I first noticed a problem when I couldn't read my spot meter. Now, I carry a loupe to focus my camera, and working in the darkroon is sometimes frustrating. I cope, and try to produce images that I can be proud of.

--Gary

[HorsemanShooter]

Wow, I just turned 42 and it's hitting me! I can't read very small print that I could just a few years back. I built a home made reflex viewer for my 4x5 that worked perfectly- then as I used it after a year break, I could no longer focus- I had to move my head back a few inches before I could see correctly. What a drag. I refuse to go to the eye doctor, if I don't accept it maybe it will just go away!

[Michael Graves]

Well it's not my eyesight that I'm losing. It's my...

my....

Damn. Don't remember what it is I lost.

[kellz123]

Has anyone here had lasik eye surgery? I have been researching lasik (http://www.docshop.com/education/vision/refractive/lasik/) for some time now and I wanted to know if I should go on with the surgery. Any suggestions?

[Toyon]

I talked with someone from the New England College of Optometry. Apparently there is some early emerging evidence that certain types of video gaming may actually improve eyesight. So the digital devolutionists among us might consider trading in photoshop for something a bit more visually kinetic.

[John Kasaian]

Has anyone here had lasik eye surgery? I have been researching lasik (http://www.docshop.com/education/vision/refractive/lasik/) for some time now and I wanted to know if I should go on with the surgery. Any suggestions?

I had RK, before lasers they used a diamond blade to whittle on the cornea. It dosen't do anything for astigmatism but it did help with my distance vision. It did not stop my eyesight from deteriorating with age though. Back when I had mine the insurance company picked up the tab. My glasses were the proverbial "Coke bottle bottoms" and I had to switch to plastic lenses. In the gritty enviroment I worked in I'd keep getting scratched up lenses and the resulting eyestrain so for me it was a good deal. I'm back to wearing glasses now (bifocals) but the plastics in lenses have improved quite a bit so its really no big deal. I know notihng about the newer style Lasik proceedure though.
Cheers!

[JW Dewdney]

Has anyone here had lasik eye surgery? I have been researching lasik (http://www.docshop.com/education/vision/refractive/lasik/) for some time now and I wanted to know if I should go on with the surgery. Any suggestions?

I have a female friend who had it done - and told me how wonderful it was and now she has 20/20 vision - but I'll be damned if she still isn't missing seeing red lights, other cars, etc. while driving! For those who would make the joke - I don't think it has much to do with being female either. I just don't think they did a very good job!

[Bruce Watson]

Has anyone here had lasik eye surgery? I have been researching lasik (http://www.docshop.com/education/vision/refractive/lasik/) for some time now and I wanted to know if I should go on with the surgery. Any suggestions?

If you are going to do it, not that I recommend it, you should look for someone doing a wave front guided (http://www.allaboutvision.com/visionsurgery/custom_lasik.htm) method.

The problem with lasik is that it's geared toward correcting just a couple of the many properties associated with vision. People who have lasik surgery often report increased problems with night vision, loss of contrast, and some loss of gamut, among a host of other symptoms. I'm just sayin' that there's a lot more to vision than just reading a chart from 20 feet away.

Much as I'd love to loose my glasses I haven't done it yet. My MD (who also wears glasses) told me this: Wait until the doctors who do the surgery let their daughters do it. He hasn't done it yet, neither has his daughter. For what it's worth.

[Alan Davenport]

My MD (who also wears glasses) told me this: Wait until the doctors who do the surgery let their daughters do it. He hasn't done it yet, neither has his daughter. For what it's worth.

Worth quite a lot, I think. One good test of any new technology is whether those who sell it, actually use it themselves.

I made it all the way to 45 before I realized I couldn't see the tiny dry flies I was attempting to tie. That led to using dime store readers for fly tying but little else. Now I wear bifocals, but I'm not sure why. I've developed a bit of astigmatism in just one eye, and the result is that I can only tolerate using the near-vision part of the glasses for a minute or two. They tell me they can't make the bottom half of the bifocal w/o the astigmatism correction. I suspect they mean "won't," but regardless of that I'm back to dime store readers for actually reading. Using LF cameras is something of a dance, with me switching from distance glasses, to reading glasses, to a loupe, to....

[Eric Rose]

I just found out I have cateracts in both eyes. Seems these days it's not such a big deal as it was 20 years ago, but still worrying. The only thing that seems a bit off is my ability to color correct as things look just a tad yellow. Since most of my work is in B&W this isn't an issue.

[Randy H]

I dunno. Reading glasses jsut make everything "bigger" and fuzzy. I was prescribed Bi's, (glasses, not sex) but went with two 'scrips. One for computer and close-up work, and one for distances. Had the distance one filled once, and never wore them. Have the close one re-checked about yearly, and replace. (astigmatism)

On a side note, my dad (83 yrs old) said they had always told him that the mind was the first thing to go. He says that is BS. He can still remember what and why, ( if ya know whut I mean" but the "how" was the first thing to go. He reckons that is what causes the mind to go.

[Bill_1856]

My own experience with patients needing glasses is more like 45-46, with women a little older. (The may actually should use them earlier, but that's the age where they finally give up).
Anyway, the increasing blindness of most painters was probably cataract formation, not simple accomodation loss. Surgical intervention for cataract is a relative new thing. Paul Strand had to give up work for several years because of it. And even until the last quarter century, cataract surgery was a real horror story, with the post surgical patients being strapped down with their heads firmly fixed so they couldn't move anything for several hours.

[parkerm@freenet.co.uk]

I only noticed my lack of focus at short distances last month, and quickly went in for my annual eyesight tests. The optician told me that most peoples eyes deteriorate at 42/3. Which made me reflect on the comments in an article by Brooks Jenson "How old is too old?" where he outlines the ages of many photographers when they took their famous images... the long and the short of the article was most were over 40.

Anyway I was just wondering if the coincidence between the ages and the loss of eyesight had much to do with it?

Many painters lose their eyesight, and their paintings often undergo a subtle transformation.

Any thoughts on this one?

Len

Wow that raises some intersting questions. Try this for a framework, the creative vision matures and develops over time, tied to the visual centres in the brain. The softening of the input hardware (eyes) may alter the raw material to which the expressive vision is applied.

So Monet as he lost his sight produced more and more impressionistic renderings of his beloved water garden, out of focus and blurred in the terms of realism but I challenge anyone to stand un-moved in front of one of his giant canvases from the later period.

Can the same process apply in photography? I think maybe it can in that the emphasis in composition and conceptual focus may change to be more impressionistic.

Would photos that concentrated on colour composition and juxtaposition of overall shapes without focus work? Probably not but there are ways of correcting for that deficiency so maybe the emphasis of composition would change and perhaps the focus would also shift inward more to the psychological creative process itself that I am referring to as vision.

Just another phase of the creative journey I'd say.

I remember hearing an interview with Pablo Cassals when he was 84. The interviewer asked him why it was that being already acknowledged as the greatest master of the cello in his generation he still practised for 4 hours a day.

Cassals replied simply as if it were the most obvious thing in the world:

"I think I'm making progress"

Mike

[Bobby Ironsights]

II am currently in the chasing kids around phase for the past few years, and can tell you that large format photography definitely gets put on hold for a while. I wonder how Ansel or E.W. still managed to do it while raising many children...

I guess that's the bright side of sexism. No "Woman's Work".

(seriously though, I'm aware that the negatives of sexual discrimination outweigh the positives, we'll never know how good the "Astrid Ansels" of the world would have been)

[seawolf66]

Yes age can give you a real kick in the Seat, with your eyes and it does suck when you have to order a Plus 3 diopter for your Dslr so you manualy focus it: I have Bi-focals and I have a Pair of glass'es so I can see the LCD Moniter at a safe distance of 24 inch! just chaulk it up to the life of factors and age!

[roteague]

If you are going to do it, not that I recommend it, you should look for someone doing a wave front guided (http://www.allaboutvision.com/visionsurgery/custom_lasik.htm) method.

The problem with lasik is that it's geared toward correcting just a couple of the many properties associated with vision. People who have lasik surgery often report increased problems with night vision, loss of contrast, and some loss of gamut, among a host of other symptoms. I'm just sayin' that there's a lot more to vision than just reading a chart from 20 feet away.

Much as I'd love to loose my glasses I haven't done it yet. My MD (who also wears glasses) told me this: Wait until the doctors who do the surgery let their daughters do it. He hasn't done it yet, neither has his daughter. For what it's worth.

I've thought about this quite a bit, but haven't decided yet whether to do it or not. My primary indecision is because I still have very good reading vision (I'm 52, and don't need reading glasses). For distance I need glasses, but most of the time I don't bother wearing them, unless driving, because even then my eyesight isn't too bad. As long as I can focus on the ground glass, I'll be fine.

[David_Senesac]

Since early adult years I had mild myopia in my left eye and mild hyperopia in my right eye. In my 40s presybiopia began and gradually got worse till now in my 50s my near focus is about 16 inches away. The only effect my eye problems have had on my photography is that I religiously wear glasses for viewing landscapes and reading glasses under the hood usually about diopter 3.0 to get real close. Note I tend to not resort to a lupe. For book reading I like diopter 1.25. In my career work, I readily troubleshoot the barely visible components on microelectronic circuit boards using reading glasses or hi-tech microscope imaging systems so any of these eye problems is really not a problem but rather just a nuisance. I tend to have both of my two eyeglasses on keepers around my neck when in the field working though they do have a way of getting tangled up with my hats.

So I really would not expect such mild eye problems to effect the photography of we older folk as long as we wear corrective eyeglasses.
...David

[Kirk Gittings]

I think it is a coincidence. the more experience you have photographing the more you recognize "keepers" and don't waste your time on images that aren't. This comes with age generally as does, coincidentally, loss of eyesight.