Question

<p>Hi folks. Here is an odd question. I have recently started to wear reading glasses and have discovered how great it is to see up close again...My 21'' monitor looks like a 30'', so I will not need a new monitor anytime soon.</p>

<p>My question is this...Here are three pictures that I took yesterday. With out my glasses they look soft to me, maybe even out of focus. With my glasses on they look sharp. Problem is, I don't know weather to believe my glasses or my eyes....I may also be in denial about needing glasses...</p>

<p>I am even more curious as to hear what those who wear glasses think..</p>

<p><img src="http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp128/jgredline/Street/IMGP2839.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp128/jgredline/Street/IMGP2903.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp128/jgredline/Street/IMGP3664.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>you need the glasses 8-) It's time to admit you're gettin' older (said w/ all love & total kidding, you know)</p>

<p>They look sharp on this monitor, Javi, and I wear glasses, too. Anything more than about 6" from my nose is out of focus w/o em. </p>

<p>er...uhm... she looks quite sharp to me... i mean the photos Javier. Yes, you need to believe the glasses... and wear them! lol.</p>

<p>Those shots look awful (unless I put my glasses on ;~) Seriously, that first one is really terrific! Not sayin' there was anything wrong with your pre-spec work but, yeah, there comes a time... </p>

<p>Dear Mr. Magoo,<br>

I'm 57 and have to use reading glasses too. I was using the drugstore kind but an eye exam revealed that one eye was a little ' off '...like me...so I have prescription readers on the way.<br>

Next stop....The Scooter Store. :-)<br>

BTW, the photos look sharp to me.</p>

 

<p>Javier,<br>

Your shots look great.</p>

<p>Just about everyone I know needed glasses when they passed 40. I've been wearing glasses for 46 years, and contacts for 30 years (still am able to wear contacts for about 14 hours daily). Welcome. There's worse.</p>

<p>Most of my body parts haven't responded all that well with time. The wisdom piece I kinda like though. So, I recommend that you see an eye care provider and discover what you really need. It can only benefit your enjoyment of photography.</p>

<p>ME</p>

<p>Javier, if the shot really is soft, it will remain so no matter what glasses you put on. As a long-time glasses wearer, I can guarantee that. If the shot then looks sharp when using the glasses, you need those glasses!</p>

<p>Personally, I think it's impossible to take a bad photo of Samuel L. Jackson, so I won't try judging sharpness with that one. Looking at the other two, the focus appears to be where I'd expect it to be, so I'll go with "your eyes suck".</p>

<p>OK Javier, so who is that guy in the first shot? It's a fantastic portrait, but I refuse to believe it's Samuel BMF Jackson. Did you have extended DR turned on for it?</p>

<p>Are those drug store reading glasses or prescription glasses? I'm no eye doctor, but with either you will note improvement, and you should trust what you see through the glasses. That said, prescription glasses would give the proper correction for each eye, not just a matched pair for what is most very likely different focusing strength from each eye. If they are drug store glasses, and you haven't had a vision exam from an eye doctor (not just an optomotrist at the discount glasses shop), go visit an eye doctor. He may suggest drug store reading glasses, he may suggest custom made lenses just for your eyes.</p>

<p>I wonder if this had anything to do with your recent camera focus settings?</p>

<p>I'd have to compare Marilyn with her famous centerfold to check the focus on those photos. Reload and shoot that one again under studio conditions.</p>

<p>The only thing about glasses, JG, is that you have to watch those diopter settings in manual focus situations. I love not using my glasses with the diopter for the viewfinders; but, they're so adjustable, that sometimes they can come out of alignment easily; the result is that they can fool you into an out of focus picture if you are not using a split center prism. Just beware; it's not a big deal. </p>

<p>It'd probably be ideal if we could get those older style slip-over diopters for the viewfinder. I have never used one of those, but they sound like a good idea. </p>

<p>Javier, Those shots all suck, soft and fuzzy everywhere. I seriously think you need to pack everything photographic you own in a box and ship it to me for extensive testing. Then check out your nearest lawn bowling club abd take up a new hobby.</p>

<p>I'd say they are pretty sharp.</p>

<p>But then I've been looking at a lot of film based photos lately and well...maybe it's just me but I still don't think digital cuts the mustard in comparison. Not wanting to start one of those stupid "Film vs. Digital" wars but to my eye there is always an odd sort of "softness" to digital photos.</p>

<p>But taking that comment for what it's worth (it was freely offered so it's worth nothing) Those look very good! I can see that the dark haired gal in the last photo is duely impressed to be next to the mighty M.</p>

<p>Scot I completely agree. I was looking through someone's meduim format portfolio the other day and realized the images had a greater DR, sharper in a nice way and had greater depth.</p>

<p>I've been toying with getting a 645 sometime soon....</p>

<p>The pics look sharp here too. If your glasses interfere with the VF or you prefer shooting without them, you might try adjusting the diopter on the VF. I thought I had a problem with one of my camera bodies until I realized that the diopter was skewed all the way left. Whew!</p>

<p>The first two shots look very sharp to me Javier... but the last shot looks very soft to me.. at least certain parts of it! :-)</p>

<p>Great shots, Javier. They are very sharp.</p>

<p>Side note: I love me my K20d, but it ain't my Bronica. And my Bronica ain't my 4x5. The Tachi is a full time job to use and the Bronica doesn't do action well. Tools and their uses... I'll tell you this though, it took my K20d and some LTDs to make me ok with leaving the 645 at home when it counts. I'm not saying the K20d is the equal, but for most things it's plenty good enough. </p>

<p>Hi Folks, Thank you for all the responses. I really appreciate them and enjoyed reading them very much :)<br>

I am using drug store reading glasses right now, but will go see an eye doctor as soon as possible to get me the right ones...What I am realizing is that I have junked a few images because I thought they where out of focus....LOL..Is all I could do....</p>

<p>Those wax figures are amazing and they look more real in person than they do in a picture...Creepy actually...They even feel real...</p>

<p>As far as the film vs digital goes, I believe that medium format film is still a step ahead, but that is just me..I finally finished my first roll with my 645 and sent out to a pro lad to have it processed and scanned...I can't wait to see what I get...</p>

<p>Man, I still can't believe I am wearing glasses, though I only need them to read and look at pictures. :)</p>

<p>Javier,</p>

<p>The photos are sharp. My eyes are like yours -- I can't read without my glasses, but I have perfect vision for distance (no restriction on my driver's license). However, on doctor's advice, I have two different prescriptions for glasses -- one for reading and one for working on the computer because we all view computer monitors at distances that are different than when we read printed material. My glasses are +2.25 for reading and +1.50 for computing. Your mileage may vary -- discuss with your doctor.</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>Man, I still can't believe I am wearing glasses, though I only need them to read and look at pictures. :)<br>

Me too. The problem with the drug store readers, for me, was that I could only find +1.0 magnification and I needed a bit less....so I went to Costco....they actually had an eye doctor. I hope the glasses make using a laptop and reading better.<br>

Javier,<br>

Can you put a souped up engine in my Scooter Store ride?</p>

<p>Javier,</p>

<p>If you think it's bad needing glasses at your ride old age, I had to get cataract surgery at 45! On the plus side, I now have 20/20 distance vision and only need glasses for reading.</p>

<p>Well, I went to see the ''eye'' doctor this morning. It consisted of a trip to my local Target store and tried on +1, +1.25, +1.50 and +2.0.</p>

<p>I ended up buying all of them 8-) It looks like for reading the +1.0 are quite good and for the monitor +2.0 seem right, though they give me a head ache. I did really make an appointment at Costco to see an eye doc next week. I suspect that my left eye is different than my right eye now. My far vision is excellent though.</p>

<p>Thanks again folks for all the encouragement and advice. I am to much of a chicken to opt for eye surgery, so glasses will have to do. It is nice to see what I read. It feels like I am looking through the view finder of my ME SUPER.</p>

<p>I don't know if this would apply to you, Javier. But my eye doctor got me on "reading glasses" as well. He recommended that I start with the lowest magnification I could get away with. As you go up the scale your eyes get used to it and <strong><em>there is no easy going back</em></strong>. To date I've found that to be the case.</p>

<p>But don't take my word, talk to your doctor and see what he/she says.</p>

<p>Your right Scot. Already I find myself wanting to use those +2.0 when the +1.0 are fine for everything right now. I will be seeing a doc next week.<br>

Thanks again :)</p>

<p>wait a second.............</p>

<p>is Javier doing an early / late april fool on us? is Javier asking whether the camera did not focus properly so the images "look soft" ? then it is camera auto focus problem. wearing glasses would not help here. if he is doing manual focus and he has eye problem.........i understand his concern. i did not check the exif yet to see whether it is manual focus.</p>

<p>on a side not: i am supposed to look at the eyes of the monroe pic, but my eyes keep focusing somewhere else.............i think i have a problem too :-)) </p>

<p>Javier, it is common for one eye to need a somewhat different prescription than the other. But the Pentax DSLR VF diopter adjustment does go to +1. For the ME Super, there have been add-on diopter lenses made that fit onto the camera VF eyepiece. </p>

<p>Speaking of VFs, the one on the ME Super is of very high magnification, and bright too. I know you often like a wide angle lens for street shooting, but the 43mm Limited is somewhat well-known for this use, with its natural front to back perspective on a film body, its versatile semi-wide angle, and its fine IQ. It has bright VF viewing due to its fast f/1.9 aperture. It is a terrifc compact physical match on the compact ME Super. Something you might consider.</p>