First signs of old age - what to do....

[razzledog]

As I suffer the same fate as David (I`m 53) and have more pairs of reading glasses than Australia has beer drinkers, I came up with this solution! An old Polaroid oscilloscope camera hood with just the right lens (some kind of old macro lens fitted in the end.) It allows me to see the whole 4x5 frame with perfect clarity! (see pic).

Dean Jones.<div></div>

[arne_croell]

As pointed out already it is unavoidable at that age. The attached graph (from a German optics textbook) shows the ability of the eye to focus close (in Diopters) as a function of age: the center line is the average of the population and the upper and lower lines are the extremes. So while in young years you can accomodate your eye for about 14 dpt, it goes down to 1 dpt in old age, and at 42 you're in the steep part of the curve. What hasn't been mentioned yet is that the effect is more recognizable for viewing a ground glass than under normal circumstances (reading), because the ground glass is usually quite dim. Because of the low light level the pupil of the eye opens wide, essentially reducing the depth of field (of the eye) at the same time when we try to see clearly. Under normal lighting conditions the pupil closes down and you get more depth of field, i.e. your range of sharp focus extends closer to the eye. I experienced this first with my view camera too, at age forty. I got reading glasses (2.5dpt) only for composing on the ground glass (I've always used a loupe for focussing). Now, 5 years later I also start needing glasses for reading (about 1dpt).

[sandy_sorlien]

I think I read all the answers in this lo-o-ong thread and didn't see anyone mention using a binocular viewer. I'm 48 and the closeup vision is definitely starting to go. Can't read menus in dim restaurants. I still refuse to wear the glasses (vain female). But the Arca-Swiss bino viewer on my 6x9 ground glass (not a very big gg, harder to see everything) enlarges the image so I have not had trouble focusing... yet.

 

The good news --- thanks to the huge baby boomer demographic bulge, most people are older than you.

 

Cheers,

Sandy

[philip_sweeney]

Hey dave:

 

I was fortunate to have a eye doctor spend a little extra exam time with me on this issue. Oddly enough the final analysis was go get the 3.25 (very strong) and if convergance is an issue, that close, then he would make me a set of 3.25 glasses correcting the convergance. I use the pharmacy 3.25s.

 

It may be obvious but the doctor pointed out: Reading glasses are made for reading at a given distance. That may not be optimum for viewing a computer gg etc.

 

I also use a 4X loupe. I have more powerful ones but they magnify the image too much.

 

You know you are getting old when you wear your glasses on a string and you see a woman with a little gray in her hair: you don't mind the gray!

[eugene_singer]

Hey, Eric, I wasn't talking about that body part! It still works fine (with a little help from my young, beautiful wife). At my age, everything seems to have slowed down (except my appetite for food). It appears that LF photography is well suited to the slow, deliberate movements of the senior individual. The problem is getting to those grand vistas and hauling all of that heavy equipment. Perhaps that's why the SUV manufacturers are beginning to target our segment of the market.

[mark_tucker2]

When I went to the eye doctor two years ago for the first time, he

looked at me solemnly, asked me to sit down, (I already was),

and he told me, "Mark, the formal term for your disease is called

Forty-itis". Then, he handed me a tissue. <P>

 

The way he described it, some (very few) parts of the body

continue to grow for your entire life. These would include your

ears, your nose, and the lens in your eyes. (Why couldn't it have

been <B>other</b> parts of my body?) He said that, at about

forty, most people's lenses have reached a growth thickness that

makes it difficult for the muscles in the eye to move the lens

either close enough, or far enough, to bring close up things into

focus. Therefore you need reading glasses. I am about to hit 44,

and my prescription is about a 2.25.<P>

 

Another word of caution: just before Christmas, I went back for

another eye exam, and for once, I said "No more ten dollar cheap

reading glasses! My eyes are too important to cut corners!" So I

got the exam and broke down and bought the expensive, "real"

glasses. They sold me the "progressive" lenses, that focus near

and far, but they were the WORST thing I've ever seen; I had to tilt

my head so far back to get to the reading part of the lens that I'd

damn near get vertigo when reading the menu. And then, if you'd

pan your head left and right, like you might do in the real world,

you get this "fisheye" kind of distortion. I returned them the next

day, and the fashiony women in high heels and nose rings rolled

their eyes at me, and insisted that "I'd get used to them". No way.

So they put normal reading lenses in them. $350 for normal

reading glasses, when I could have bought another three sets at

Walgreens for twenty bucks. So, live and learn.<P>

 

Another issue: in the MF list, a Hasselblad repairman

commented that Hasselblad had determined that when you look

thru the Hassie camera, the distance that you need to see well is

FIVE FEET. IOW, get yours eyes tested for five feet, and either set

your diopter for that, or get glasses that let you see well at five

feet. (Who knows why five feet, but that's what he said).<P>

 

Sorry for the long ramble. Obviously, I have some eye issues that

have gone unresolved in therapy.<P>

 

The other telltale sign of this disease is when you start

monkeying with the TEXT ZOOM feature of Internet Explorer, and

you start running it at 150%!<P>

 

-MT, http://www.marktucker.com

[scott_walton2]

David, I feel for you. The fact that you never used a loupe just compounded

the inevitable. As you see by the other posts, you are not alone. I have always

used a 4x loupe but that is how I learned. Reading glasses, loupe or whatever

it takes to get the job done. Some people have asked me when are you going

to give up that old camera (Linhof Tec III) and go digital and I say not 'til they

pry it from my stiff rigimorticed hands! Don't be in denial, I'm not. Heck, I'm only

on my 10th anniversary of my 34 birthday! :)

[s.k. grimes inc]

The miracle of all this is that the condition is completely correctable with the use of spectacles. Plus spectacles, like in the drugstore, Binocular magnifiers, loupes, etc are all variants of the same thing. (you can convince yourself that you don't need glasses by using a loupe)

 

I nevertheless like to applaud the miracle of technology that are spectacle lenses . To me they are amongst the greatest single technical acheivement of civilization, bringing more benefit and releif to more people than practically anything I can think of -- right up there with clothing,plumbing and electricity. Just a simple curved piece of clear plastic costing only a few cents to make....

 

SKG

[alpshiker]

I am in the same wagon and doing little to improve my sight, but I remember someone, an old shepherd, telling that he had avoided the need for spectacles by doing this simple thing: Every morning, he would dip his face in the chilled water of the fountain in front of his chalet and then massage his temples for a little while. Maybe it's the water who was the cure, but I can think that exercising and irrigating the face and eyes muscles can be beneficial.

[pvp]

I'm in the same boat with most of the other responders here: I've been nearsighted since I was 14, and from the age of 20 my prescription didn't change for over 25 years. Then my eyes went to hell when I turned 48, and they're still there. <P>Until recently I tried using an eyeglass loupe (jeweler's type) to focus the camera, but my glasses are too strong for me to be comfortable at arms length (I read and do most close tasks with no correction needed) so I found myself taking my glasses off to set up the camera, then putting them back on and adding a loupe to focus. I just bought a 4x loupe with a neck strap; I'm hoping I'll be able to work with just that and keep my glasses in my pocket when I'm photographing. Ah, the indignities...

[mark_tucker2]

I'm not sure if it's completely medically ethical or not, and maybe

you guys can comment. When I went to eye doctor for the exam, I

thought he'd sit me down in a chair and move that optical bench

thing up in front of me. But instead, he sat me down at his 23"

Apple Cinema Display, turned down the lights, and had me

complete this alternative exam. Once I found the proper

spectacle strength (+2.00), I scored a nineteen out of twenty:

 

http://storm.prohosting.com/davech/implants.html

[robert_a._zeichner1]

In response to the poster that suggested there are things you can take for the other parts of us that are not working correctly, be careful. An elderly friend got his Rogaine and Viagra mixed up and now can't keep what hair he has from standing up!

[www.graemehird.com]

Robert,

 

Your friend is lucky he didn't get extra growths in his underwear.....