Glasses

Curt · Mar 6, 2007

I had a problem viewing the ground glass with bifocals ever since I got them several years ago. By chance I found a solution that I hadn't thought of before. Now my neck is much better and so is my viewing.

I will explain what I did, first tell me about your ground glass viewing with bifocals, any problems and what you do to overcome close viewing.

Pinholemaster · Mar 6, 2007

I'm still new to bifocals. My doctor actually called them 'training' bifocals, which got me to ask "Are they then like a training bra?" We both had a good laugh.

I got the transition style lenses which means I've got to keep my eyes pretty much centered. Looking to the side through my glasses takes me out of the 'sweet spot.'

Other than that, haven't had any problems with my neck or viewing the ground glass. This might be because I shoot 8x10, so have a lot of acreage to look at (grin). Perhaps I should pull out my 4x5 to see if the world is different with a smaller GG.

Jim Noel · Mar 6, 2007

I have worn ri-focals for more than 40 years.

I view the ground glass, as well as the loupe, through the distance part of the spectacles on all sizes of cameras. The only camera I have had to give up is a favorite 4x5 Graflex.

Buster6X6 · Mar 6, 2007

I have been using my Schneider loupe on all my cameras even on Crown Graflex( I take the GG cover off though). Works great because you use only small portion of the GG. I found difficult to get the distance on smaller GG's for focusing with bifocals. Especially if you have a lens with small aperture and the GG is to dark.

Greg

harveyje · Mar 6, 2007

as I am nearsighted I have found that focussing either MF or 4x5 ground glass works well without correction (no glasses). If I have my contacts in I use magnification which can be strong reading glasses (Wal-Mart), loupe or built-in magnifier. I, too, have the transition type lenses which are difficult for focussing but otherwise very satisfactory.

Vaughn · Mar 6, 2007

harveyje said:
as I am nearsighted I have found that focussing either MF or 4x5 ground glass works well without correction (no glasses).

Same here (very nearsighted)...I see the GG better without my glasses -- better than with my glasses and a loupe. I can focus bare-eyed down to just under than 5". I stopped using the loupe a long time ago. The eye doc tried to convince me to order progressives, but I have resisted so far...I'd rather get a single-strength prescription to use when I just want to read.

Curt · Mar 6, 2007

When I got my prescription updated last year I was told that there were computer transition / bifocal / reading glasses; The distance part is on the top and is not very big. The middle is for computer screen distance and the lower part is for the closest you can see with.

I was wearing them today when I picked up my 4x5 field camera and found that they were perfect for seeing the ground glass without having to arch my head up as with my regular bifocals. They work great with computer use also as that is the intended use. My lenses are made by Hoya but I like Varilux better, better quality.

So that's my experience and discovery.

bdial · Mar 7, 2007

A single-element variable focus lens would be just the thing, wouldn't it?

The easiest thing, if you are nearsighted, is to remove the glasses.

My favorite for the computer, reading and other close work, are single-vision lenses, and they also work well behind a camera. But you can't see when you look away from the camera.

There are also "computer glasses" which are progressives with prescriptions optimized for close range. In these, the near prescription can be set for closer distances than "general-purpose" lenses, and occupies more of the lens. They work pretty well, but they are costly and not much better for something like gg viewing than normal progressives.

I've also experimented with clip-on magnifying lenses; these aren't bad but introduce distortion.

Finally, there is a method I haven't tried, I've heard of "task" bifocals in which the near and far sections are reversed, that is, the near section is on top.

mjs · Mar 7, 2007

I tried an experiment a couple of years ago when I got new glasses (I've been wearing bi-focals for about eight years now.) I asked to have the "near" portion of the progressive lens set to a closer distance than the usual "reading" distance. I specifically asked whether we could make them focus at 10"-12" (250mm-300mm.) They did so (no extra charge) and I've been wearing them for the past couple of years. It was a sale and I was trying to use up medical savings account money at the end of the year, so I got one "normal" pair and one pair as described above. I've been using them as my regular glasses for two years now.

The experimental pair wasn't an unqualified success. They aren't near enough for a 4x5 ground glass and too near for reading, computer, etc. I don't think I'd want to make them focus any nearer than they already do (six inches - 150mm - say,) because even focusing at 12" or so they are very disorienting when looking downward, as when going down steps. It took quite a while to get used to that and I don't think that closer focus would be very pleasant.

Mike

BrianShaw · Mar 7, 2007

bdial said:
Finally, there is a method I haven't tried, I've heard of "task" bifocals in which the near and far sections are reversed, that is, the near section is on top.

This is the solution that I'm thinking about trying. It seems to make sense.

bdial · Mar 7, 2007

I've not researched them much, but there are numerous situations I find myself in, where they seem like they would make sense.

copake_ham · Mar 7, 2007

harveyje said:
as I am nearsighted I have found that focussing either MF or 4x5 ground glass works well without correction (no glasses). If I have my contacts in I use magnification which can be strong reading glasses (Wal-Mart), loupe or built-in magnifier. I, too, have the transition type lenses which are difficult for focussing but otherwise very satisfactory.

Vaughn said:
Same here (very nearsighted)...I see the GG better without my glasses -- better than with my glasses and a loupe. I can focus bare-eyed down to just under than 5". I stopped using the loupe a long time ago. The eye doc tried to convince me to order progressives, but I have resisted so far...I'd rather get a single-strength prescription to use when I just want to read.

This has been my experience also as I am slightly myopic. When I first got glasses years ago I thought I had to wear them all the time and suddenly all the photos I took were OOF!

Took me a while to realize that when looking at the mirror (or GG etc.) your eye is actually focusing closely not far away where the image is!

It was one of the "Duh!" moments.

Maris · Mar 8, 2007

I use 3.5D readers for ground glass focussing on 4x5 and 8x10 instead of a loupe. The darn things cost me $2 at Crazy Clarks emporium and have never failed me.

For wilderness photography especially where rough ground is encountered I avoid bi-focals. The lower part of the lens puts your feet out of focus and the ground you are walking on. I have tripped and fallen while under a 8x10 backpack. Hurts a lot but fortunately the gear was OK.

Vaughn · Mar 8, 2007

Maris,

That is why I am staying away from bifocals/progressives. I think the eye doc that was pushing me to get a pair must never walk on ground more challenging than a flight of stairs.

Sounds like you followed the first rule of landscape photography -- if you fall, always land under your equipment!

Vaughn

wclavey · Mar 8, 2007

I, too, am very near-sighted and have had bifocals for about 10 years. Since most of my cameras have WL finders or GG, I get the funky neck krink from trying to use my bifocals to get something in focus. Until now, I could only get a good focus with my bifocals and a loupe on the 4x5 or my bifocals and the flip-up magnifier on the WL finders.

I recently purchased a pair of clip-on flip-up magnifying lenses that I can flip down to focus and flip back up otherwise. They +4.00 and worked well for the 4x5 GG, with no loupe required, but I really haven't had the chance to try them with the WL finders yet. Another good thing about them is that I can clip them onto my sunglasses, which have no bifocal, and use them while shooting - - which is a big help here in the bright TX sun.

PatTrent · Mar 8, 2007

I've been slightly near-sighted all my adult life and could forego any corrective lenses except to satisfy the Department of Motor Vehicles that I can read very distant road signs! Now, in my sixties, I need glasses to read the fine print, but I can see with the WLF on the Hassy and the viewfinder in the Canon and Nikon 35mm's without any dioptic correction. It's reading the *&%$^@# dials on the lenses and buttons and other readouts that gives me grief. So I put my glasses on to read all of that, and then take them off to look through the Nikon/Canon eyepiece or the Hassy WLF magnifier. Grumble, grumble. Getting older is NOT for sissies, as they say.

Glasses

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency