John S 22 Jan 2010, 13:56
You pretty much the same amount of sphere and astigmatism correction. They kind of cancel each other out. Your vision isn't very bad. I would say your eyes probably will feel better when you wear them.
The + numbers in your rx are the cylinder correction, the - is the sphere. Your astig is considered with the rule, which is more common, and you are very slightly nearsighted. How old are you?
I would tell people you were having headaches. That should cover it.
Adam 22 Jan 2010, 13:30
Its R= -0.75 +0.75 86 L=-0.75 +0.50 100
John S 22 Jan 2010, 13:25
Adam, please post your rx. It might help us figure out some helpful hints to tell your friends.
Adam 22 Jan 2010, 13:10
Hello I've just been prescribed glasses for the first time, am abit surprised as hadnt noticed that I had been having any vision problems! Was just wondering if anybody had any stories on how they first found out they needed glasses, and also the best way to let friends and family know.
Puffin 24 Oct 2009, 12:31
Astra, re your friend Kate, what often happens with new, youngish myopes (I think you said that was what she was) is that before they get their first myopia correction, their accomodative eye muscles are very good (actually, more good than they ought to be) at relaxing for a given visual distance and thus they automatically get a kind of free correction (but not all of it) thanks to being young and having a generally more flexible visual system.
This means when they walk in off the street and get their first prescription, they can see down to say 20/80 but get an RX that would correct someone apparently able to see only say 20/200 or more. This is because the optician knows there is more myopia there than is apparent, and it is being masked by the eye's ability to relax.
Why the apparent overcorrection? Well - firstly it's not really overcorrection, and also in later years payback will come because the eye muscles are still strong enough to accomodate without bifocals.
It is not unknown for people of Kate's age to see 20/100 and get prescribed -5 of correction. Also - when she takes off her glasses, is there a few seconds when everything is really blurred, then it reverts to something like the state before she got glasses? If so, her eyes are starting to become accustomed to the correction - but not wholly.
Astra 24 Oct 2009, 11:42
Due to my recent difficulties on reading text, I've consulted an eye doctor for further eye check.
He told me there are no pathologic eye problems detected, but my visual acuity for reading is inadequate, which was 0.2. Distance acuity is 20/30 with the best correction, which is worse than 20/20 last time. My distance acuity without is 20/100.
That means I can't read text smaller than 14 pt without the aid of magnifying tools, even at reading distance, with the reading add.
Astra 24 Oct 2009, 11:18
Puffin, regarding the age of Kate. She was 20.
Astra 24 Oct 2009, 11:17
Puffin, I have mentioned some of the phenomenon observed for Kate (my friend) on the thread "Going without glasses".
Of course there are more observation, they seem to be more relevant to this thread.
About some tricks mentiioned on "Going without glasses" thread. It was easy, close the indoor lighting at night, and I ask Kate to describe the shape of the slit (which is thin, rectangular). There we have my own old glasses (no, I wasn't wearing them) with a prescription of -2.0. If she could see past the -2.0, then she probably got over-correction. But with -2.0 on, Kate told me it was almost like no change from without, still blurry. I have a -2.5, and let Kate to try them on, and this time she told me it is somewhat better, but still unable to see the slit properly.
Kate has to use her -3.5 to see properly. Everything from 0 to -2.5 doesn't really help much, since her visual acuity without was 20/80; with -2.5 correction, she probably got 20/40.
Astra 24 Oct 2009, 11:05
Puffin, -3.5 was my friend's first prescription, and she does not seem to wear her glasses full-time except for the first 2 weeks or so...
Angie 11 Oct 2009, 20:32
Latte,
I don't think it will be a marked difference in thickness. I have a plus prescription in one lens, and along with the base out, the edge thickness is barely noticeable. Keep us posted on how things turn out, and best of luck.
turely 10 Oct 2009, 09:18
Hi Latte,
I have 3 base out prism in ecah lens and 1.5 base down in the one and have them in high index my prescrition is -4 ish and they are hardly noticable, I'm sure you will like them
truely 10 Oct 2009, 09:16
test
latte 10 Oct 2009, 08:08
Hi Angie thanks for this info my script is -8.75 and -9.00 with some astig, and add of 2, I normally wear a 1.67 high index lens
Angie 10 Oct 2009, 07:50
Latte,
The 3 base out means that the thickness will be at the outer edge, by the temple. I have glasses with 4 base out, and wear those when I have a lot of files to read at work, or a great new book that will lead to hours of reading. I don't think the thickness at the edge will be very noticeable, but that may also depend on your prescription, on top of the prism. Are you near or farsighted?
latte 10 Oct 2009, 06:56
Hi not sure if this is the right thread to use. I have just been prescribed prism in my lenses, it will be a 3 base out. I however forgot to ask him if it will make my lenses thicker and for base out prism where will the thickness of the lens be? can anyone help me until I get to chat to my optom on Monday?
Danbert 09 Oct 2009, 09:56
@Like Lenses: Do you manage to induce much with only -1.00 overcorrection?
Like Lenses 08 Oct 2009, 19:08
Obsessed
You are correct. In my case my uncorrected vision is 20/450 in each eye, and I can see 20/20 with my prescribed -3.50 glasses, but I wear a pair of overcorrected -4.50 to induce myopia, and have 20/10 with them.
Obsessed 05 Oct 2009, 18:24
Astra, the vision acuity only partly depends on the refractive power of the eye. All parts of your vision analyzer (i.e. cornea, pupil, lens, length of eyeball, retina, brain etc) directly affect your visual acuity.
There can be people with identical RX's and very (!) different levels of vis. acuity.
Some people with -10 can see better bare-eyed than those with -5.
Puffin 05 Oct 2009, 16:20
Astra, how old is your friend and how long has she been wearing her 3.5s? Are they her first prescription? And does she wear them fulltime as probably she ought?
Astra 05 Oct 2009, 01:45
Reading one of my old post on this thread got me amused now. On that post, I've try to imply there could be direct relationship between prescriptions and visual acuity.
Throughout this year I got really convinced that prescription does not have "linear relationship" with visual acuity. Prescription and visual acuity are entirely different things, even though stronger prescription would likely to cause lower visual acuity because of the limited ability to accommodate with the off-focused image.
I was amazed when I saw one of my friend with a prescription of about -3.50 going bare eyed because she lost her glasses. I got curious and asked her about her visual acuity on her last eye test, and she told me it was 20/80.
20/80 sounds more like the expected acuity for an uncorrected -1.5 to -2.0 , I wonder how is that possible...
happy 11 Jul 2009, 10:02
What has happened to this thread?? Everyone seems very quiet!
Anna 01 Jul 2009, 13:25
Since I posted to this website a week ago I've been blocked. Is there a reason for this? Please unblock me!
happy 01 Jul 2009, 10:21
I am 38, and my last script a year ago was R -6.5, and L -7.25 cyl -0.25...I knew I wasn't seeing as well as I could, but the size of the change has surprised me!
pippo 01 Jul 2009, 10:11
dear happy,
what's your age?
what's your previous rx?
happy 01 Jul 2009, 10:02
I have just posted to the induced myopia thread - but perhaps my question is more relevant to this forum. I have had a relatively stable prescription of about -4 for about 10 years until the last 3 years when my myopia has incresed - reconfirmed today by a further increase in my prescription to R -7.75 cly -0.25 and L -8.25. I wondered if anyone could tell me why I have started to increase my myopia, and if it is likely to continue at this rate?
Aubrac 01 Jul 2009, 02:51
guest
Maybe one reason the optometrist wants your friend to visit in only a year is to check other issues regarding eye health. At my last eye test, the pressure in one eye was borderline on the limit and so I too was asked to come back in one year rather than two.
Distance prescription can decrease with age but there is no rule to this, my sphere went up -0.25 in one eye, the first change for twelve years! Also my add at +2.00 remained the same as it’s been for six years.
The bottom line of your friend’s prescription is that with her right eye she will only have +0.25 of plus to help her reading, and only +1.00 in the left eye. It is a negligible amount in the right eye and will make hardly any difference as it almost like not wearing glasses, and for the left it is the lowest amount that OTC readers can be purchased with.
If she can read well with just her right eye than the prescription may be sufficient, although on the scale of things at age 48 it is on the low side. Your optometrist sounds well qualified but should be open to hear concerns that the prescription may not fulfil her reading needs. He should have done the test for reading and computer acuity and possibly your friend could ask if with the trial lenses she can read a book or paper, and also look at a computer screen.
guest 30 Jun 2009, 08:41
Another question? How much if any does the added cylinder make? Since it is such a small amount, I'm wondering if even that will be helpful with her near vision? Isin't it much more common for people nearing the age of 50 to see a decrease in their myopia and an added need for correction for reading? I wonder what the optometrist meant when he told her that now that her correction for distance isin't so"off" this will make her overall vision much improved, at all distances? My friend told me that he acted as though he assumed she wore her glasses full time, and as I mentioned earler believes she will need changes again in a year. He told her never to wait for 3 yrs to have her eyes examined, as she had. He is a very reputable optometrists that works under the direction of an opthalmology group.
Again Thanks!
guest 30 Jun 2009, 07:49
I believe her rx is od sp- -2.00 cyl-+.50 add 2.25. os sp--1.25 cyl +.50 add 2.25. Like I said her previous rx had no cylinder and was .75 less in ea eye, but the add was 2.25. She went because she has been experiencing problems with computer and reading for long periods of time. She fully intended to be told that her presbyopia was increasing as she is now 3 yrs older. She told me that she doesn't see to have a problem with her distance and she usually only wears her glasses at work and to read. She was very surprised when asked to read the chart (at a distance) with her glasses on and she couldn't read beyond 20/50 or so. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this new rx show an actual decrease in the add strength, as her rx is stronger for distances? How will this rx be helpful with the computer and reading?
Thanks for your Insight!
Dieter 30 Jun 2009, 07:34
guest,
If your friend's prescription for astigmatism was written as a "+", which is the practice for ophthalmologists in the USA, that amount is added to the sphere. In otherwords, a prescription of -1.00 with a +.50 added would become -1.50 +.50 followed by the angle (with no actual increase in myopia). It might help to determine the actual increase if you tell us the entire RX before and now.
Aubrac 30 Jun 2009, 07:01
guest
I really don’t know what the Dr. means by ‘distance vision being off’. Do you know what your friend’s add is? If it is a high add e.g. +3.50, then it might presently be overcompensating with the result that reading for long periods is difficult, and now the sphere has been increased, it is correct.
If the new prescription is correct and her present add is, say +2.00, then her new prescription would give her the same (except for a small improvement with astigmatism correction) reading acuity without glasses as with glasses, because a +2.00 add would cancel out the -2.00 sphere.
Let us know what the add is, and we can work out a simple test using over the counter readers to see what the result would be.
guest 30 Jun 2009, 05:57
OOPs, Post below is from me! Guest
30 Jun 2009, 05:56
She said that when she went to the optometrist, the only problem she had been having with her current rx is for reading for long periods of time and working on the computer (with glasses on). She does work at a computer all day and reads alot on weekends as well. Her computer screen is about 3 feet away. She then mentioned that when the Dr had her read the line on the chart with her glasses on she thinks it was 20/30 line she couldn't read at all with either eye. Her right eye couldn't see the 20/40 line either. Her former rx was only about -1.00 in left and -1.25 in right. She now also has a minimal rx for astigmatism in both eyes +.50. Both eyes had an increase in sphere of .75. She is concerned about filling the rx (as you mentioned) because no accomodations were made for reading. She told me the Dr said that when "your distance rx is as "off" as hers, that effects vision at all distances". He told her that she shouldn't wait 3 yrs to return as her eyes seem to be changing quickly. Should she fill this rx? I'm still concerned about the rx that I have received being correct, and haven't filled it. We are now both in a quandry.
Like Lenses 30 Jun 2009, 01:28
guest
Has she been doing a lot of near work, or computer work?
Aubrac 30 Jun 2009, 01:10
guest
The sphere increase of -0.75 itself is a little unusual at age 48 as usually the eyes have stabilised by this time. What is your friend’s full prescription? You said she is slightly myopic and so this increase would seem to be quite high.
As you say, one would think the add would also increase to compensate for the additional sphere correction unless her current add is sufficient. However, at 48 her presbyopia is likely to have increased over three years.
It may be worth having the prescription checked by the optometrist before it is filled because it is possible he has made a mistake.
guest 29 Jun 2009, 18:01
A friend of mine who is 48, as I am had an eye exam today. She hasn't had an exam in 3 years and is slightly myopic and presbyopit. I was rather surprised to find that her distance rx increased by .75. Isin't this unusual, especially when the add remained the same, without any compensation for the distance correction??
Puffin 25 Jun 2009, 13:35
I was wondering what happened too.
Wurm 25 Jun 2009, 12:26
I deleted a question troll and several responses. But the timing was such that responses were being posted just as I deleted (and that happened twice, apparently).
myofan 25 Jun 2009, 11:32
No, julian, I saw the Anna posting on the "latest postings" list and went to look at it -- and it was gone!
Methinks Wurm will have an explanation...
Julian 25 Jun 2009, 11:17
Was I dreaming? The post I was commenting on seems to have vanished.
Julian 25 Jun 2009, 11:15
Who's this Anna, Roy? The last time anyone called Anna was mentioned on this thread was on 14 January 2002 ...
LD 19 Jun 2009, 02:05
Actually, I've always preferred being undercorrected. I just like the impressionist way of life more than the realist's.
In any case,I remember about a year and a half ago when I gave up contacts that my sight was quite bad, with contacts but even more with my glasses. No problem, I didn't mind, so I didn't have my eyes checked or anything. Then this spring things were getting sharp. In retrospect I can say I just felt my eyes getting better, although at that moment I was just puzzled, looking at the trees and seeing all the young leaves in different shades, amazing that was. It was a bit like when I started wearing contacts at 19, I just couldn't get over it how things looked. My idea then was that the beauty of nature struck me because last year I was mostly at home with a terrible pregnancy, feeling bad all day. Thinking about it now though, it wasn't just my mind feeling better.
The whole thing does keep me busy all day, even all night. At first, I had these euphoric dreams, but now I notice I'm feeling anxious. I dreamt I was going abroad by train and starting to panic because I didn't bring my glasses, having convinced myself I don't need them anymore. I suddenly realised I was going to need them at some point, but there was no going back...
So I guess I'm going to keep them on just a bit more and see what happens.
sum1wholovesgirlswithglasses 18 Jun 2009, 21:37
LD im not an expert but i suspect that your glasses were likely overcorrected without noticing,according to some ophthalmologist's assistant i had found on different forums a lot of young patients really prefer being over minused cause they believe more minus equals improvements in visual acuity or overall sharpness,its nearly impossible that your last pregnancy was the cause of a decrease in myopia,nearsightedness usually gets worse or stay pretty much the same
Clare 17 Jun 2009, 12:40
LD - I wouldn't worry about feeling guilty if you prefer what you see with glasses. I suppose the psychological effect is different when your rx is going down to when its going up. I can understand if you'd taken some time to get used to it, like me, then it must feel weird. But if you've become comfortable with wearing glasses then you should carry on. Folks here will say there's no absolute that says when anyone should, or shouldn't, wear glasses.
I think my rx is pretty stable now although I've never tried to increase it. I've never really taken to wearing glasses - as people here will testify -so I wear contacts. For a long time I would go avoid wearing glasses when I couldn't wear contacts. I have a pretty good relationship with contacts now so that rarely happens.
I'm sure others here will have some hmore scientific thoughts on what's going on with your eyesight as I'm no expert.
LD 16 Jun 2009, 10:19
Clare
I don't even really notice the difference, I can do the same things without glasses now as I used to.
And enjoying it, I don't know. I'm actually feeling a bit confused, having spent a lot of money on new glasses and possibly having to buy new lenses again (and again and again?). I should have thought about further improvement before buying new glasses. And also, I'd finally got used to wearing glasses (and seeing well) all the time, and now I'm afraid I'll be able to do without most of the time, but having to sacrifice sharp sight. Most people (as I did 13 years ago) go the other way and become full time wearer after living with some blur. I think now it will be hard to do that again. Of course I can still wear glasses all the time, but I'll actually feel a bit guilty. I guess most people here don't understand that.
Do you have problems with your eyes deteriorating or were you hoping for it?
Clare 15 Jun 2009, 12:21
LD - congratulations! A long time ago I read that distant vision tends to improve ahead of presbyopia but I guess you have a while to go before that. I've also heard pregnancy is more likely to increase your myopia rather than decrease it. Sorry, not being hugely helpful.
But these things don't go to plan it seems. My prescription has been increasing through my 30s which is not that usual and I'm now at -3 and -2.75. Are you enjoying your improved vision, or does it just seem strange not to need glasses so often?
LD 15 Jun 2009, 06:41
Hi
I'm not sure if anyone can help me with this, but how can improvement in vision be explained?
I'm 31 and have had around -4, -3,75 for about 10 years, but at some point found myself seeing sharp with my -3,5, -3,25 glasses. After some more months I got headaches, especially when reading with my glasses on, although I preferred not wearing them all the time.
A visit to the eye doctor taught me I now have only -3, -2,5! Wearing my new glasses again I seem to be getting headaches. Possibly my eyes are getting better still?
I'm really curious what may be causing this. Could it be not working currently, having less/no stress? Could it have to do with my last pregnancy or breastfeeding? Could a treatment by an osteopath (for neck problems) have helped?
of course I'm glad with the improvement, but I'm also a little bit afraid. After having hated my nearsightedness for 15 years, I now fear losing it!
Cactus Jack 30 May 2009, 15:09
Philpit,
Yes, but it is up to the wearer to determine if the corrected vision provides enough benefit for full time wear. Apparently, Bon has not felt the need for full time wear. Everyone's needs are different and we can't judge for them.
C.
Philpit 30 May 2009, 14:25
Hi Cactus
Interesting that full time wear is recommended at such low levels of astigmatism. Is that common?
Cactus Jack 30 May 2009, 03:56
bon,
She probably suggested full time wear was because of the cylinder correction for your astigmatism. Astigmatism affects vision at all distances and is usually most noticeable when reading small print. It isn't too bad at low levels, but it causes increased fatigue because it is impossible for your eyes to focus properly for sharp, comfortable vision without external correction.
C.
bon 30 May 2009, 03:20
Clare, no the doctor didn't explain, and I'm afraid I didn't ask.
She was kind of surprised when I told her that I didn't wear my old glasses all the time. The old prescription was similar to the new one, but without astigmatism correction.
Clare 29 May 2009, 11:40
bon - did he say/did you ask why the recommendation to wear them all the time? Especially given that you think you see okay without them some of the time.
bon 27 May 2009, 08:41
Thanks, Cactus Jack!
Cactus Jack 27 May 2009, 07:42
bon,
Astigmatism can develop over time. it does not increase like myopia, but it does change. Astigmatism is usually the result of unevenness in the curvature of cornea whereas myopia is the result of a mismatch between the total optical power of your cornea and crystaline lens and the length of your eyeball. Changes in myopia are usually caused by growth and elongation of the eyeball.
C.
bon 27 May 2009, 07:08
Hi!
I just had an eye exam: R -1,00 -0,25 90, L -0,75 -0,50 40. I was told by the eye doctor to wear them all the time. I wonder why, because I'm perfectly fine wearing my glasses only when I need them, just like I did before.
This is the first time I have clyinders in my prescription. Can astigmatism develop over time, and does it progress, like myopia does?
I'm 30 btw :)
bon 27 May 2009, 07:00
Aubrac 26 May 2009, 05:10
Hello Alice
An interesting prescription, can you tell us if the the ADD +3.00 is a reading add? This would counteract the -1.50 and give you +1.50 for reading.
In other words without glasses you still need +1.50 glasses to read easily - is this correct?
Or is the 3.00 the amount of base out prism although it is not generally written as an 'add'.
Prism is usually divided between both eyes but you seem to have been prescribed .5 base out prism in one eye only. This is a very low amount of prism and would suggest your right eye tends to turn in slightly when reading, and the base out prism will help correct this and keep both eyes aligned.
Did your optometrist give any reason for this and is there anything he noticed that would need the correction?
Prism will make the lens thicker on one edge but a small amount such as .5 should be hardly noticeable.
Alice 23 May 2009, 06:21
Hi Just got a new prescription I have to have a prism in my right eye.
sph cyl axis prism
R -150 -150 145 1/2 out ADD +3.00
L -175 -025 90 nil ADD +3.00
Can you explain this what do all the numbers mean also will the lens with the prism be thicker
Lisa 17 Apr 2009, 12:48
My rx is -19d in both eyes, my acuity is not as it was with such strong glasses. Also i've noticed that my eyes sometimes cross when/after reading. Maybe i need prisms?
Julian 07 Feb 2009, 02:41
Andy: that's a really good suggestion of Aubrac's. Online suppliers are a lot cheaper than High Street opticians, so you needn't spend as much...
Aubrac 06 Feb 2009, 12:56
Andy
Don't worry. Your prescription for short sight is very low, and your astigmatism (cylinder correction) is also low.
You can never tell anyone if they need to wear glasses because at very low levels of correction, like yours, it is purely a personal matter. However, you may find that reading signs, destination boards, etc, is a lot easier with glasses.
I'd suggest you get your prescription made up with an on line site for maybe £15, try wearing them and see what the benefits are. Only you can tell.
Andy 06 Feb 2009, 08:53
Hi im 24 and went as i hadnt been for afew years and thought i was due a checkup. Is it likly they will get too much worse? I guess i should get some if their will be an improvement. I think the thing is that ive always thought i had good vision, and it came as abit of a surprise to find out i havent.
Julian 06 Feb 2009, 06:45
Well Andy, if your vision was all right and you don't want to wear glasses, why did you go for a test? Could it be that somebody observing you thought you weren't seeing as well as you thought you were? Honestly, it's up to you whether you get glasses now or in a year or two when your eyes have got worse - as they almost certainly will, because it's in the nature of short sight to get shorter. You can put off the evil hour until that myopia really starts to bite - or you can get them now and have them handy for those moments when you find you can't see the cinema screen or the TV or the destination of the bus that's approaching. It really is up to you. How old are you by the way? I'm guessing between 16 and 20.
Andy 05 Feb 2009, 08:15
Ok so you would recommend getting glasses? As i hadnt noticed anything wrong with my vision before the test, and am not that keen on having to wear glasses!! If i did get them when would i need them?
Julian 05 Feb 2009, 08:08
Andy: it means you are a little bit short-sighted and have a little bit of astigmatism. If you read the recent posts on the 'Astigmatism' they will (I hope) explain that with glasses you will see a bit better and suffer a lot less eyestrain.
Andy 05 Feb 2009, 07:57
Hiya i went to the opticians yesterday and got a prescription of R= -0.50 +0.50 10 L= -0.75 +0.25 100. What does this mean do i need glasses as i havent had any before?
russell 03 Nov 2008, 11:43
Eli,
Sounds like you could use bifocals. How old are you?
Eli 03 Nov 2008, 00:41
Re And: I am now completely dependent on my glasses for seeing anything beyond 100 cm, but I am always being bare-eyed when reading as my eyes could not focus well with the glasses--- I cannot identify normal fonts (12-20 pt) at normal reading distance (30-50 cm), but I can identify them with ease without glasses.
And 02 Nov 2008, 13:14
Eli,
Any posts for the 'Going Without Glasses' thread ? Are you a full-time wearer ?
Eli 02 Nov 2008, 02:39
But my acuity without glasses has dropped further to around 20/300 after wearing my new glasses for 4 days.
Eli 02 Nov 2008, 02:36
Re: I've just had a new prescription. My old prescription was -1.5/-1.5, and my new one is -3/-3. The acuity with glasses on my last post was based on the old prescription, not the new one.
With my new prescription, my acuity is around 20/10 (perfect) for both eyes now.
sum1wholovesgirlswithglasses 24 Oct 2008, 15:58
Eli what is your recent prescription?
are you longsided or shortsided?
do you wear your glasses full time?
hope i did not asked to many questions at once^^
Eli 24 Oct 2008, 15:39
My acuity without glasses: 20/200.
My acuity with glasses: 20/40.
Cleventine 20 Oct 2008, 14:15
Brian can't focus his camera because his glasses are off.
Mack 20 Oct 2008, 12:20
Brian,
Your new glasses would look better if they were if focus.
Brian 19 Oct 2008, 12:03
I got my new glasses, they really aren't that bad.. I'm glad I listened to my wifes suggestion. Being rimless the glasses are not thick at all for a -6.00 prescription:
here are my new rimless glasses:
http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2460631870034567310cYsaNl
here were my old glasses:
http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2802704430034567310geFCFo#commentForm
Brian 19 Oct 2008, 12:03
I got my new glasses, they really aren't that bad.. I'm glad I listened to my wifes suggestion. Being rimless the glasses are not thick at all for a -6.00 prescription:
here are my new rimless glasses:
http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2460631870034567310cYsaNl
here were my old glasses:
http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2802704430034567310geFCFo#commentForm
Brian 17 Oct 2008, 20:03
Got a call today that my glasses are in, will likely pick them up tomorrow.. I'll let you know how they turn out..
And 14 Oct 2008, 13:56
Sandra, any update ? Are you wearing full-time ?
Brian 14 Oct 2008, 13:31
Had an eye exam yesterday, no major changes, left eye went from -5.75 to -6.00, right eye stayed at -5.25 but had an astigmatism correction of 0.25 added in... Got a pair of Polo, Semi-Rimless glasses, real small frame.. My wife had to talk me into getting the semi-rimless frame, I was concerned the lenses would look too thick in them even with the thinner lenses I got, my according to the optican, they wouldn't be any thicker than my wifes semi-rimless glasses, which are a bigger frame, with regular lenses at -1.75, so we'll see how they turn out.. He said if I don't like them they have that 30 day return policy so we'll see what happens.. We'll just figured I'd update everyone on my prescription since its been a awhile since I posted..
Aubrac 16 Jun 2008, 01:26
Benn
I sympathise with you, my wife is the same. We live by the sea and the other day she asked what the dark blob across the bay was - it was obviously a clump of trees, then walking past the harbour I was looking at the water and she said - look at that dead fish, it was actually a feather floating on the water!
Like you I want to see signs, numbers etc clearly at distance but it really doesn't seem to bother her.Unfortunately for me as she looks great wearing glasses.
lazysiow 15 Jun 2008, 02:11
They still look like minus if the minus is significant but things will be slanted in a particular direction. With my older plus glasses they just seem weaker in a particular area.
Clare 14 Jun 2008, 22:40
Lazysiow - what do minus lenses for astigmatism look like? Do they look like regular minus or nothing like it?
lazysiow 14 Jun 2008, 17:15
I bet you look gorgeous in them too Sandra :)
Myself I'm practically myopic nowadays, I went from being +0.5 with insignificant astigatism to now being -1.0 of astigmatism with nearly no + power left. I now notice when I take mine off I can hardly read anything at a distance but at least can still see oncoming cars and buses :)
Sandra S. 14 Jun 2008, 12:38
Just to let you know, my prescription sunglasses has arrived, and the extra -0.25 does make a difference.
So I'm definitely going to replace the old lenses or buy a new pair.
Melyssa 14 Jun 2008, 11:59
Chris,
In most states, 16 is the legal minimum age to begin learning how to drive. In New Jersey, it's 17. I would not be surprised if certain states allow driving at age 14. Either way, a person must have vision corrected to near 20-20, whatever the exact number may be by state. I began wearing glasses fulltime at 16 just so I could be allowed to drive.
chrisB 13 Jun 2008, 12:40
How important is it to have corrected vision and how much do others recognise the level of correction needed.
I feel a bit nervous about posting in this thread as Cactus Jack's contributions will have far more credibility and eridution than I can offer.
However in terms of the impact that correcting someones vision might have - is it not just an extension of the social model of disability, whereas when we discuss snellen charts and VA we are exercising the medical model of disability and rather a simplistic one at that.
A very simple example:
In the US, for reasons that are completely opaque to me, 'children' are able to drive cars on the public highway legally at 16. (in all states?) In the UK the age has just been raised to 18. The need to have corrected vision amongst 16 year olds in the US is greater.
Taking two individuals with the same measurable RX, one might progress through life quite successfully without glasses because of their social circumstances and ability to compensate. Another individual in different role might never develop the skills to operate successfully without glasses.
Cactus Jack 13 Jun 2008, 10:26
Nikki,
Yes, that is correct. You simply cannot tell how well a person sees by the power of their glasses. Remember, the only function of the corrective lenses is to provide sharp focus on the retina, the "film" in the biological camera.
We do not yet fully understand how the biological image processing of "vision" works. However, we are making progress by doing it artifically. A good example, if you recall, are the early images of the Hubble Space Telescope that were so out of focus as to be nearly unusable. By applying massive computer resources, it was possible to improve the images enough to make them useful. Yet, by the simple fitting of the "camera" aboard the telescope with "glasses", the images were rendered spectacularly sharp and revealing of the wonders of the universe. Admittedly, the effort required to determine the "prescription" and get the lenses into place were huge, but it was worth it and now the computer resources can be put to other uses.
I guess you could say the same thing about vision correction with glasses or contacts. It frees up the brain to do more constructive tasks. But, of course, if you weren't planning on using your brain for anything anyway, it might as well be trying to process blurry images.
C.
benn 13 Jun 2008, 07:18
I think Catus Jack is sage with his comments. What is a problem to one is of little notice to another.
I demand sharp vision, my wife does not. At times she does not know if she has her lenses in or not.
I am always testing my vision by checking signs or car plates to make sure I am, seeing correctly.
My wife never looks. I will say to her read that sign, and she can't and I say doesn't that bother you? and she says "no, I know there is a sign so why do I need to read it"
It flips me out.
Nikki 13 Jun 2008, 06:54
Cactus Jack
When you say - brain is perfectly capable of creating its own images without any input from the eyes - to me that suggests that even people with very bad vision can get by because the brain is cleverer.
I was thinking of being more charitable when seeing someone who has a very low prescription, thinking that perhaps they could still have vision as bad as someone with a much stronger one. ie that people who look like they have low prescriptions may have worse sight than you'd guess from their glasses. Does that make sense?
Cactus Jack 13 Jun 2008, 06:29
Nikki,
Yes, the actual optical correction required for BCVA is loosely related to quality of vision. After an image is sharply focused, actual visual acuity depends very much on the condition of the retina, its image pre-processing capability, condition of the optic nerve, and image processing capability of the brain. Obviously, the Garbage In - Garbage Out rule for computers applies here also. The brain's image processing capability can "improve" on poor image quality, but in general, it must know what something is supposed to look like to be effective and it takes time and effort.
The brain is perfectly capable of creating its own images without any input from the eyes.
For example: dreams, halucinations, and simply seeing thing as you wish they were rather than as they really are. Another ready example is the graphic images used on some web sites to veryify that a human is responding rather than a computer. Humans are extremely good at pattern matching and a human can recognize a familiar pattern and decipher the letters easily, but a computer can't without considerable effort. Try identifying the letters in the image if it is blurry.
I chuckle at those who "heroically" go without their glasses and expound on how well they can function. If you were to put them in an unfamiliar environment, where they had not "seen" what something was supposed to look like, and remove the supporting clues (audio for instance), they would be lost. If you put them in an environment where images change rapidly, they HAVE to perform, and "instant" evaluation of the situation is necessary, such as driving, they would be positively dangerous to themselves and others.
As you can see, the causes of poor vision are many and varied. Sharply focusing the images on the retina is only one very important element in good vision. Simply saying they need -1.50 or -3.00 or they only see 20/50 doesn't say much about how well they "see".
C.
Nikki 13 Jun 2008, 02:53
Cactus Jack
Does that mean then
- that two people with -2 could see entirely differently?
- that someone with -1.5 might see as bad as someone with -3
Do you know what it is that causes it?
Thanks
Cactus Jack 11 Jun 2008, 19:43
eyespy,
The eye is simply a biological camera and the purpose of corrective lenses of any Rx is to focus images on the retina. Quality of vision (Acuity) is determined by how well the retina and the brain process the images to produce vision. A vision exam hopefully results in what is called Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) and it must be based on the patient's response because, while the examiner can determine pretty closely how well the images are focused on the retina, it is impossible for the examiner to know how well someone actually sees. In that regard, the examiner must depend on what the patient says.
C.
eyespy 11 Jun 2008, 13:57
Just wondering since I read recently that uncorrected visual acuity differs even between two people who have the same prescription, does the eye dr know what you can see from the chart?
Has anyone come across someone with a similar prescription whose eyesight is much better/worse than theirs?
It must be possible that people like Kelly and Emma with low prescriptions sometimes have eyesight much worse than you'd imagine for that prescription? So are we wrong to think that people in the low range don't have too bad vision?
Too many questions I know, but what an interesting subject ... ;)
Clare 10 Jun 2008, 11:32
Sandra - don't worry -2 isn't too debilitating.
And - convenience mainly, it was nice not to have to carry/put on glasses.
And 09 Jun 2008, 16:26
Clare,
What influenced you the most to go fulltime ?
Sandra S. 09 Jun 2008, 16:26
Clare, thank for answering! Interesting how you become nearsighted relatively late. I hope your myopia stabilized by now, and I hope mine will too :)
I had the same -0,5 prescription for 8 years, until I was 28. It then began to increase slowly. And I haven't had any astigmatism until recently.
Clare 09 Jun 2008, 12:19
Sandra - this takes me back a bit! I was about 27 or 28 when I first got glasses, a weak prescription that meant I was legal for driving. That's all I wore them for. It crept up and in the early -2s I got contacts but I didn't always wear them, just for sport. I finally went fulltime with contacts around -2.75.
Sandra S. 09 Jun 2008, 07:32
And, I don't really have interesting stories, since I usually wear my glasses when I need to, for driving, watching tv, movies and other activities that require good distance vision.
I don't wear them outdoors during the day because my vision is good enough in the bright light. As soon as it gets dark, my vision becomes poor, and I put on my glasses.
I also don't wear them at home (except for tv), and at work, because I work on the computer and don't need glasses to see the screen.
Well, there was one embarrassing moment without glasses at my work: I was walking with my colleague along a rather long corridor, when I spotted another colleague approaching on the other end. I greeted him, saying his name, only to find that it is not my colleague, but my boss! I was so embarrassed. Fortunately, none of them made any comment, only my boss gave me a strange look when he passed by me.
And 09 Jun 2008, 05:53
Sandra, have you any tlaes for the 'going without glasses' thread ? When do you choose to wear your glasses ?
Sandra S. 08 Jun 2008, 17:29
Clare, how old were you when you got your first glasses? I'm curious, because I feel we're at the same position, and I also might get beyond -2 before 40. Which would probably make me wear the glasses full time.
I don't mind wearing them, but I like to have a freedom of choice. :)
Anyway, my sunglasses will be done by the end of the week, and I'll see if they make any difference.
ehpc 08 Jun 2008, 12:21
But you'll never be a whole-hearted GWG, Clare, regrettably. Your heart just isn't in it! Pete
Clare 08 Jun 2008, 09:43
Sandra - you're right, it's supposed to stablilise in your 20s but not always. My prescription has increased throughout my 30s, starting at around -1 and progressing to -3 as I approach the big 40. I'm not sure you'd really notice the extra -0.25 unless you're particularly sensitive, but there's no harm in filling the new prescription if you're looking for a change of style.
And there are some great styles around, I was glasses shopping with a friend yesterday and so liked the styles I saw I was tempted to take a look for myself!
Melyssa 08 Jun 2008, 08:41
Poster below,
My prescription may have been around -6.00 by then, because at 27 it skyrocketed to -8.00 (the difference was quite noticeable to me) before eventually finding its way to -9.00.
07 Jun 2008, 12:05
melyssa what was your prescription once you had reached the age of 25?
Melyssa 07 Jun 2008, 11:19
Sandra,
Normally, myopia will stabilize in one's mid-20's, as it has done for most people I know (or knew), but mine lasted until I reached -9.00 at age 36, 28 years after I first got glasses.
lazysiow 07 Jun 2008, 10:51
Well judging from some of the responses around here, it can keep increasing for some time even past the common consensus of 40 but 40 is about when it slows..
Sandra S. 07 Jun 2008, 09:37
Thanks for the advice, lazysiow. I think I'll get some prescription sunnies for now, and if my vision with them is much better than with my current glasses, I'll replace the lenses. Or maybe bought myself a new pair :)
BTW, how long before my prescription stops increasing? I'm 34 now, wearing glasses since I was 20. I thought myopia stabilizes around mid 20's...
lazysiow 07 Jun 2008, 07:22
Sandra, in general yeah. Although you might want to take advantage of a place like Zenni Optical or Optical4Less to get some cheap ones if there's a new style you want to try or just for a backup pair. It'd be a great excuse :)
Martyn 07 Jun 2008, 07:15
A new receptionist started at our work, she was wearing heavy brown framed glasses with a very high minus RX, very thick power rings and huge cut ins, the lenses must have been at least 3/4 inch thick
A few days later she came into work with new designer glasses, gone were the thick lenses, gone were the heavy power rings unless you looked at an angle at her glasses even the cut in round her eyes seemed smaller, and she looked really beautiful in her medium metal framed glasses. I told her she looked a picture in her new glasses, a tear appeared in her eye, she said that was the first time anyone had given her a compliment, I told her she would get many more.
Sandra S. 07 Jun 2008, 06:52
My regular eye exam revealed that I need a slightly stronger glasses (-0,25 stronger).
Considering this is a very small increase, should I make a new lenses, or should I stick with the old ones (around -1,25, with the mild astigmatism)?
Thanx. :)
Peter G 02 Jun 2008, 01:12
Hello everybody,
I am not sure whether this is the correct thread for my questions, but could not find anything more specific.
I have recently bought an old phoropter on EBay. It seems to work OK, but some of the controls are different from what I am used to (I live in Germany, the phoropter is an old American Optical). Does anybody perhaps have an instruction manual for such an instrument I could acquire?
Secondly, I need to mount the phoropter on a stand of some kind, but cannot install a wall-mounted stand/mount in my living room. Has anybody got any ideas of a home-built simple stand, perhaps even constructed around a sturdy photographic tripod or something similar?
Any help would be much appreciated, Thanks
Peter G
R Ed 20 May 2008, 11:50
guesty,
Try to first type your comment in Word, then cut and paste to Eye Scene.
guesty 20 May 2008, 11:38
Why can't I post more than about 10 words? It just hangs ... help.
guesty 20 May 2008, 05:23
Having trouble posting. Anyone else had problems?
19 May 2008, 11:47
Iamme 15 Apr 2008, 16:57
I don't like the mirror way, I get a better refraction when they are using the 20 foot chart with the silver (not mirror) board on the wall. I have such high astigmatism, that I can easily tell the difference from a 10 foot room reflected back and a regular 20 foot room. I can make out the 20/20 line with my -6 cylinder in one eye, and -5 in the other when using a regular 20 foot room, but when its mirrored, I can barely make out the 20/25 line. I have found an optometrist that does have a full 20' room, and he's good, so I continue to go there now.
I am a bit shy or skeptical to ask him about doing GOC, as i'd like to have an RX of about -8 in both eyes with the astigmatism correction.
sourgrapes 14 Apr 2008, 09:53
1)how can i increase my eye numbers?
Induced myopia, GOC
2)can i wear biofocals or progressive glasses ( by some self modification in my prescription card )
You can order whatever you want online: Zenni, LBW, Optical 4 less...
3)can i go for thick glasses or myodiscs .. without doing GOC ? i mean to say that can mysodisc glasses be prepared with low prescription ?
Optical 4 Less takes custom orders like this, they will do whatever you want
nick 14 Apr 2008, 01:55
hi guys.. i want to wear thick glasses.. i like biofocal and progressive glasses .. and i love to wear lenticular glasses , myodiscs..!!!
but my prob is i hv cylindrical no.s and that too with lower prescription..-2.5 in both eyes..
i m having two questions
1)how can i increase my eye numbers ?
2)can i wear biofocals or progressive glasses ( by some self modification in my prescription card )
3)can i go for thick glasses or myodiscs .. without doing GOC ? i mean to say that can mysodisc glasses be prepared with low prescription ?
Mark 12 Apr 2008, 15:13
Anybody have keratoconus?
Phil 18 Mar 2008, 08:38
You are lucky EHPC. I'm the same age as you, have a distance rx of -4, and need an add of 2.25 to read.
ehpc 17 Mar 2008, 13:48
I'm sure you've got some years to go, Clare:) I believe I am correct in thinking that you are about 16 years younger than me (I am 53). I have a second pair of glasses which is minus 6 as opposed to my normal minus 7. The minus 6 glasses are ostensibly for 'reading' but I really hardly use them. Occasionally for computer or reading at night, but not much more than that.Pete
Clare 17 Mar 2008, 12:30
Not yet Hansel. A few years to go yet I hope!
Hansel 15 Mar 2008, 12:40
Is this an admission that presbyopia is creeping up on you, Clare?
Clare 15 Mar 2008, 11:17
Julian - also it's easy enough for we myopes without astigmatism to take them off or peek beneath them!
Julian 15 Mar 2008, 10:01
Phil: I've been thinking (on and off) all week about what you said last Saturday:
>I wish I'd gone for bifocals right from the start. But, in the UK at least, it's not something that opticians seem to suggest. Things seem more enlightened in the US.
I think our opticians expect that myopic first time wearers will, by keeping their glasses on, get their idle ciliary muscles working. On the face of it, this seems to me to make sense - after all, they don't give newly-corrected hyperopes a weaker Rx for distance: they tell them it'll take a few days to get used to the lenses. And what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!
Julian 14 Mar 2008, 18:39
No, you're right, Puffin, it doesn't - unless it's reflected. A low myope can focus better on smaller type at half the distance, and so on.
Puffin 13 Mar 2008, 20:59
I've heard of a half size eyechart being used at half the distance. I'm not altogether certain it amounts to the same.
Cactus Jack 13 Mar 2008, 19:52
Trent,
I have had a similar exam. It is the latest thing in examining equipment and it uses very clever optics and a special mirror (slightly concave I think) to give the effect of a 20 foot (6 meter) target in a rather small room.
Exam rooms used to be long and slender. Then they started using smaller rooms with a mirror on one wall and reversed Snellen charts (actual or projected), then CRT Monitors, and now this. I must admit, I liked it better with the chart actually 20 feet or a reflected 20 feet away.
If I can find out more about the optics involved, I post it.
C.
Trent 13 Mar 2008, 19:12
Very strange eye exam yesterday.
I was escorted into a very small room containing a phoropter. I thought to myself that this room is too small to project letters on to any wall. To my surprise the doctor told me to read the letters reflected in a mirror six feet in front of me.
Can someone please explain to me how my distance vision could accurately be measured in such a small space even if the image was reflected.
Tim 10 Mar 2008, 23:01
I remember one in the mid-60s in Oxford whom I went out with for a while, about -8 with an add of about +2. I even "fought" a "duel" over her because one of my friends called her an old boot - hock in the cloisters at dawn & he who first downed 2 bottles and held them down longest won! (Alas, I lost)
Puffin 10 Mar 2008, 07:23
I do remember this young woman with thick minus glasses and bifocals, only saw her for a few minutes while waiting for a fairground ride, the bifocals were hard to spot because the lenses were quite thick (about 7mm)
Phil 10 Mar 2008, 07:03
I'm glad things are going well Jenny. I knew you'd get used to them. It must be good to be able to see to read. Church used to be one of my biggest challenges in my pre-bifocal days. Either I took my glasses on and off or I couldn't see the words in the hymn-book!
You'll come to see them as a positive thing. Any attention they draw will be invariably complimentary. For me there's a "mystery" about bifocals on a young woman that I find totally enticing!
Are there any young female bifocal wearers in the UK lurking here?
Jenny 10 Mar 2008, 06:52
Hi all,
I survived the first weekend with bifocals. It went better than I thought. I went to a movie and dinner with friends and it took them a while to notice the line. Once we talked about it, the issue was over. Yesterday at church a nice older lady commented about them and gave me tips on how to use them. It was actually kind of cute. Thanks for all your help and support.
Slit 09 Mar 2008, 23:18
hi Jenny,
It is good that you met the doctor for the opinion and updated the correction before the eyes got more worst.
However, re: the comment of bifocals are not so sexy on a 22 yr old. Well, its a matter of perception. Probably there can be some one in your community who find it interesting and may be even attractive. Its just like some people like long earings vs some people prefer tiny star like ear wear....
Good luck and pls keep us updated.
What was the immediate reaction of your friends? (and boyfriend if one exists?
presbyope Challenged 09 Mar 2008, 18:04
Cactus Jack, Thanks. I suspect that her ciliary muscles are better than most. For example, we were out to dinner the other night and she was able to get through the menu without glasses. Meanwhile at another table was a couple we knew with a woman the same age and she immediately pulled out her reading glasses. But my wife does like to read in bed and she always does it bare eyed with the book about 10 inches from her face. And she always has contacts or glasses on, claiming she is absolutely blind without them. I am hoping that the progressive lenses are quite satisfactory so that even with contacts she uses her reading glasses more frequently. it has become quite apparent that when she goes to read something she is pulling her head back, but I do not think she has embraced reading glasses yet, although she says they are better than regular glasses
Melyssa 09 Mar 2008, 08:15
OttO,
I began reading about age 4, and I got my first glasses at age 8, with a prescription of -1.75 & -1.50. I never wore glasses while reading until I started wearing them full time at age 16. From then on I wore glasses whether reading or viewing things far away.
At 48 I got my first add (+1.50), and 2 years later it was +2.50.
OttO 08 Mar 2008, 14:27
As we all know, when to wear & when to not wear our glasses is very personal. Just depends on what is comfortable for each of us.
As a myope who began wearing glasses as a teen, I always removed my glasses for reading until presbyopia hit. With presbyopia & astigmatism I now read with my glasses.
I've often wondered if myopes who needed glasses at the time they began to read (Age 6) are more likely to read with glasses than those of us who began wearing glasses as teens or later. Any thoughts?
Guest 08 Mar 2008, 14:16
Benn
I find looking under them works very well. Or off.
benn 08 Mar 2008, 14:12
Guest
Ever do that...what a pain. Also your glasses get scratched and bent out of shape and when you look up you get a headache.
if you are wearing glasses why would you want to take them off to read? Bifocal or progressive is no big thing.
Guest 08 Mar 2008, 14:07
Jenny/Cactus Jack
Wouldn't it just be easier to take off the glasses? Then the exact same add would be unnecessary.
Or did I miss something?
Jenny 08 Mar 2008, 11:29
Phil,
Thanks for your nice comments. I can tell you feeling sexy as I wear them right now is not what I am feeling. 22 year olds shouldn't have to wear bifocals but I guess that is my lot in life.
Phil 08 Mar 2008, 09:39
That's brilliant Jenny. At least you'll be able to see. And I think that bifocals are amazingly sexy on a young woman! Good luck.
Cactus Jack 08 Mar 2008, 09:32
Jenny,
Glad to be of help. I hope you kept your single vision glasses. Even with the bifocals, your ciliary muscles are having to work some for intermediate distances and reading and they will gradually become re-conditioned. You may find that in a few months you don't need the bifocals except for very lengthy close tasks.
Please let us know from time to time how you are getting on.
C.
Cactus Jack 08 Mar 2008, 09:24
Presbyope Challenged,
The relationship between age and the amount of external focusing help required is an extremely loose one. There are two elements to presbyopia, stiffness of the crystaline lens and conditioning of the cilary muscles. Stiffness of the crystline lens is somewhat related to age, but genetics and the biochemical environment for the lenses is more significant. Conditioning and responsiveness of the cilary muscles is almost unrelated to age. People with uncorrected myopia in the -1.00 to -3.00 range are particularly susceptible to de-conditioning of the ciliary muscles because they don't have to use them much. As cases in point, Phil's and perhaps Jenny's comments nearby about focusing problems in their early 20s when their -2.00 and -1.50 myopia was first corrected. I suspect their crystaline lenses were and are quite flexible, but with -2.00 and -1.50 uncorrected, they were / are in effect wearing +2.00 or +1.50 readers all the time and their brain and cilary muscles forgot how to focus. Over time, with effort and probably some discomfort, the cilary muscles and the control system for could re-train and re-learn how to do it. But, re-training the cilary muscles isn't much different than any other muscle building course: No Pain, No Gain. And, it doesn't happen overnight. Sometimes temporary bifocals will help with the re-training. You don't start weight lifting with 50 Kg.
I think if you are patient and make the right and timely supportive comments, your wife will accept the fact that her uncorrected vision is really limiting her quality of life and she will come around.
C.
Jenny 08 Mar 2008, 09:09
To All,
Thanks for all the advice. This place is really a Godsend. I went back this morning, told them my problem and they were very helpful. I had my near vision rechecked with my glasses on and low and behold was told the same thing you have been saying. I received bifocals. She gave me an add of +1.50 which in affect takes away the distance correction. I am not real excited about the bifocal at 22 but am relieved that my vision is now clear. I went with the lined and am getting used to them as we speak.
Phil 08 Mar 2008, 03:16
I wish I'd had this advice when I first got glasses.
I was about 21 and was prescribed just over -2. My distance vision had been getting worse but I hadn't had an eyetest for about 3 years. The optician was horrified and told me to go fulltime at once.
When I picked up my glasses I was amazed by the clarity of my distance vision: I could read the names over the shops opposite and pick out the features pf passers-by. But when I came to write a cheque to pay for the specs I couldn't focus on the chequebook. I mentioned it to the optician who seemed unconcerned. Things never really improved, probably because I never wore fulltime.
It was only when presbyopia set in and tests started to involve reading tiny close-up print wearing my distance rx that things improved. I got a 1.5 add and now have 2.25 (after nagging the optician) and can read well wearing glasses.
I wish I'd gone for bifocals right from the start. But, in the UK at least, it's not something that opticians seem to suggest. Things seem more enlightened in the US.
Astra 08 Mar 2008, 02:44
Jenny, I think bifocals or progressives may be convenient for your situation, but did you compare your acuity for close-up without glasses? I think it is advisable to have 2-3 pairs of glasses of different prescriptions. For me, I need +2.00 correction (In addition to -2.50 for distance) for reading (focusing within circa 70 cm).
I think your situation is quite normal, as the flexibility of ciliary muscles varies between individuals. Some may adapt well between close-up and distance, while some may find it difficult. (Though most would not encounter problem until they reach their 40s). I don't think you should forcibly adapt to the -1.50 for close-up, as this may prove adversely affecting your adaptation for distance. In fact, that process is exactly the same as inducing myopia to your eyes, and your myopia would probably progressing very fast that way.
Presbyope Challenged 07 Mar 2008, 21:16
Cactus, The other glasses are single vision, so my concern is whether or not the progressive lenses will be satisfactory (I know you can only offer an opinion, albeit a very knowledgable one). I suspect she may have needed a stronger add, but she is reluctant to wear glasses at all, although she does not mind the chic readers that she has. Now, when she wears glasses instead of contacts, she is often having to pull the frames down for anything very close. I am hoping that the progressives will be more compatible and that she will wear more. I suspect a +2.00 add might hasten that process. Although that add seems a bit high for someone who is 45
Cactus Jack 07 Mar 2008, 20:55
Presbyope Challenged,
I suspect sha may have really needed a stronger add than +1.00 or that her ciliary muscles have become deconditioned pretty quickly. It can happen with surprising speed.
She will probably like the +2.00 bifocals, but may not like the progressives because the transition zone will likely be every narrow and the area of useful close vision will be small. If she has both lined and progressives, she may opt to wear the lined bifocals around the house and the progressives in situations where she only needs to do a little reading.
You know your wife better than anyone else, is the fact that she is needing additional reading help oausing her any problems? It could be hard for her to deal with and she needs support from you.
C.
Cactus Jack 07 Mar 2008, 20:34
Jenny,
It would not be unreasonable to go back to the eye doctor and tell her the problem. She may suggest bifocals or waiting a little longer. If she suggests bifocals you have two choices, lined or progressives. You will be sorely temped to get progressives, but frankly lined bifocals are much better from an optical standpoint until you get into some very expenive lenses. One solution would be to get some bifocals with an inexpensive frame for classroom use only and keep the single vision glasses for general wear. Treat them like "readers".
Remember, you are looking for and paid for is visual comfort and efficiency. If you don't get it from these people, it is not unreasonable to ask for a refund and go elsewhere, but don't delay.
May I ask where you live?
C.
Presbyope Challenged 07 Mar 2008, 19:36
Cactus, Quick question. My wife has ordered two pairs of glasses. The pair in which she wanted progressives, the optician said the lens was not tall enough - needed 26 ml. So she switched to one that was slightly taller. The reading add is +2.00, which seems to me to be a lot for someone who just got a +1.00 add about 4 months ago. Do you think she will be able to tolerate the progressives with this add? What was interesting as the optometrist was inserting plus lenses, there was some hemming and hawing and then he popped in the +2.00 and she said she could read everything
FRANCY 07 Mar 2008, 18:08
Senior lady on her first visit to an opthalmologist was advised that she had
PRESBYOPIA. No, she said..."It's impossible....you see I am a CATHOLIC"
. In the name of the father.........etc.
Kelly 07 Mar 2008, 14:25
I first went to Lenscrafters in the mall near me and tried about 30 pairs on. It just felt wrong with real glasses on my nose. Plus the service was not what I thought it should be. I later went to Hakim and it was like night and day. The service was great. She helped me choose frames and then we reduced selections.
They had a two for one that was supposed to be 2 for $199.00 add in reflection coating and scratch coating the bill was over $300.00
I then went and got contacts, orb I should say are breaking them in I am up to 8 hours next week. One of the main reasons for the contacts is I would like to change eye colour. Vain I know. I was self conscious walking into a glasses place at first but the second place more than made up for it.
Jenny 07 Mar 2008, 14:01
No they didn't. It was my first time ever in an eye place so I guess I was clueless. I also was really nervous and excited about looking across the room and it being all clear. I didn't even think about trying to see things up close.
Kelly 07 Mar 2008, 13:56
Hi Jenny, I was checked for both distance and near at the eye dr's. When you got your glasses did the sales people not ask you if you could see better after they placed the glasses on your face? I had to read from a pre printed card and the chart on the wall. I also did this after I got the contacts, the only difference was that my eyes were watering like Niagara Falls. Or so it seemed.
Jenny 07 Mar 2008, 13:43
Kelly,
Thanks. It is good to know there are others kind of like me. I don't have any astigmatism. My doctor did say that I could take them off to read but while taking notes off the board that is really hard to do. I don't think she ever tested my near vision with my prescription. She tested my near vision before she had my lenses in the machine. I really wish she had done that.
Kelly 07 Mar 2008, 13:12
Jenny, I also just recently was prescribed glasses.My prescription is
-1.25 I was told by the eye dr. that it may be easier to remove the glasses for reading and computer work. I asked on here about contacts which I got a couple of weeks ago and obviously not being able to remove them and would it affect anything. To be honest my close vision with and without glasses/contacts I feel is about the same.
Do you have the astigmatism in your glasses, and would that be a possible reason? Maybe Cactus Jack could answer that for you.
My eyes were perfect as soon as the sales lady placed the glasses in front of my eyes. She also had me read close up and the chart on the wall in the shop. Did they do that for you?
benn 07 Mar 2008, 12:43
That's why I started with bifocals at age 19. My reading ability skyrocketed as I didn't get fatiged. I never looked back. That was 49 years ago when the only bifocal was lined or curved.
The key is your eye sight.
jenny 07 Mar 2008, 11:53
Cactus Jack,
Thanks for the quick response. I have had my glasses for a little over two weeks. How much more time should I give the eyes to adjust before going back in to see if there is a problem?
Cactus Jack 07 Mar 2008, 11:38
Jenny,
I believe what is happening is that your ciliary muscles and crystaline lenses are having to go to work to focus close. Without your new glasses, your eyes are naturally focused at just about note taking distance. With your glasses, your eyes are focused for distance and the ciliary muscles and crystaline lenses are having to do what they were intended to do, which is add some plus power to focus closer.
It will take a few days or weeks for the muscles to get conditioned and used to providing the necessary focus power. This is common is a situation like yours.
In some instances, bifocals are prescribed as a temporary measure to help. I don't remember the exact thread, but if you look back about 6 months for some posts by Carlos Jr., he discusses his son, Carlos IIIs, new glasses and how he had to get bifocals for a couple of months until his eyes got used to being corrected.
C.
Jenny 07 Mar 2008, 11:13
I am a 22 year old college student who recently got my first pair of glasses. They are for distance and my RX is around a -1.50. I have noticed that when I am taking notes in the big auditorium my glasses really help me see the overhead but I am having difficulty seeing my notes. Is this common? Is it just because I am getting used to wearing glasses for the first time? Is there a solution?
Presbyope challenged 06 Mar 2008, 18:57
Well, my wife went for an exam today to which I accompanied her. Her distance prescription remained the same,although I found out she does have a minor astigmatism (-.5). She was looking for progressives and the reading add that she took was +2.00, quite a surprise since till now she only used +1.00 and rarely used them. I am hoping that she becomes a regular user of the progressives
Presbyope Challenged 05 Mar 2008, 00:56
Aubrac and Cactus Jack, Thanks for the advice. Actually after a bit the contacts were sharp, but there was strain. I won't be able to accomodate the 3.75, although I am sure I could do 1.5 or so ( which would make me more reliant on readers too!). I would prefer minus lenses because I think they look better, although I think use of readers on the right person can be quite attractive.
My wife said yesterday that she thinks her eyes are getting worse as she wore her readers, so there is hope. I have also convinced her to buy progressives for those rare times when she can not handle contacts.
J Berger 04 Mar 2008, 06:41
Hello, can anyone tell me any reason I should be getting worse than normal pain when driving at night and having oncoming lights shine in my eyes? I mean its normal to hurt a bit right, but I'm sure that recently its become heaps worse. I'm forever accusing people of driving with their lights on high beam... but could it be me? I seem to see fine otherwise. i'm 26 if that means anything too.
Aubrac 04 Mar 2008, 00:31
Presbyope challenged
I agree with Cactus Jack. If you are of a similar age to your wife, inducing myopia will be next to impossible. At this age many people become less myopic and tend towards hyperopia and presbyopia.
If you reall want to wear glasses, why not start wearing your readers full time?
Cactus Jack 03 Mar 2008, 20:41
Presbyope challenged,
You didn't mention your age, but it is very unlikely that you could induce myopia unless you are very much younger than your wife. It is interesting that your could accommodate -3.75 contacts. Are you sure you are not a little myopic?
As your wife get older, it is likely that she will soon need some stonger reading glasses if she continues to wear contacts and as the readers get stronger, she will need them more and more. At some point she will likely consider bifocal glasses or contacts.
C.
Presbyope challenged 03 Mar 2008, 19:49
I am slightly presbyopic, but alwayws wished I was myopic. Today, I tried to wear my wife's 3.75 disposable contacts all day. Quite interesting as I enjoyed the view, very sharp and small., but close work was impossible without my reading glasses. Was wondering if there is any way to induce myopia. Also she is 45 and just recently got 1.00 readers. Does anyone have any thoughts on when she would become more reliant on them. Right now she only uses for needlepoin.
Jersey Girl 02 Mar 2008, 14:00
Lurker,
No, I had no idea my vision was bad. I suppose that I squinted a little to view things that were far away but I thought that was the way everyone saw. When I tried on my boyfriend's mother's glasses just to see how they looked on me, it was a real relevation. All of a sudden everything was sharp with intense clarity. Almost super sharp. We were going to a play that evening and these glasses were in the car so I took them into the theater. I could not believe the details that I saw on the stage. I had my boyfriend try them on thinking that they would improve his vision as well but they only gave him a headache.
Cactus Jack 29 Feb 2008, 20:01
George,
This is a little complex to explain so other members will understand what you want to do and my recomendation. Based on what you posted, your glasses Rx of:
OD -0.75 Add +1.25
OS -0.50 Add +1.25
Corrects your distance vision to 0.00 in both eyes and provides +1.25 of the approximate +2.50 necessary to focus at 16 inches or 40 cm reading distance.
Your Monovision contacts Rx of:
OD -0.50
OS +0.75
corrects you to effecively
OD +0.25
OS +1.25
and gives you the same effect as the reading add of +1.25 in your left eye, but does not provide full distance correction in your right eye, which is usually done for true monovision.
Your proposed full reading correction does not result in the same reading Rx in both eyes. Your idea is valid, but you need to decide what final amout of reading assistance you want from the reading glasses and how much work you want your cilary muscles/crystaline lenses to provide and then wind up with the same Rx in both eyes.
C.
Lurker 29 Feb 2008, 08:37
To Jersey Girl: You went from 0 to -1.75? Did you know before you tried those glasses that you saw fuzzy? I can generally see distance fine, but even with my weak prescription have difficulty reading signs or even license plates that aren't so far away. I presume when you tried her glasses you were amazed by how you could see!
George 29 Feb 2008, 07:56
Hi...what do you think of this: After wearing readers +1.25 for several years, Dr prescribed distance glasses R: -.75 L -.50 with +1.25 add. I got monovision contacts, R: -.50, L: +.75. For when I wear the contacts and need to do a lot of reading, I was thinking of getting a pair of glasses to wear over the contacts so I can read with both eyes. Should I get L: +.25 and R: + 1.50 for more comfortable reading? Is this a good idea, or just live with the monovison?
russell 29 Feb 2008, 04:53
Cactus, thanks! Yes, the distance scrip is recent and works well. So I will follow your advice.
Cactus Jack 28 Feb 2008, 16:23
Russell,
Hopefully, you are working from a recent distance Rx amd thar Rx gives you comfortable distance and reading vision at 16".
The add for reading at 12" would be +3.25 and for 11" it would be +3.50. Decide which you want and add that number to the sphere as you did before and keep the cylinder and axis. Because of the additional convergence I would reduce the PD by an additional 2 mm to 59.
C.
russell 28 Feb 2008, 13:43
Cactus Jack...I agree that part of the problem with the old glasses is the length I hold the book (the other part of the problem is that my prescription has changed, and the old glasses are out of date.) In answer to your question, I tend to hold the book 11 to 12 inches from my eyes when I read in bed.
Cactus Jack 27 Feb 2008, 10:57
Russell,
You didn't mention the problem with the reading glasses, but I suspect I know the problem.
I like to read in bed also, but I find that my reading distance in bed is a lot closer that my usual reading distance. May I suggest that you measure your preferred in-bed reading distance and then lets figure out what the in-bed reading Rx should be. As you increase the reading plus, the depth of field becomes shorter so we need to get it right.
C.
russell 27 Feb 2008, 09:58
I asked about this once before, but I must not have understood because the glasses I ordered are less than great. So here goes...I wear progressives everyday. I want just reading glasses for reading in bed. My prescription is O.D. +1.50 sph -1.75 cyl 079 axis add +2.50 O.S. +.25 sph -1.25 cyl 104 axis add +2.50 P.D. 65. Now, if I understand I add those numbers together, so single vision reading glasses would be O.D. +4.00 sph -1.75 cyl 079 axis O.S. +2.75 sph -!.25 cyl 104 axis P.D. 61. Am I correct?
Jersey Girl 27 Feb 2008, 08:22
Lurker,
I noticed the same things last summer when I discovered that I needed glasses for the first time. When I tried on my boyfriend's mother's I was amazed at the intensity and clarity of vision. I got my own glasses coincidently in the same prescription (-1.75s) and wear them full time now. I can even wear -2.25s comfortably. I do not like my vision without glasses because it is blah and gray.
Cactus Jack 25 Feb 2008, 16:54
Lurker,
Yes!
C.
lurker 25 Feb 2008, 14:59
At 35 I have gotten first time glasses R: -.75 L: -.50. I am not surprised that I can see more clearly, but is it normal for colors to be brighter, blacks blacker, and everything more vivid? I knew that some of my vision was not sharp, but didn't expect things to "pop" so much. Normal? Thanks.
Cactus Jack 24 Feb 2008, 20:18
bb,
Everyone is different. It is possible that you need a little reading help even in your 30s. An add of +1.00 to +1.50 would probably be helpful and make for comfortable reading.
C.
bb 24 Feb 2008, 14:26
Full time wearer - quite myopic (-4). I've noticed recently that I have to move books away from me while reading, wheareas in the past i always had to hold them close to my nose. Am only in early thirties. Do I already need bifocals?
Clare 24 Feb 2008, 11:50
Guest
I'm around -2.75 and am happy to wander about at home without glasses/contacts until I want to see something like the TV.
Host 24 Feb 2008, 11:21
Around -8 or -9
Astra 24 Feb 2008, 07:47
Around -2 to -3.
Guest 24 Feb 2008, 03:01
Can someone tell me please what's the limit of power when a myope would feel comfortable without glasses around the house?
specs4ever 22 Feb 2008, 18:05
Usually when there is no reply to an asked question it is because no one knows the answer. I know I don't
logtech 22 Feb 2008, 16:53
No thoughts on my post from earlier in the month?
Fritz 22 Feb 2008, 09:03
glassesforeveryone - friends of mine have a son who has a strong prism correction that was diagnosed when he had trouble paying attention in school. I can't remember all of the details but do know that patching was required to help assess the vertical alignment of his eyes.
Anyway, without prism correction, many people see double, hardly a pleasant situation and probably a whole lot worse than dealing with low, uncorrected myopia. How are you doing now that you've gone fulltime?
Harriet 22 Feb 2008, 06:00
I know I read somewhere that for people who become myopic in their 20s/30s they rarely get worse than about -2(ish).
Has anyone else heard that?
If someone is about -3 in their mid-30s, how long have they probably worn glasses?
Thanks!
stingray 19 Feb 2008, 12:06
TIM: Can you email me the formula to determine the strength of these glasses I have found? my email is 99stingray@gmail.com
Also, I do have a jeweler's loupe, but how do I use that to determine the prescription in the glasses? Many thanks.
glassesforeveryone 19 Feb 2008, 10:01
I have seen some reports here of people expressing real difficulties of going without glasses after they have been prescribed base out prism.
Is this likely to be the case for anyone and does anyone know how an optician identifies the issue?
Cactus Jack 19 Feb 2008, 07:14
meep77,
Most astigmatism is caused by unevenness in the curvature of the cornea. The actual cause is unknown. Unlike myopia, it is not known to be progressive, but it can be slightly variable.
Some of the variance is caused by the fact that low astigmatism is hard to refract accurately because the final Rx depends on YOUR skill. During that part of the exam, You have to decide which lens is blurrier as the axis is being adjusted rather than which lens is clearer. It is hard to do without experience. I personally concentrate on letters like the "O" rather than letters with horizontal, vertical, or diagonal lines like the "E" or "V" because it is easier for me to get it close. Then I ask the examiner if he will let me fine tune the axis at the appropriate time. Most will place your hand on the correct knob and you can adjust it slightly at that point for the sharpest image.
Uncorrected astigmatism causes a lot of fatigue because it is impossible for the brain to focus the eye properly, no matter how hard it tries.
The point of all this is: Don't sweat it, just try to understand your role in that part of the exam to get the Rx as accurate as possible.
Dieter 19 Feb 2008, 04:42
meep77, my cylinder has bounced around constantly as an adult and I have been a frequent wearer of both glasses (with cyl)and contacts (without cyl). In fact in one eye, my last exam was -.50 cyl, the previous was zero, and previous to that was -.25. I think it is more of a process of fine tuning. One thing for a myope with -.50 cyl, is that the doc often will "split the difference" in the contacts prescription and give an extra -.25 sphere to accomodate for no cylinder.
meep77 18 Feb 2008, 22:08
hi all,
a question... I'm 25 years old and have worn glasses since I was around 9. My prescription has always been for simple myopia, and stabilized around -3 for the past five years or so. But when I had my eyes tested yesterday, I was surprised that the doctor prescribed -.50 cylinder correction for astigmatism as well.
Is this common to become astigmatic at my age? Is astigmatism progressive? Will wearing glasses with cylinder correction make the astigmatism more likely to get worse? Is it difficult to switch between classes that correct for astigmatism and contact lenses that don't?
Dieter 18 Feb 2008, 05:11
Anja, I've been doing monovision for years with an RX close to yours. Why not consult your doctor? Typically, you're "dominant" eye (the one that you favor to use the most) will be used as you distance eye. The other one will be adjusted so that it is comfortable to read. The doc can usually give you sample lenses to try for a week or so, then decide what really works best for your circumstances.
Cactus Jack 16 Feb 2008, 13:45
I don't know how you could put a number on the improvment, but I believe there is some. There is a lot more to vision that just the optics of the eye. Vision acutally occurs in the brain and it ideally has two images to use as a soucre to construct what we perceive as vision. Some poeple are better than others at the task, but the more information the brain has to work with the better.
One thing for certain, if one image is better than the other, it will use the best image as the primary source and use data from the other image to improve the picture. The best thing of course is to provide the brain with two sharply focused images.
C.
C.
eyespy 16 Feb 2008, 13:18
Cactus, do you know how much acuity is improved by seeing with two eyes? If someone is -3 maybe they are 20/200 when one eye is tested but with both eyes does that improve by a percentage? So does seeing with both eyes make a 20/200 in one/each eye a 20/150 when using both?
Tim 15 Feb 2008, 21:02
If you have a strong plus lens, such as a jeweller's eyeglass, a crossed wire "sight" (as on a rifle, but can easily be made),an anglepoise lamp and a good metre rule to hand, you can construct an "optical bench" which will enable you to calculate the power of your lenses. The maths is too long and complicated to post here, but if you are interested, I can e-mail you the method.
This will only work if the plus lens is stronger than the minus lenses - which you can easily check by putting the two together and observing whether the effect of the combined lenses is plus or minus (magnification or minification).
Btw, this method is how I discovered a long time ago that spectacle lenses are always made in multiples of 0.25 dioptres!
stingray 15 Feb 2008, 16:59
I found a pair of high minus glasses. Is there any way I can find out what the prescription is (without taking it to an optical place that is)?
Cactus Jack 15 Feb 2008, 16:27
Anja,
You already have "reading glasses" it is called low myopia. It is just not the same in both eyes.
You did't mention how much astigmatism you have and even low astigmatism can affect reading. Ideally, you should do monovision with the reading eye the one with the least astigmatism. As an easy test of your suitability and tolerance, you might try just wearing the -3 contact in your right eye only. That would be about the same as a +2.25 reading glass for the left eye.
It may take a day or two for your brain to learn to do monovision. Please give us a report on the results.
C.
Anja 15 Feb 2008, 15:09
I am 46 with a prescription of -2.25 (L) and -3 (R), some astigmatism but not so much. Half of the time I wear glasses though socially I wear contacts. I suppose it is to do with my age but I find in low light conditions that it's hard to read. I have a friend who wears mono vision contact lenses, does anyone here have experience of them? For example, if I wanted to reduce the prescription in one eye to compensate how much would that be? Would love to hear from you, thanks.
Cactus Jack 15 Feb 2008, 08:07
Ruth,
Pretty much, but DO NOT order different reading adds unless you are absolutely certain of what you are doing and why. High plus lenses have a very narrow range of useful focus and you might find that you what was in focus for one eye was out of focus for the other and vice versa and you might wind up reading with one eye or the other.
The function of your distance Rx is to correct your overall refractive error to 0.00 in both eyes. Then, the add is applied equally to give you comfortable reading at various distances.
C.
Martyn 15 Feb 2008, 05:17
I wonder where all the lovely people have gone from this site. There was Charlotte, Emily, Jennifer,Tammy, I miss them as they were always good for a good laugh, except Tammy who was the serious one, yet still really nice and considerate. Maybe they have moved on to You Tube they certainly are a loss to this site.
I love the video of Sandra, she seems to have a fab personality, and she looks a real honey in her myodisc glasses she certainly has made a virture out of her glasses.
Ruth 14 Feb 2008, 22:54
Cactus Jack
Thanks this is very interesting.
If I order
OD (Right Eye) Sph -1.75 Cyl -1.25 Axis 130 ADD +3.25
OS (Left Eye) Sph -1.50 Cyl -0.50 Axis 75 ADD +3.00
Would the reading section of my bifocals be the same as my + 1.50 readers
Thanks for all your postings
Cactus Jack 14 Feb 2008, 17:53
Ruth et al,
Please forgive the typos. They sure are easier to spot after they are posted. Maybe I need stronger trifocals.
C.
Cactus Jack 14 Feb 2008, 17:49
Ruth,
Lots of good questions. I'll try to answer.
1. Sphere is one of the major elements of an optical Rx. Cyklinder and axis (they go together) is another major element.
In this case sphere means that the lens is a section of a sphere or globe where the curvature is the same over the whole lens. Sphere generally corrects for refractive errors caused buy the length of your eyeball. In your case, your eyeballs are a little bit too long for the plus power of your cornea and crystaline lens and light reays from distant objects focus just in front of your retina. The minus sphere in your glasses move the focus point back a little so it focuses on your retina.
Cylinder corrects for astigmatism. It looks like a section of a can (like you find in your pantry) and the axis is the angular direction of the long axis of the can. In the optical world, 0 degrees is horizontal and 90 degrees is vertical. By tradition, cylinder axis is from 0 to 179 degrees.
Cylinder and axis usually correct for unevenness in the curvature of the cornea.
2. Except for the fact that you have a cylinder correction for astimatism, YES. Glasses neutralized your refractive error and at low Rx, the optical poser of
your eyes are actually the opposite Rx of your glasses. At highter Rx they will be different because of vertex distance, which the distance from your cornea to the back surface of the glasses. Low myopia without astigmatism means that you have natural (built in)reading glasses and you need "Distance Glasses".
3. YES. Except for the astigmatism (cylinder and axis) Prescription Single Vision Reading Glasses geve you a much larger field of view for comfortable reading than bifocals. Which is nice if you are doing a lot of reading or close work, the disadvantage is that distant things are very blurry with them, like you were more nearsighted than you are.
4. Opticians don't always prescribe the same add for both eyes, but it is rare because most people need the same amount of focusing help in both eyes.
Hope all this makes sense. It really is just straight forward optics. See, you understand more optical physics than you thought you did.
C.
Ruth 14 Feb 2008, 14:49
Cactus Jack
Thanks for you help you have got me very interested understanding my prescription.
I think Sph is my distant RX what is Cyl and Axis .
Would a ADD of +1.75 to my right eye and +1.50 be the same as bare eyed ,
and another +1.50 making a Add of3.25and 3.00 be the same as just wearing ready readers of 1.50
Sph -1.75 Cyl -1.25 Axis 130
Sph -1.50 Cyl -0.50 Axis 75
Why does the optician always give the same Add for both eyes.
I hope you understand my thinking
Dick 12 Feb 2008, 01:17
Wow Ruth, you are some GWG!
Cactus Jack 11 Feb 2008, 15:34
Ruth,
A reading glasses Rx equal to a +3.50 add would be:
OD Sph +1.75 Cyl -1.25 Axis 130
OS Sph +2.00 Cyl -0.50 Axis 75
Subtract 4 mm from the PD you have from your old Rx. If it is shown as two numbers subtract 4 mm from the first or top number.
C.
Ruth 11 Feb 2008, 15:15
Cactus Jack.
Thanks that is a great help.
I think I will order some reading glasses with wide arms I like to hold books about 11ins what rx should I get
Cactus Jack 11 Feb 2008, 12:16
Ruth,
The Distance Rx you need to order is:
OD (Right Eye) Sph -1.75 Cyl -1.25 Axis 130
OS (Left Eye) Sph -1.50 Cyl -0.50 Axis 75
The add needs to be based on your preferred reading distance.
+2.50 40 cm 16 in
+2.75 36 cm 14 in
+3.00 33 cm 13 in
+3.25 31 cm 12 in
+3.50 28.5 cm 11 in
With the +1.50 and +2.00 reading glasses, measure the distances from your eye to the page and then decide how much add you should order.
It may be difficult to get adds above +3.25 from some on line vendors.
If you decide to order some single vision Rx reading glasses, tell me your preferred reading distances determined above and I'll help you with the Rx.
C.
Ruth 11 Feb 2008, 11:03
On there own
Cactus Jack 08 Feb 2008, 21:48
guest,
Contact me at cactusjack1928@hotmail.com
C.
guest 08 Feb 2008, 19:30
Cactus Jack -
I'll let you know when I get them. Hopefully next week.
Any pics of your glasses with 15 BO prism on the net any where? Would love to see how thick they are.
Cactus Jack 08 Feb 2008, 08:10
Ruth,
Were you wearing the readers over your glasses or by themselves?
C.
Ruth 08 Feb 2008, 03:47
Sorry last post was from me
08 Feb 2008, 01:00
Thanks Cactus Jack.
The P D is on my old form.
I think i worded my question badly .
I do not know how to change the Add on the bifocals as i have a minus for my distance in my bifocals so i think i need more add to make them the same as +150 ready readers
logtech 07 Feb 2008, 22:42
I was recently putt-putting (miniature golf) with my son the other evening at a glow-in-the-dark place. I wasn't wearing my glasses at that time, because I do better without them believe it or not in miniature golf. My left eye gave me a very fuzzy/blurred view under the black lights in the course, and my right eye gave me very sharp/clear vision. I'm a bit confused on what could possibly be going on, as my left eye prescription is -0.50 -0.25 and my right eye prescription is +2.50 -2.25 -- Anyone have any ideas what would cause black light to do that? I would have put my glasses on to check if it cleared up or not, but I left them in my vehicle as I don't need them too bad since my left eye does most of the work.. heck, im not even restricted on my license because my left eye is good enough. Anyone experience something similar? What causes it?
Myles 07 Feb 2008, 18:48
Cactus Jack,
And how in the world is Ruth supposed to measure the seg height?
Cactus Jack 07 Feb 2008, 18:15
Ruth,
Oops, OS Sphere should be -1.50.
C.
Cactus Jack 07 Feb 2008, 18:13
Ruth,
OD Sph -1.75 Cyl -1.25 Axis 130 Add +2.00
OS Sph -1.25 Cyl -0.50 Axis 75 Add +2.00
PD (Pupilary Distance)
If you don't know your PD, get a scale marked in mm. Look in a mirror and measure the distance between the center of your nose and each pupil, individually. Add them together. Do it 3 times and average the result. It will probably be 55 to 60 mm, but it depends on your facial make up. Enter this valuse on the form. For the +1.50 add just substitute +1.50 for the +2.00 in the add slot.
If the PD is shown as xx/yy the xx would be the number you got which is distance. Subrract 3 mm amd enter it as yy which is near PD.
Hope this is helpful.
C.
Ruth 07 Feb 2008, 15:51
Can you please help I wear bifocals.
Sph Cyl Axis
Right -1.75 -125 130
Left -1.50 -050 75
ADD 2.25
I am having problems reading so I have bought 2 pairs of ready readers one pair +150 for normal reading and +200 for small print I find these much better i want to order 2 new pairs of bifocals with these reading adds how should i write this on the order sheets
Cactus Jack 06 Feb 2008, 20:32
guest,
It depends also on the width of the lens and the index of refraction of the lens material. I think you are close. Please let us know when you get them.
I'm wearing CR-39 15 BO in each eye with a low - Rx and the lenses are about 54 mm wide and 18 mm thick at the outer edge. The inside edge is very thin, but with your -5.00 it may be a few mm thick. Hopefully, the lens maker will adjust the PD inward for the prism so your line of vision goes through the optical center of the lens. If not, you may experience some reduction of acuity.
C.
guest 06 Feb 2008, 19:19
I just ordered new glasses. My prism prescription went from 5 BO in each lens, to 12 BO. My old glasses are noticeably thicker on the outer edges. I would estimate they are about 10mm on the outside edges. The prescription is about -5.00 x -2.00. If what I've read in this post is true (about 1mm edge thickness per prism diopter), then can I expect my new glasses to be 17mm thick?
Cactus Jack 17 Jan 2008, 08:08
Buck,
The amount of displacement of the optical center of the lens for prism is a function of the distance from the center of rotation of the eyeball (not the cornea) and the point where the axis of vision intercepts the rear surface of the glasses lens. You can calculate the actual displacement by using trig functions.
If the eye is not pointed straight ahead, moving the glasses away will change the point of intercept (trig again), but depending on the prism Rx, the change may not be very significant. The higher the amount of prism, the greater the displacement caused by increasing the distance from the center of rotation.
In some ways it is a bit like the effects of vertex distance on the effectiveness of a high sphere or cylinder Rx except, that effect is a square function and the OC displacement caused by prism is linear.
C.
16 Jan 2008, 13:16
Cactus Jack
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It's really amazing how docs seem to want to avoid the whole prism issue. I went to a new doc the other day and explained pretty much what I said to you. He said, "Well if the PD's off that's a problem and sent me off the his optician (who's hugely expensive) to measure it. Exactly the same presciption, no prism tests in exam.
Any chance pulling the glasses away from the face creates some prism by causing one to look through a different part of the lens?
Thanks again...Buck
Cactus Jack 14 Jan 2008, 14:45
John,
If the Opthalmologist knows what he is doing, there should not be much danger or risk in getting rid of your secondary cataract.
For those who are not familiar with secondary cataract, here goes: Modern cataract surgery involves emulsifying the clouded crystaline lens and sucking it out thru a very tiny incision in the side of the cornea. The rear membrane of the lens capsule is left intact to prevent mixing of the vitreous humor inside the eyeball and the aqueous humor between the cornea and the crystaline lens.
Then a replacement Intra Ocular Lens IOL is inserted thru the incision and positioned in the capsule. Tiny "feet" which protrude from the outer edge hold the lens in the center of the capsule. In a few days, the intact rear membrane of the capsoule will attach itself to the IOL. Over time, the eye may try to regrow the crystaline lens and the rear membrane of the capsule will become cloudy which is the "seconday" cataract. To eliminate this situation, a YAG laser is sharoply focused on the rear membrane and a number of pulses of the laser are used to vaporize small holes in the rear membrane until the central area behind the IOL is vaporized and no longer obstructs vision. Because the membrane is attached to the outer edges of the IOL, there is no mixing of the humors.
The procedure is used only if necessary and it is a once in a lifetime event for each eye. The procedure is painless, but the flashes are very bright and some machines make a "snapping" noise when they fire. The retina in this case is not burned by the YAG because of the tight focus in the plane of the rear membrane. By the time the laser beam gets to the plane of the retina, it is out of focus and so dispersed that there is not enough concentrated energy to damage the retina. In those instances where a YAG laser is used to re-attach the retina, the beam is focused on the plane of the retina and it so difused as it passes through the cornea and crystaline lens or IOL that it causes no damage there.
To better understand the focus method of the YAG laser, think of how a magnifiying glass burns a hole in paper when the sun's rays are concentrated and the cautions about looking at the sun or a laser beam without protection. Concentrated light energy from any source can damage the retina.
C.
JOHN 14 Jan 2008, 13:46
YAG Laser Capsulotomy
JACK: Some years ago you spoke of this to me. Presently I have this "secondary cataract" now, severely in the OS. I had it in the OD in 1992, had the YAG...two years later,retinal detachment,then re-attached. Now in the OS, (I was a severe myope at -20. + 3.50) it is time again for the YAG. Are the dangers the same,or is there improvement and more dafety in this procedure?/J
Cactus Jack 11 Jan 2008, 14:39
Buck,
Sorry to take so long to answer.
It is very difficult these days to find an Optician (Glasses Dispenser) who knows how to adjust the location of the optical center of a lens for prism. The problem is that common muscle surgery as almost eliminated the need for large prism corrections in glasses and few are trained on how to do it and few know where to find it in their reference books. The adjustment ranges between 0.25 and 0.3 mm per prism diopter depending on the amount of prism. The ideal situation would be for the central axis of vision of each eye should intercept the rear surface of the glasses lens at the optical center.
As you can see from the above, the small amount of base out prism you require would reduce the total PD by about 1 mm, though I am slightly suspicions of the 33/33. With your low Rx that would almost be inconsequential except for the fact that you want progressives and your axis of vision needs to be close to the center of the channel for the least distortion. The more critical item is the vettical prism. My suggestion, would be to try to find another Optician who seems to understand how important getting it right is. Also, be sure that they will remake the glasses if you are not comfortable with them.
I am trying to remember the name of the primnary text on the making and fitting of glasses, I think the author is Swann or something like that. Perhaps another member can help out here. If you can locate the text, you might see if you can find the reference yourself and show it to the Optician, otherwise he will probably not believe you, after all he is the EXPERT, and you are merely the patient who has to wear the glasses.
On the effects of Vertex Distance on effective strength of lenses. In you increase the Vertex Distance of a minus lens, it becomes less effective which has the effect of reducing the - Rx. A plus lens is just the opposite, increasing the Vertex Distance effectively increases the strength of the lens. It is hard to calculate for your Rx because of the low + sphere and the higher minus cylinder. This is a SWAG, but I would guess that at about 6" or 150 mm the effective Rx would be something like.
+1.25, -1.50 x 78
+0.75, -1.50 x 84
A more important factor is the distance from the glasses to the object being viewed.
We have an expression in our part of the world if information is considered very accurate, "You can take it to the Bank". I wouldn't!
C.
Brian-16 10 Jan 2008, 18:40
P- If they were what was prescribed I would not ask for more.Too much would make you see double.My prisms are just the opposite base out-as my eyes tend to turn in.
P 10 Jan 2008, 13:26
I have just got new glasses with prism (2 degrees, base in). I thought it would make a big difference and that I"d feel a pull on my eye muscles. So far this hasn't been the case. Should I ask for stronger prism?
Buck 09 Jan 2008, 12:25
Cactus Jack
Help me out here, please, I you can.
How does the pd need to be adjusted for prism? The pupilometer measures my pd as 33/33. In reality with or without prism, it's about 34/35 in order to get the progressive channel lined up. No one believes this even though I produce old glasses. What do I need to say? Why does this happen?
Also, when I hold readers or progressives about 6 inches from my face the images become much more clear and I feel relaxed. One Doc says it makes the script stronger, another says weaker. Duh!!!!
+1 -2.50 78 1.5 Out .5 d Up
+.50 -2.50 84 1.5 Out .5 Down
Many thanks for you in"sight" and help.
Buck
Emily 04 Jan 2008, 11:41
Astra -- I think one diopter approximates 100 in the denominator. When my prescription was -12 (it's -13 now), my optometrist said my unaided vision was about 20/1,200.
Cactus Jack 03 Jan 2008, 20:54
Astra,
Correct.
C.
Astra 03 Jan 2008, 19:41
also if you have significant astigmatism, your acuity without glasses would be much less I assume.
Cactus Jack 03 Jan 2008, 15:00
Clare,
I've never been convinced that there is a linear mathematical relationship between an optical Rx and visual acuity as measured by lines on a Snellen Chart. Right around the 20/20 line it seems a 0.25 diopter step in the plus direction will drop visual acuity to 20/25 or 20/30 and a 0.25 step in the minus direction will improve it to about 20/15, sometimes. There are too many other factors that affect visual acuity than just sphere correction such as accuracy of the cylinder and axis correction, retinal contition, or what you did the night before. The farther you get away from the 20/20 line toward the top of the chart, the more any mathematical relationship falls apart. You can identify the big E many clicks of the phropter before it is sharp and clear, which is why the final Rx is derived using little bitty letters near the bottom.
C.
Clare 03 Jan 2008, 11:51
There are differing opinions I think. I've been told that my -3 is equivalent to 20/200
sam12744 03 Jan 2008, 04:03
Astra and others,
Can we please get away from this ridiculous notion that being a bit shortsighted constitutes being blind.A truly blind person might find that quite offensive.If your eyesight can be corrected with lenses,you are not blind by any stretch of the imagination.Only if you have very little or no sight at all(even with corrective lenses) can you be considered blind.
Astra 02 Jan 2008, 23:32
I think 20/350 can be considered as blind... well I certainly wouldn't describe my eyesight is completely blind (20/100 is nowhere near 20/300) but yes, it is very blurry to read beyond 3 feet or see anything clearly beyond 6 feet.
Astra 02 Jan 2008, 23:29
-3.50 is around 20/120 me think.
I've heard
-2.00 is roughly 20/70
-3.00 is roughly 20/100.
Brent 01 Jan 2008, 17:14
-3.50 both eyes. 20/350 I think?
Andrew 14 Dec 2007, 12:50
Oh to be limited to reading things at a maximum of 3 feet away from my face... I'm not sure I remember when I could last do that!
eyespy 14 Dec 2007, 09:23
Came across this post randomly and it struck me how interesting people's thinking about their own vision is. Possibly needing a restriction on the license can only make this person maybe 20/60??
http://wolfwyndd.livejournal.com/26076.html
So I seem to have misplaced my glasses at some point last weekend. Marcy, Momma Lynne and I have torn the house apart looking for them and none of us can find them. So I figured since it had been 18 - 24 months since I'd had my eyes checked I should probably make an appt. to get that done. Lenscrafters is who did my eye exam last time and who I got my glasses from so I made an appointment over my lunch hour. Well, I guess the REAL reason I figured I'd get my eyes checked again is when I pulled into the parking lot yesterday WITHOUT my glasses on, I lightly tagged the car in front of me. Ooooooppps. Ok, guess my eyes were worse then I thought. So I went over at lunch, got my exam, picked out a pair of glasses and 312.00 later, I've got a totally new perscription. According to the eye doctor my eyes have gotten at least one perscription strength worse in my right eye. To the point that he said I'd probably have to have a resctriction on my license for glasses in the next two to three years. That's the bad news. The good news, according to him, is that most people in their 40's start to need reading glasses so when everyone else is putting glasses on to read menu's in restaurants, I'm taking my glasses OFF to read. Oh, and just for some clarification, I'm near sighted. VERY near sighted apparently. You stick something in front of my face, I'm fine. Hold something in front of my more then three feet and things start getting difficult to read. Of course there's also that whole depth perception thing. THAT'S where things get really iffy.
Wurm 06 Dec 2007, 18:14
I can delete a post. Please send an explanation. My email address is lensman00@go.com
lll 06 Dec 2007, 17:44
does anyone know how to delete a post from this site?
Ed 10 Nov 2007, 02:46
Posting this just reminded me of the girlfriend I had around that time who hated glasses. I was convinced I wanted my eyes to be comfortable and to be able to see ok and she was always saying do you need your glasses/do you know you've still got your glasses on. Of course she had perfect sight and in the I end I remember I got really angry and told her if she couldn't take how I looked it was over. Funny thing was I got compliments from other people just not from her.
Ed 10 Nov 2007, 02:38
Amsterdamer
I too have a big discrepancy between prescriptions for each eye since I first got glasses in my early 20's. It's mostly been 1D difference between them. It was something like-0.75 and -1.75 in the beginning and it wasn't till I got to somewhere around -2 and -3 that I found the interference from the -3 so irritating that I just decided it was more comfortable and sensible to wear them all day.That was about 10 years ago and I'm now about -2.50 and -3.50/-3.75.
Amsterdamer 04 Nov 2007, 07:29
Cactus Jack
Thank you for all the advise. My -3.25 eye seems to tire quite easily if I don't wear my glasses and though I don't read with them sometimes after reading it feels sore. If I then put on my glasses the tiredness will go away. Does that surprise you at all?
For that reason I am mostly wearing my glasses although around the house I am okay without except for tv or playstation.
Minnie
I exactly know what you mean. I have found that it is much more comfortable to wear glasses than go without. When I first got these new glasses I didn't realise that I would find such a difference in just a few weeks. My eyes feel great if I wear them.
Clare
I don't have a headache, just mostly one sore eye. That's no fun!
Emily 23 Oct 2007, 13:30
Sorry, 20/l,350.
Emily 23 Oct 2007, 13:28
A rough guide is 20/100 for each diopter after the first 2. So 20/800 would be about -8 and -13.50 would be 20/1l,350 (approx.) At that level, it gets pretty academic.
23 Oct 2007, 13:14
I hope someone knows the answers. What does 20/800 vision translate to in diopters? Also what does -13.50 translate to in 20/???? Thank you.
Minnie 22 Oct 2007, 13:44
Amsterdamer,
I have the situation of being +2.00 in my right eye and plano in my left. I had never been prescribed glasses before, but finally got them this year and the change is incredible. I am finally using both eyes! I can actually feel my right eye working; when I remove the glasses, my right side becomes very blurry, I briefly see double, and I have the sensation that my eye is turning in. My husband says that he doesn't see that happening, but that is the sensation that I get. When I don't wear my glasses, I can see fine, but develop a headache rather quickly (so I guess I'm not seeing that fine, lol!). I gather it makes a difference if one is myopic, but I thought I'd share from the one eye working harder perspective!
Good luck with the new glasses!
Minnie
Clare 22 Oct 2007, 12:22
Amsterdamer - one of my colleagues was -1.75 and -2.75 and she was adamant that she couldn't go without her glasses. I didn't know much about vision then but remember her prescription because for some strange reason she liked to tell people. Sometimes she would have go bare-eyed because she'd forgotten her contacts and would spend the whole day complaining that she had a headache.
Looking back, we were very unsympathetic, we just told her to get some spares and leave them in her desk!
Amsterdamer 17 Oct 2007, 11:23
Thank you again Cactus Jack.
Yes we have excellent transport here in The Netherlands and you know too that we like to ride our bikes! Good eyesight is advisable for that as well as driving. I think my brain is adapting to the new situation of seeing very well. I'll just see in the next months what happens and if my eyes start to tell me that they need glasses more than I now allow them.
Cactus Jack 15 Oct 2007, 09:14
Amsterdamer,
What you are experiencing is absolutely normal for a person with your Rx. Vision actually occurs in the brain and your eyes are simply biological cameras that provide images to the brain. Cameras whose images are out of focus.
Human beings are supposed to see with both eyes and the brain uses the image from each eye to construct a 3 dimensional picture of the world about you. The brain is extremely good at making the best of what it has to work with. If the images from one eye is better than the other, it will use the better image and either ignore the other image or use elements from the poor image to add information to the good image. It will not use information from the poor image to override the information from the good eye. The brain does all this without any consious input from you.
If a very young child has better vision in one eye than in the other (a condition called amblyopia) the brain will often permanently stop using the image from the poor eye. Even if the eye is optically corrected to 20/20 the brain will never use that eye again. That is why it is so important to detect the condition early in young children (before about 5 or 6) and patch the good eye to force the brain to use the image from the bad eye. Fortunately, at your age, that is not generally a problem and if you correct the bad eye, the brain will soom learn to use it. However, it may take a while for the brain to fully develop good depth perception. Everyone is different.
After having said all that, the decision to wear vision correction, glasses or contacts, is yours. If you like seeing well, wear correction. If you don't care or vanity is the overriding concern don't. You have apparently not had vision correction in the past, so your brain has much experience working with less than optimum input. It now has to learn how to work with two good images and that takes time.
Because you apparently live in The Netherlands and have excellent public transportation, you may have no need to drive. Whatever occupation you choose, you may not need good depth perception, so really good vision may not be all that important.
My suggestion is to wear vision correction as much as possible so your brain will learn how to see really well (like the rest of us) and enjoy the beautiful fields of tulips in all their glory while you are young and your brain is agile. You can always not wear correction whenever you don't want to. In the final analysis, the choice is yours, no one elses.
C.
Amsterdamer 14 Oct 2007, 12:51
Catus Jack, hi
This is the situation. In the last week and a half I have 'experimented' with these great new glasses and I have discovered that I can still see without them (better eye works harder), that they make the worst eye work immediately, and I can read with them and without them. I always thought people who wear glasses cannot see without them, you recommend glasses for comfort I read here tonight on Acuity & Prescription. For anyone who can still see without them does this still make sense? I value your reply.
Cactus Jack 09 Oct 2007, 14:46
Sorry about the typos in the previous post. I think my fingers have a form of dyslexia - perhaps we could call it dystypeia.
I don't think I'm the only one with the affiction.
C.
Cactus Jack 09 Oct 2007, 14:42
Amsterdamer,
I am not an eye care professional, but I have had some personal expoerience with a situation similar to yours. Fourunately, my difference was discovered and corrected when I was 14 and I did not have too much trouble getting used to both eyes working together. However, when I got to university and my reading load became great, I had to start wearing bifocals to keep from getting headaches.
As I mentioned in my earlier post, your difference results in monovision where you use your -1.50 eye for distance (even though a little myopicly, it focuses at 66 cm) and you read with your -3.25 eye. It is as if your -3.25 eye effectvely has a "built in" reading lens of +3.25 which focuses at about 30 cm.
I think I mentioned that your -3.25 eye will probably rebel at having to go to work, because now, the ciliary muscle and crystaline lens have to provide the additional plus power to focus close. BTW, you can calculate the plus power required to focus close by dividing the distance in cm into 100. For example to focus at a typical reading distance of 40 cm requires +2.50. I suspect you are usesd to typically erading at about 30 cm because of the "built in" +3.25 in your right eye.
Your eyes were intended to work together rather than individually, but you are going to have to learn how and your ciliary muscles have to get conditioned. It may take a few weeks to get comfortable. However, if it causes too much discomfort, you may need to consider bi-focal glasses or a a poor, but probably comfortable Rx of:
OD Sphere -1.00, Cylinder -0.25 x 135
OS Sphere -1.50
You would still have monovision. but you right eye would not have to work quite so hard and you would begin conditioning your ciliary muscles. Later, the right Rx could be gradually increased until it was fully corrected.
I can understand the desire to avoid correction, but it really is not good to put it off because of the situation you are experiencing.
May I ask your age, occupation and gender?
C.
Amsterdamer 09 Oct 2007, 13:26
Cactus Jack
Hello. The new prescription has made a challenge for my -3 eye. I have worn them Sunday til today. When I put them on and take them off the vision in the -3 will change dramatically. I'd say it is like it jumps. After a moment or two it's okay. Obviously my vision is very good, I can see the small writing on the television now.
Without glasses it feels like the -3 eye is working hard and the other one does nothing, although I can see quite well with it so without glasses I don't feel (yet) so blind.
My colleague says it will come that I must wear these all the time because the difference is so big. What is your experience - I think you are quite experienced in eye care?
Amsterdamer 06 Oct 2007, 14:07
Cactus Jack
Again, thanks. I collected the glasses this afternoon - the optical shop gave no advice at all. Your comments about the muscles are a concern. I'll test the new glasses out tomorrow.
Cactus Jack 06 Oct 2007, 13:06
Amsterdamer,
Thanks, I was a little concerned about the increase in your right eye, but -1.25 in 5 years is not unreasonable.
Without correction, you effectively have monovision where you read with your right eye and use the left eye for distance (even though the left eye isn't 20/20). I urge you to wear your glasses of if you have a problem with that, get contacts. It is important that both eyes are working together like they are supposed to, even though it may intitally be uncomfortable. The problem with monovision at your age is that your ciliary muscles and crystaline lenses are not being used and are probably out of contition. This could ultimately lead to early symptoms of presbyopia and a requirement for multifocals before you ordinarily would.
C.
Amsterdamer 06 Oct 2007, 11:19
Cactus Jack
It is a long time since my last test perhaps as much as 5 years but I'm 28.
Yes the 'OD' eye is bad but the other is not so bad.
Cactus Jack 06 Oct 2007, 08:53
Amsterdamer,
I would suggest full time wear. There is enough difference to cause your eyes to not work together in a coordinated way. The brain will always select the clearest image as the primary and use the other image to try to add information, if possible, and ignore the rest. In this instance, there is a small difference in image size with glasses, but probably not enough to cause problems.
May I ask your age and how long ago your old Rx was prescribed.
C.
Amsterdamer 06 Oct 2007, 08:41
Cactus Jack
Thank you. The prescription is new. It says OD -3.25 x -0.25 x 135 OS -1.50
My old prescription is OD -2 OS -1.25
Thanks
A
Cactus Jack 06 Oct 2007, 08:10
Amsterdamer,
It sounds like a very large difference, however the terms 20/70 and 20/300 do not describe the actual refractive error which is very important.
It is likely that the individual has monovision without correction where the brain ignores the extremely blurry image from either the 20/300 eye or the 20/70 eye depending on the optical situation and if they are trying to see something close or distant.
They probably need full time correction, but even with that, they may not have stereoscopic vision because of the possible difference in image size and method of correction (contacts or glasses).
Could you provide a prescription?
C.
Amsterdamer 06 Oct 2007, 07:27
Hi
I read here recently that most people have a difference between their two eyes. Is 20/70 and 20/300 a big difference?
How much would someone with this wear glasses?
Thanks
specs4ever 06 Aug 2007, 17:34
No, I never did find there was a problem with double vision. Although, at that time I was still young enough that I had lots of accommodation.
Cactus Jack 06 Aug 2007, 16:25
Plus and Minus,
One thing I forgot to mention. You may be able to tell if you are surpressing one eye or actually fusing the images with the following test.
When the images appear to be fused, move your hand back and forth alternately covering one eye and then the other for about 1/2 second each eye. If the image jumps very much you may be surpressing the image from one eye. If it doesn't appear to jump much, you are probably fusing the images and using both eyes together as you should. There may be a very tiny jump because of the still differing image size.
C.
Cactus Jack 06 Aug 2007, 15:03
Plus and Minus,
I believe the very best situation would be for the images to be exactly the same size on the retina. Which I believe would be accomplished by what ever sphere value contact lens provides the same sphere value in both lenses in the glasses. Remember, however that your brain has no experience with that situation. I suspect that your brain has been using one eye or the other, but rarely both at the same time.
Isn't it interesting that with considerable effort you were able to fuse the images? It is likely that it has been many years (or maybe never) since you brain could even attempt it. What that means is that your brain CAN learn how to do it. Each time it will get easier. See, old dogs can learn new tricks! Learning may not as easy when we get older as it was when we were young, but we can still learn. But, what is the point. If the solution is to wear a contact and glasses, you might as well get the very best possible solution. That solution is the one that provides comfortable 2-eyed vision for all purposes.
BTW, for small amounts of prism, if that is what is needed, all they do is move the location of the optical center (adjust the PD) of the lenses in the frame, which is no big deal.
I am excited about your progress. I don't understand why the OD didn't match the sphere values in the glasses to start with. Maybe he didn't have the right value + lens in stock, which isn't much excuse. He may not be too accustomed to creative solutions to unusual vision problems. I understand that problem. Been there, done that.
C.
Plus and Minus 06 Aug 2007, 12:34
Visitor, Specs4ever, and Cactus Jack,
Thanks for the comments.
Visitor, as for possibly having to wear prism forever, that is ok with me if it is a good solution especially for reading. I am getting up in years and reading, which is my priority, has gotten terribly uncomfortable and slow. In factg it would be ok to wear glasses all the time. The contact was to even up the eyes.
Specs4ever, you at one time had a somewhat similar difference. Did you yourself experience prism glasses over the contact?
Cactus Jack, I tried by concentrating to make the double image go away. After a tremendous effort while focusing on one word, it did. I don't know if it went away because of convergence or suppression. But it seems unlikely that my brain would ever be able to adjust if it takes that much effort. After this experiment my right eye felt so stressed that I was afraid it would be dangerous to try the experiment again. However, when I blink, for a very time moment the double image is not present.
In your post where it says "... a different CL value that more closely matches the sphere value of each lens in the glasses will do it.
..." The near points when wearing the reading glasses over the contact seem to be about the same but the doctor put +2.50 in the left lens while only 1.50 in the right so the glasses lenses aren't as close as they could be. Are you saying that may be part of the problem?
Cactus Jack 05 Aug 2007, 06:28
Visitor,
Prism is useful for many purposes. In this case the amount of prism is likely to be very small.
The description of the problem was that "bed" looked like "bedd". That amount of displacement was about one letter width of (I assume) typical bookface type (about 2 mm)at a reading distance of 16 inches or 40 cm.
The definition of a prism diopter is that amount of prism which displaces a ray of light 1 cm (10 mm) at a distance of 1 meter (100 cm). If we do a little ciphering, one letter width would be about 2 mm at 40 cm would be the same as 5 mm at 100 cm or about 0.5 prism diopter of correction.
That amount of displacement is very small and would normally be easily resolved by the brain's slightly adjusting the convergence of the eyes. However, I suspect that because of years of dealing with or NOT dealing with impossible image fusion problems, Plus and Minus's brain doesn't have much experience "fine tuning" eye convergence. If he can get the image size problem under control, it is likely that in time, his brain will get more skilled at image fusion. If a little prism doesn't do the trick, I suspect that a different CL value that more closely matches the sphere value of each lens in the glasses will do it.
There seems to be an almost religious aversion to using prism, but in reality, it is just another tool. Prism, in this case, may help with eye postiioning and position control problems in ways that are similar to the ways that sphere and cylinder lenses help with refraction problems. Unfortunately, humans tend to get rather dependent on tools of all sorts to help them solve problems. It is surely a weakness.
C.
specs4ever 05 Aug 2007, 05:31
In this case the contact lens is used to reduce the difference in prescription between eyes. Over the years I have seen a number of people with large differences in their script, such as a young 16 year old girl at Seal Beach Pier one Sunday who had about -16 in one eye and -8 in the other. However, I am sure that she would have just ended up wearing contact lenses, rather than a lens in both eyes. At one time I had about -3.75D between both eyes, and I did wear a contact lens, but only in one eye.
So, done this way, prisms will work because they will be in the glasses. And you are correct about becoming dependant on prisms, but if they are needed to bring the vision to a proper point, then I agree with Cactus Jack that they should be tried. However this is not a person who is prescribing their own problems, but is actually trying to get a handle on what he should ask his doctor.
Visitor 05 Aug 2007, 03:39
Prism may well help you to focus on a single image, but if you start relying on prism correction you can say goodbye to contact lenses.Prisms are not easy to put into lenses and you will soon find that you need the prism correction all the time to focus on a single image.
Plus and Minus 04 Aug 2007, 10:52
Thanks for the info about prism.
There is no double image individually.
Hope to see the optometrist this week. I'll have an idea what to expect.
Cactus Jack 04 Aug 2007, 10:10
Plus and Minus,
Glad I was able to help some. Sounds like you are making progress in solving the problem. Don't give up.
Here is a quick test to see if you really are having trouble with fusing the two imges or if you are experiencing monocular dioplia (two images with one eye.
If you are experiencing the dioplia (e.g. "bed" appears as "bedd"). Try covering each eye individually with your hand. If the individual images are OK, a little bit of prism may help or a closer match of glasses Rx may solve the problem.
Lenses with prism are just thicker at one edge than at the other. The thicker edge is called the "Base". The location of the base depends on what is needed. It is prescribed as Base Out (BO), Base In (BI), Base Up (BU) or Base Down (BD). Prism is more moticable in minus lenses than plus lenses because of increase of edge thickness which is about 1 mm per diopter at the base edge (the edge opposite the base gets thinner). Actual thickness depends on lens size and index of refraction. Small amounts of prism are almost undetectable in plus lenses just by looking.
Your reading Rx with Base out prism might look like:
Left: +2.50 -1.50 X33 Prism 2 BO
Right: +1.50 -.50 X95 Prism 2 BO
If a little prism would help your reading, a quick test with a trial prism lens or a "prism bar" while you are wearing your reading glasses and contact should answer the question.
A Prism Bar is a plastic bar with a series of prisms of different values cut into it. It allows a quick trial of many different amounts of prism by just moving the bar up and down.
Small amounts of prism do not generally affect acuity. Large prism corrections can cause optical distortion in the glasses and resulting acuity problems if not prescribed and fitted correctly.
Large prism corrections are rarely needed today because corrective muscle surgery is relatively easy and usually successful. Prescribing and fitting large prism corrections may be a lost art.
C.
Plus and Minus 04 Aug 2007, 08:50
Problem: Horizontal diplopia
Here is a progress report - with more questions ! - pertaining to my situation which I posted on this thread on July 3.
Basically there is a 4.75 diopter sphere difference between the refractions of my eyes. Reading glasses were not satisfactory due to the difference between the lenses of the glasses. The plan was to wear one contact plus glasses to get the lenses more similar. Cactus Jack suggested a simple soft contact with CYL in the glasses.
Wearing now for reading:
Contact, Left: D +4.00 ACUVUE
Glasses
Left: +2.50 -1.50 X33
Right: +1.50 -.50 X95
The contact is very comfortable. But to my surprise there is a horizontal double image. For example, looking at "bed" I see "bedd". At intermediate even without the glasses there is a double image. At distance it is hard to tell.
Any comments about why this is and what solutions there might be will be appreciated. Is "prism" the solution and if so the only solution - I am not familiar with it but have started to look into it. What would a typical prism prescription look like? Does it degrade the quality?
P.S. here is a sort of cute animated diagram of what it is like to have lenses in glasses that are significantly different.
www.opticaldiagnostics.com/products/ai/aniseikonia.html
spexfan 10 Jul 2007, 06:36
Hmmm, interesting. How could an o.d. differentiate between pseudomyopia and myopia? And is there a point at which pseudomyopia develops into 'genuine' myopia?
I'm tempted to say that the myopia, though very slight, doesn't just appear immediately after doing near work. She mentioned she's had trouble seeing at night for some time.
I just thought that minus lenses, being as allegedly addictive as they are, could eventually lead to another diopter or so if she wears them a lot??
Tracker 10 Jul 2007, 06:34
Go Hercules,
Hope you found this site. On this site I go by Plus and Minus. My vison is very similar to yours. There are some posts below about it.
Current plan is to try a plain soft contact on +3.75 eye and no contact on the other. Put the cyl in glasses that will be worn over. Cactus Jack on this site has made contributions. Also of help was http://www.contactlensforums.com/default.asp?sub=show&action=posts&fid=7&tid=45040
Don't hesitate to discuss your situation.
correction 07 Jul 2007, 20:20
spexfan
It sounds like your wife has pseudomyopia.
The computer work that you wrote of has caused her eye muscles to "stick". She should be wearing a +.50 while doing closework to relax the muscles. She should see another doctor and lose the distance glasses
Phil 06 Jul 2007, 01:57
I think myopia progession is unpredictable. I've gone up from -2 to -4 between the ages of 25 and 50. And I know someone who has -3.5s at 43 and wasn't even a gwg at 25: and lovely she is too! Her rx is going up by about .25 every year or 18 months at the moment.
DelDoc 05 Jul 2007, 15:53
At the age of 27, she should expect her myopia to stay relatively stable. I certainly wouldn't think that it would progress by a diopter or two.
Cactus Jack 05 Jul 2007, 10:02
spexfan,
It will probably increase some, maybe a diopter or two. It depends on many factors, but genetics is the most important. Are any close relatives nearsighted?
C.
spexfan 05 Jul 2007, 08:01
My girlfriend, who's almost 27, has just been prescribed -.5 sph in each eye. First glasses for her, which is exciting for all concerned. She seems happy to wear them when necessary, particularly at night - though not fulltime as the rx is still fairly insignificant at this stage. She is, however, also wearing them when doing computer work, which she does a lot of.
So my question is how her rx might progress over, say, the next ten years. Some anectdotal evidence would be great.
Plus and Minus 04 Jul 2007, 18:10
Cactus Jack
O.K.
Plus and Minus 04 Jul 2007, 17:59
Speculate
If your distance prescription is +1.00 and +1.25, and you are 39, then my prediction is it will stay about the same for 25 years.
My distance prescription including hyperopia at an exam a couple of months ago was so close to the glasses I brought in that the optometrist said I probably wouldn't want to fill it though there was a small difference. The glasses are over 20 years old (frames not in good condition); I got them when I was about your age. In my teens, 20s, 30s my eyes changed a lot. Since age 40 they have been stable.
The way refraction is done is sort of crude. One year there may be a .25 or even .50 change in one direction; then the next year it will be back to where it was before. That's how it goes.
The problem with hyperopia is that near vision on the average gets difficult at an earlier age than among people who are plano or myopic. Myopic people tend to have reading ability later in life than plano or hyperopics. I have one hyperopic and one myopic eye. Without glasses I can still read, if I have to and not up close, with the myopic eye but haven't been able to read with hyperopic for many years.
Your eye strain is at near distances without glasses, isn't it? Is it better when you take long drives? You probably could use reading glasses for comfort. The prescription for them will change with time because of the tendency we all have to gradually lose focusing ability - but that doesn't influence distance vision.
Maybe I am wrong but I think "latent hyperopia" is an issue only with some kids.
If you are from the USA, happy Fourth. If not, then the best to you anyway!
Cactus Jack 04 Jul 2007, 13:45
Plus and Minus,
If Wurm will let this be posted, please contact me at cactusjack1928@hotmail.com.
BTW, I'm nearly 70 and live in Houston.
C.
Plus and Minus 04 Jul 2007, 13:06
Cactus Jack,
It has been a long time since I last had contacts. I tried 3 technologies at different times with 3 different people: plain RGP, Soft(toric?), and toric RGP. For RGP and toric RGP they both did plain RGP first; the left lens would not stay centered; then they both increased diameter; left still wouldn't center. One guy gave up. When the other guy finally went to toric RGP the left was centered fairly well - as I recall.
The soft were my least favorite. The vision in the left eye was never good. They were hard to put in and a lot of money was spent on pure water. Of course, that was what now would be 15-year-old technology.
That's why I've been thinking of getting Toric RGP to begin with.
When you say torics are hard to keep in place is that soft or RGP? Do you happen to know what the maximum plus correction is for RGP and soft nowadays? I agree the astig correction could be put in the glasses. And putting a bit more plus for example 4.75 could be handled at distance with -1.00 in each lens. From playing with these reading lenses I actually think I could use a little more plus in left eye for reading assuming I get a contact.
In previous attempts I wore contacts on both eyes. Having only one contact may improve the odds of success because when a person has different shaped eyes with contact lenses of different shapes and weights, the contacts are never in synch in the way they move so the person rarely sees through the center of both lenses at the same time. At least that's my theory.
Age: 64. San Antonio, USA. Why? Do you know a super contacts person around here? And, by the way, are you involved in some vision field? I see a lot of posts.
It was the first visit to this optometrist. After the research I'll run it by him. He apparently thought I should keep doing what I've been doing which is very unsatisfactory and gets more so with the years. He was on a tight schedule and no doubt not expecting someone with wierd vision. That doesn't let him off the hook entirely but I will give him another chance.
If you are from the USA, happy Fourth. If not, the best to you anyway.
Speculate 04 Jul 2007, 07:31
i have wondered if someone would care to have a stab in the dark as to what the prescription may progress to for someone who was non cyclopleged at the age of 39 revealing 1 and 1.25D of hyperopia,with only eyestrain as a symptom currently.Is it possible that there is a fair bit of latency to come out or will this likely be the first and final script?
Cactus Jack 03 Jul 2007, 12:16
Plus and Minus,
The 4.75 D difference is probably causing most of your problems because of the different image sizes on the retina. The Astigmatism, while important, in probably not causing much problem if it is corrected.
A +3.75 soft contact to correct the sphere in the left eye would probably be useful. It would even be worth considering a bit more in the left eye to make the image size equal. You could then correct both with low minus glasses with some cylinder for the astigmatism. Toric contacts are hard to keep in place at low cylinders.
May I ask your age and where you live?
Also, you might consider seeing another Eye Care Professional.
C.
PlusAndMinus 03 Jul 2007, 10:22
Prescriptions from a recent eye exam:
Distance
Left +3.75-1.50 X35 Right -1.00-.50 X95
added 1.50 2.50
Reading
Left +5.25-1.50 X35 Right +1.50-.50 X95
The difference between left and right for distance is 4.75
for reading is 3.75.
Notice that the amount added to the left happens to be the same as the final reading for the right, 1.50.
I wonder what might make reading more comfortable. It seems, without discussing this with the Dr yet, that it would be a big improvement if the left eye could be lasered, molded or corrected by contact lens; then reading glasses could be used with the same correction for each eye.
One image is larger than the other which causes difficulty when looking from point A on, say, the left to point B on the right. The eyes have to move in a very unnatural way. There is double vision for a moment on the left end of each line. On the right end it feels like the eyes are trying to cross.
The glasses really cannot be used for reading. But they are good when staring at a single word. The doctor wasn't inclined to give me a reading prescription but I wanted to be able to experiment.
If that left eye correction, +3.75 -1.50 X 35, could be eliminated, reading glasses of +1.50 could be used for each eye.
According to internet searches the limit for molding is +3.00 so that won't work. Don't know yet the maximum correctable by laser or contact. Does anyone know if that much farsightedness and astigmatism can be corrected by laser? And can a rigid toric lens correct that amount of error? Or any other ideas for making reading more comfortable?
JayBee 15 May 2007, 15:27
C:
If I recall correctly, there were definitely no fingers held up for me to count -- on that exam or on any I'd ever had before. My left eye was (still is) definitely more myopic than the right, which is why the surgeon made it my "reading" eye.
I would never have gone out without my glasses, but I rarely wore them at home or in the confines of my office at work (hated the things); so I wasn't blind. But, maybe I was using monovision naturally. It's all fine now, so I'll never know.
C 15 May 2007, 11:50
JayBee
I have very high myopia and I remember a few years ago, when seeing a consultant for the first time, being asked to try to count his fingers without my glasses.
JayBee 15 May 2007, 06:16
Puffin: I have no idea how far. I certainly don't remember anyone ever doing a "finger counting" test before.
Cactus Jack: I found the following explanation in a study done in Tehran. Interesting...
"An optometrist determines the visual acuity by using a NIDEK chart projector (CP – 670 20/10–20/400; Nidek Co, Gamagori, Japan) with tumbling E letters at a distance of 4 meters. Best spectacle corrected and uncorrected visual acuity tests are performed separately for each eye (one eye at a time). Presenting visual acuity is measured with the participant's habitual distance correction. Lensometry is performed by an optometrist for those who use glasses. Visual acuity is recorded as the smallest line in which the patient can read the four letters correctly. If the person is unable to read the largest E letters in the chart (20/400 E letters) at 4 meters, then finger counting is done at 1 meter. The examiner stands one meter in front of the participant and asks if the participant can see his/her hand."
Thanks for your help everyone.
Puffin 15 May 2007, 05:33
Finger counting at what distance?
DelDoc 15 May 2007, 04:38
FC = finger counting
CF = counting fingers
Cactus Jack 14 May 2007, 21:43
JayBee,
I don't know, I was trying to establish a context that would make sense. You might try checking Google or other search engine under Medical Abbeviations and see if any of those listed make sense.
C
JayBee 14 May 2007, 19:21
Cactus Jack,
I had monovision correction done so that I could avoid reading glasses for a while. This was 7 years ago. At the time I was wearing bifocals with no correction on the bottom.
My right eye refraction was -3.0 with uncorrected accuity 20/400 and corrected 20/25+
My left eye refraction was -3.5 +.5 x 87 with uncorrected accuity 20/FC (?) and corrected 20/20(-2)(That's a superscripted "-2").
Following Lasik, my right (distance)eye is 20/25 (+2) refraction is plano +.25 x 120.
My left (reading) eye is 20/150 refraction is -1.75 +0.75 x 62
I am at the point where I need reading glasses when I don't have enough light, but I can still read the labels in the supermarket. Also, strangely enough, my night vision actually improved following the procedure -- a very pleasant surprise, since it was horrible when I wore glasses.
Do you know what the FC stands for?
Cactus Jack 14 May 2007, 17:54
JayBee,
What was your quality of vision in your left eye prior to lasik and what is the quality of vision after.
C.
DelDoc 14 May 2007, 17:46
FC = finger counting
CF = counting fingers
JayBee 14 May 2007, 08:40
Quick question: I was just going over a note from the guy who did my Lasik surgery to my optometrist. He wrote my "Prior to surgery" vision as:
OD UCVA 20/400 and OS UCVA 20/FC
That's only part of what he put down, and I understand the refraction part. But, does anyone know what the heck the FC stands for?
JOHN 10 May 2007, 18:01
Thanks
Cactus Jack 10 May 2007, 17:09
John,
Possibly. It might be better to make sure exactly what is happening, there are many different causes. In some situations prism can help by reducing the work the positioning muscles have to do, but they are not always a perfect solution. Prism can introduce undesired optical effects such as color fringing and adjusting the Pupiliary Distance of the glasses so the line of vision and the optical center of the lens is coincident is also important for the best vision. An Eye Care Professional with experience and knowledge of muscle problems can usually help. Even though she is an adult, a Pediatric Opthalmologist who also treats Adult Strabismus (muscle imbalance) would be a good ECP to consult.
C.
JOHN 10 May 2007, 16:09
Thanks Catus Jack.
Forgot to say she has trifocals for 4 years now .the problem only seems to be in her right eye do you think having a prisim lens for her right eye would help
Cactus Jack 10 May 2007, 15:28
Eyescene Friends,
I hope i have not led John astray. I felt like he was seeking to understand his GF's situation rather than try to tell her doctor what he/she ought to do.
Please feel free to criticize or comment if my explanation was inappropriate, incrooect, or incomplete.
C.
Cactus Jack 10 May 2007, 15:13
John,
Part 1 of 3
I’m not an Eye Care Professional, but maybe I can help you understand your girlfriend’s situation. She has moderate hyperopia which is also called long or farsightedness.
A low hyoerope may be able to see very distant objects clearly, but their focusing muscles in the eye must work very hard to do it. Sort of like a person with normal vision trying hard to read somthing just 2 or 3 inches in front of their eyes. A moderate hyperope, like your girlfriend, probably cannot make distant objects focus at all, without wearing plus lenses, in her case +5.50.
-continued-
Cactus Jack 10 May 2007, 15:13
John,
Part 2 of 3
It is not unusual for some hyperopes to have problems with their eyes trying to cross. This is caused by a coupling mechanism in almost everyone’s brain that causes your eyes to turn inward (converge) when you focus on something close. This is so you don’t see double when you try to read. Because a hyperope eye muscles have to work extra hard all the time, sometimes the convergence mechanism gets rather powerful and the inside eye positioning muscles want to pull inward when they shouldn’t. The outside muscles can sometimes fight the inside muscles, but like all muscles, they will get tired after a while and the eyes turn inward. It is called Fatigue Esophoria.
-continued-
Cactus Jack 10 May 2007, 15:12
John
Part 3 of 3
One way to minimize the inward turning tendency is to try to keep the focusing muscles relaxed so they don’t trigger the convergence effect. That is done with bifocals, so the focus muscle doesn’t have to work to focus to read. In your GF’s situation, the +3.00 add does that.
If your GF is having some problems as you describe, it could mean that she needs a bit more + for distance. Or, perhaps she could benefit from tri-focals, so she doesn’t have to work to focus at intermediate distances.
Her eye doctor knows what to do. I would suggest that she schedule an appointment and tell him what is happening.
I hope this is helpful.
C.
Julian 10 May 2007, 11:28
'Solicitors think they can be barristers; nurses think they can be doctors etc etc.'
Yes Phil. Twice recently I've had prescriptions written and signed by practice nurses; but It doesn't worry me unduly. I can remember junior hospital doctors telling me that if the outpatient sister said, "Are you going to do so-and-so, doctor?" they'd better do it.
Phil 10 May 2007, 09:33
How right you are EHPC. But it isn't the modern view. I first realised that when I drafted the provisions (in Mrs Thatcher's time) allowing reading specs to be sold on market stalls. And it's been downhill ever since! Solicitors think they can be barristers; nurses think they can be doctors etc etc. Of course, there are some aspects of what is discussed here in relation to which we ARE the experts. Not the technical stuff but the feely side that does not interest the professionals.
ehpc 10 May 2007, 08:37
Curt is right. There is no field of human endeavour where an 'amateur' or dilletante can ever know more than 1% of what a professional in the same field knows.
Curt 10 May 2007, 07:49
cut-in UK: Understood. I have been contributing to Eye Scene for about 9 1/2 years now. I have a strong scientific background, and am fascinated with all things optical - lenses, glasses, microscopes, telescopes, prisms, holograms, etc. My point is that it seemed inappropriate for someone to ask a group of people that he does not even know on the Internet what an eyecare professional should be doing about his girlfriend's eye turning in. I am well aware that there is huge amount of expertise in this group; I consider myself part of that group. But last I checked, none of us are practicing optometrists, opthomologists, or even opticians. We all share a keen interest in eyeglasses and vision, but that is what it is...an interest.
Connie 09 May 2007, 16:42
Just back from the optical shop this afternoon. When I told them that I had blurry vision with the Freshlook one day 0.00 contacts they sold to me they did a measurement on my eyes through a machine which found that I was not nearsighted at all but had flat corneas. Thus I do not need glasses. I put on a pair of the contacts and they remeasured me in the machine which found that I need -.75 power in the contacts. They showed the results to their doctor who said that I could exchange the 0.00 lenses for -.75 power if I want to continue to use the contacts. Because of the way the lenses fit on my corneas there is induced nearsightedness when I wear these lenses. They had to order the -.75 lenses for me.
cut-in UK 09 May 2007, 15:24
I don't wish to criticise your perception of eyescene Curt; however I think you will find that very few of the regular contributors to 'eyescene' have merely "a casual intrest in glasses" there are several technical 'masters' and an equal number of gifted amateurs with more than a little acquired knowledge in matters optical. Lets face it, this is a collection of seriously keen optic obsessives. Will those who are not, please press the 'NO' button now! We welcome and encourage all those who have a similar interest.
08 May 2007, 14:47
My wife once tried coloured contacts with no prescription and had a similar problem to the one below because the centre of the lens did not have a hole in it but was like a plano glass effect ( or a thin film if that makes sense ) I think the 'costume' lenses you can buy have a hole to 'see through' so they don't effect your vision.
Curt 08 May 2007, 13:34
John: Let me get this straight...you are asking a bunch of people with a casual interest in glasses and vision what to tell your girlfriend's eye care professional??? Something seems a bit off here...
JOHN 08 May 2007, 10:24
My girlfriend wears +5.50 add 3.00 glasses. when she gets tired her right eye turns in what should the eye doctor do to stop this
Sophie 08 May 2007, 00:59
If I have one eye that is 100% corrected and the other is -2, what does that mean my visual acuity is? I have lost a contact lens and am interested in what that means my overall vision is.
Cactus Jack 07 May 2007, 16:03
Connie,
You could still in fact have a small amount of myopia that would not show up in bright light with your friends glasses. If the contacts are in fact 0.00 you might want a professonal exam with dilation to check absolutely. If you do decide to get an exam, tell the examiner what happened and take the contacts with you.
C.
Connie 07 May 2007, 15:24
Thanks for everyone's help. My roomate let me use her old glasses which are too mild for her. She said that the right lens was -.75 and the left -1.25. I tried these glasses last night without the colored contacts and I could not see any better with them on. My naked eyes saw just as good in the distance without them. I then put on a pair of the 0.00 colored lenses and my long distance vision beyond 4 to 5 feet was fuzzy. However with her old glasses on top of these contacts the distance vision cleared up. I think I have to go back to the optical shop and exchange these contacts.
Cactus Jack 05 May 2007, 21:20
Emily,
Excellent thnking
C.
Emily 05 May 2007, 20:34
Hi Connie,
I have a theory as to why you see better with the minus 1 lens. Lenses absorb most of the light but reflect some. Therefore, the image you see through a lens isn't a bright as without. If things are not as bright, your iris opens wider to let more light in, which reduces your depth of field and blurs your vision.
If you see better through a -1 lens, why not get a pair of them for yourself? It's a very weak lens and couldn't hurt your eyes.
Good luck.
Hansel 05 May 2007, 15:37
Is it possible that having "seen great" wearing the -1.00 lenses, suddenly you are surprised that you don't see as well with the planos.
I appreciate that you say that without them everything is great, but could it be that actually what you have really noticed is that -1.00 makes a difference to you?
Just a thought.
Cactus Jack 05 May 2007, 14:49
Connie,
What you described would cccur if the lenses supposedly without a prescription, in fact had a plus prescription. Check the box carefully is the prescription maked Plano or 0.00 in addtion to Diameter and Base Curve?
You can estimate the amount of plus (assuming you in fact you have 20/20 vision) by dividing the distance from your eyes to the most distant object you can see clearly into 1 meter or 3.28 feet depending on your prefered units of mesure. For example, if things become blurry at about 1 meter or about 3 feet. 1/1 = +1.00 diopter or 3.28/3 = 1.09 or + 1 diopter.
Let me know if you need help estimating the power of the lenses.
C.
Connie 05 May 2007, 11:28
I am confused. I have never been prescribed glasses but recently tried some colored contacts. My roomate who has worn contacts and glasses for years recently got some FreshLook one day colored contacts. Her right eye was -1.00 and the left was -2.50. The gray color looked great on her eyes. She gave me a pair of her right lenses -1.00's to try and I loved the color as well. I could also see with these lenses. I wore them out one night and had no trouble with them. I went to the optical shop to buy some of my own and got the same type of lens with no prescription. However, the next time I wore them out at night everything seemed blurry in the distance. Without the lenses I see just fine. I tried another pair of my roomates lenses -1.00's and saw great with them. Yet I don't need glasses and see well when not wearing lenses.
What is wrong with the plain colored contact lenses?
Marthe 28 Apr 2007, 14:13
Hi
No that's definately not the reason. I could comfortably wear them all day except that I would take them off as habit. So nosepads is nothing to do with my issue!
lazysiow 28 Apr 2007, 13:55
I have a theory for this. Maybe they aren't the best fitting, i.e. for me most of the time the nosepads are too big. Actually I probably notice more about different types of nosepads than anyone else, but anyway.. my first pair even though reading and computer work gave me eyestrain I put up with it even with glasses because essentially they were uncomfortable. It took I think my 3rd pair (which was the same as my second one) with different nosepads for me to go full time as they were really comfortable and fit well.
Marthe 28 Apr 2007, 13:43
Hi I’m fascinated by when and how much people wear their glasses. I’m at a stage when I wonder if I’m unusual in not wearing mine more, judging by friends and wonder why is it that I am happy to wander around at home with slightly fuzzy things when friends of mine with similar prescriptions can’t do without their glasses? My prescription is -2 and -3, I can’t watch TV comfortably without them – I can see there’s something there, but couldn’t read any text – I need them for driving too. I could happily wear them more, my glasses look great, so am I strange to put up with things inside the house that are slightly out of focus or is it usual for someone with my prescription. I’m not blind without them (obviously) and I’ve been told that my better eye compensates for the worse, but am I being stupid not to get the best possible vision all the time? My guess is it’s a subjective thing but I’d like to know what others here think too. Thanks
Random_eye 21 Mar 2007, 12:29
I guess its for what you should see if you where over corrected. Which I am and I don't see what it says I should see. I am probably still to young for that right now.
Guest 21 Mar 2007, 11:30
I tried it and really didn't get the 'glasses with the wrong prescription' option. What's that about?
Tod 21 Mar 2007, 11:20
yes, I really like Tammy too. Guess we all miss her. I tried emailing her a couple of times but no responce. Please say hi, Tammy.
Andrew 21 Mar 2007, 10:32
The real shame with anything like this is that you cannot put on a pair of glasses of the strength you have just entered and see the letters clearly.
Willy 21 Mar 2007, 08:38
Was trolling around and found the following link to a vision simulator I had not seen before...
http://www.billauer.co.il/simulator.html
Puffin 20 Mar 2007, 05:36
Haven't heard from Tammy in ages, how are you doing if you are still out there(?)
Cactus Jack 18 Mar 2007, 16:19
Lentifan,
Please contact me at cactusjack1928@hotmail.com
C.
lentifan 18 Mar 2007, 15:33
Cactus Jack
Thank you for that response. You seem to confirm what I thought was the case.
The reason I asked is that I expect in the forseeable future to have cataracts removed and I am considering refusing implants, so that I can wear strong glasse. I am only slightly minus at present and I would hope to acquire by this means a moderate plus.
Cactus Jack 18 Mar 2007, 15:09
Lentifan,
One more thing, my night vision is excellent. Maybe even better than before.
C.
Cactus Jack 18 Mar 2007, 15:07
Lentifan,
I have had cataract surgery with my natural lenses removed and replaced with artifical lenses. Prior to the procedure, they used an untrasound device to measure the length of my eyeballs, and the thickness of my corneas and crystaline lenses. Using this information they calculated the power of the new lens required to to get me close to 20/20 or whatever I wanted. I chose monovision with a target of 0.00 in one eye and -1.50 in the other. The idea being that if I go up at night, I could function fairly well without bothering to find my glasses.
Because the new lenses are available in 0.50 D increments and they have no effect on astigmatism which is in the cornea, I wound up with +0.25 in one eye and -1.25 in the other with a little astigmatism.
With glasses, I have almost 20/15 acuity, with normal visual fields. I am slightly sensitive to bright sunshine because the artificial lenses are actually 6% more efficient in light transmission than natural lenses. They also block most UV whcih doesn't hurt anything.
The only downside is that I need trifocals, but I needed them before the surgery so no big deal.
Hope this was helpful information.
I have been thinking of writing up the whole thing as a true adventure, I don't know if Bobby would be interested or not.
C.
lentifan 18 Mar 2007, 13:03
I have a question. If the natural lens is removed from an eye (lensectomy) and replaced with a spectacle lens of the correct power, is there any loss of visual acuity?
I can understand that there will be a loss of the field of vision, due to the magnification effect of the plus lens and distortion away from the centre of the lens, but my question relates to the visual acuity at the centre of the lens.
Brian-16 16 Feb 2007, 11:30
HipChick-I am corrected only to 20/25,but then my rx is high around-13 with astigmatism.
Random_eye 15 Feb 2007, 10:47
With an RX that low I would think you should be able to get 20/20 vision. I am not 100% sure how much it would take.
I think it can make more of a difference with people who have much high RXs.
HipChick 15 Feb 2007, 09:47
-2.25 is the tricky one. Does it make a difference?
I'm 29
Random_eye 15 Feb 2007, 09:40
I think it depends on the person. Not everyone is correctable to 20/20. But someone else here and probably better answer your question.
Whats your age and RX?
HipChick 15 Feb 2007, 09:05
If I can only read the 20/30 with glasses on, how much stronger would I need an extra -.25 or -.50?
Vic 08 Dec 2006, 22:27
Smudgeur they are your wifes eyes. No one can make her not wear the glasses that is her choice :) Plus I'm sure if she went to a big chain store most likely that they would still prescribe her glasses. So she shouldn't worry really
Tod 08 Dec 2006, 18:21
http://www.thineyeglasses.com/csi/info/high-index.asp
Julian 02 Dec 2006, 09:41
Smudgeur: compare the discussion on the 'Hyperopia & presbyopia Progression' thread.
Smudgeur 02 Dec 2006, 02:15
interesting link to an abstract of an article about when glasses will be prescribed:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1475-1313.2003.00137.x/abs/
This subject has always interested me as my wife has a prescription of:
+0.75 -0.25
+0.50 -0.50
I've always known she is borderline for needing them and dread her going for an eyetest as they may tell her not to wear her glasses anymore (she wears them full time to please me!) :-)
Anyone got the full text of this paper?
Julian 30 Nov 2006, 16:34
Tod: Wurm no longer accepts fiction one EyeScene, so there's really no point in suggesting it - and there are other excellent sites that do.
Puffin 28 Nov 2006, 18:01
I've thought of writing something along those lines, but where's the time?
Tod 28 Nov 2006, 14:53
There used to be some pretty good fiction writers posting to this thread.
I have an idea for a title if some good writer can write the play.
its this "Diary of a Nearsighted Hooker"
Any takers? for the story, I mean.
OttO 15 Oct 2006, 19:59
Wayne - Thanks for some interesting observations. I can certainly relate to your experience. I did get weaker lenses shortly after my eye exam in early 2005 (at age 56). I was not seeing very well with my distance lenses and was tilting my head back to see middle distances with my bifocal reading lenses. Pain in the neck!
I went L from -4.75 to -3.00 (I might have been a little overcorrected) and R from -3.50 to -3.00. And it was 8 years since my previous exam! It will be interesting to see if my RX decreases any in the future.
Although I'm a myope I did get the tripple whammy - trifocals. To top it off I've now got correction for astigmatism (which I didn't have previously) so it's now more comfortable reading with my glasses than without.
Wayne 15 Oct 2006, 18:59
I believe that it's very common for myopia to decrease as presbyopia sets in. Over the last 12 or 13 years my distance Rx has decreased from a high of L-7, R-6.50 to L-5, R-4.
In a similar manner, someone who has been emetropic and never previously needed correction may find that at a certain age they need not only reading glasses but some correction for distance as well.
A hyperopic person can get a triple whammy. Not only bifocals for reading but also a stronger distance Rx and a greater dependence on glasses because they can no long accomodate for distance as they could when younger.
It sort of evens things out. When younger many hyperopes can function quite well for distance in many situations where even a low to moderate myope would might difficulty. When older, however, the hyperope becomes more dependent on glasses while a myope has improved distance vision and the ability to read bare-eyed without glasses. Of course, anyone with a very high Rx + or - would always be dependent on correction.
Otto, I would recommend getting the weaker lenses as long as they give you 20/20 vision. You are, in effect, somewhat hyperopic while wearing your current glasses. This puts strain on your eyes to accomodate for the excess minus and could lead to headaches before long. Also, as the presbyopia increases, you will eventually find that distance is not clear with the too strong prescription.
I first realized that my myopia had decreased when I found that I could see distance better by tilting my head to look through the intermediate part of my progressive lenses. I still need glasses full time to function adequately for distance but find I can now read at a comfortable distance without glasses. I'm still sometimes surprised to find I can see things without having to get as close as I once did. I'm 64 by the way. Nearsightedness set in when I was 10 and presbyopia in my mid-40's.
Cactus Jack 08 Oct 2006, 10:10
I wonder if the reduction in myopia could be caused by relaxation of the crystaline lens and ciliary muscles Perhaps caused by fatigue. There is such a thing as pseudo myopia "induced" or otherwise.
Myopia is generally thought to be caused by excessive eyeball length for the optical power of the cornea, crystaline lens, and there is also and element of refractive power of the fluids in the eyeball. The refractive index of the Vitreous Humor and other eye fluids can change as glucose content changes. Diabetics with uncontrolled blood glucose experience problems with 1 to 2 Diopter Rx changes over relatively short periods of time and some even have several pairs of glasses with different Rx.
If you are experiencing sudden changes in Rx, a quick, easy, and almost painless blood glucose check would be worthwhile.
C.
OttoO 08 Oct 2006, 10:04
Nice to see we've got company!
Rio 08 Oct 2006, 08:33
I had a similar experience and went from -4 to -3 almost overnight. It was a strange experience going from feeling pretty blind to only mildly blind but can only be a good thing. Same thing happened to one of my colleagues who went from -3 to -2 and is nearly free of her glasses and very pleased.
OttO 07 Oct 2006, 22:16
Merrill. You don't tell us your age, but you say you can see just fine with your too strong lenses. You must have quite a bit of accomodation yet. If it were me I would just keep the lenses and go on my merry way with them. Enjoy them and save yourself some money! As far as we know it's not going to do you any harm. (I'm no expert. It's just what I've read and learned from EyeScene et al.) As for me, I'm past 50 and my accomodation is going. The lack of ability to see through my now too strong lenses is what finally got me to go for an exam. With weaker lenses I'm able to focus normally again. The result of advancing presbyopia is that I've advanced from bifocals to trifocals. The only real change I've noticed is that without glasses I can see a bit further without poking my nose into what I'm trying to see. My RX may have gone down some, but I do like the trifocals.
Enjoy the stronger lenses while you can. The time will come when you can't.
Merrill 07 Oct 2006, 14:48
OttO
Wow that sort of problem didn't come up. In fact it was positioned as something I should really be pleased by. Funny thing is that I still seem to be able to see fine through my now too strong lenses. Because of that there doesn't seem to be any rush to pick out new frames. Should I go ahead and get the weaker lenses as I see just as fine as I ever did?
Your prescription is stronger than mine but did you notice any benefit from the reduction? Should I be prepared to be able to go without glasses sometimes or isn't the reduction that signficant?
OttO 06 Oct 2006, 19:38
Merrill
The same thing happened to me last year. Decrease in myopia, that is. Of course I went some 8 years between exams and had a significant increase in both presbyopia and astigmatism. I went from R -3.5 to -3.0 and L from -4.75 to -3.0 (It's possible my left eye could have been a bit over corrected.) Any way, the opthalmologist says that for the myopia to decrease is not all uncommon. More recently I have read that decreasing myopia may be related to onset of type 2 diabetes (growth of veins in the eyes). I'm not sure of the veracity of this. However it may be a warning sign!
Merrill 06 Oct 2006, 13:22
Hi there. I wanted to post that my prescription has dropped somewhat and I wondered if that was considered unusual. I have gone from -3.25 and -3 to -3 and -2.25. It seems like a huge drop to me. At least -2.25 seems very low from what I'm used to. I'm not sure how much that even means I'll need glases, although I realise I still have one eye that's pretty bad. I'd really like to hear if anyone else here has had a similar experience. Thanks.
Tod 30 Sep 2006, 17:21
I don't think so. I have worn both larger dia. soft lenses and smaller dia. soft lenses that were the same size as corneas. But the larger dia. lens is much more comfortable to wear and stays in place better.
tinyeyes 30 Sep 2006, 16:00
I have a question. I usually post only on the "Guys with Glasses" thread, but this is a little more general so I will ask here: Are soft contact lenses with high minus prescriptions usually smaller in diameter than lower minus contacts? I have this idea in my mind, and I'm not sure where it came from. When I see contacts in a guy's eyes, I'm always looking for clues to their prescription. Sometimes the edge of the lens goes way beyond the iris, and sometimes it is only a little bigger. Does anyone know?
Thomas 29 Sep 2006, 21:59
Thank you Matthew. Your post is most informative. Also today it is harder to spot a bifocal wearer because most wear in (plus or minus Rx) progressive lenses. The only exception is in mild plus Rx's when viewed from behind, the mild progressive lens has a "funhouse mirror" affect.
matthew 27 Sep 2006, 23:28
continued...I've known a few girls who were farsighted. It seems like (in my circle of friends and acquaintances, which - again - is about 75% myopic) myopes outnumber them by maybe 10 to 1 or so. So out of every 40 people, 30 would be myopic, maybe 3 would be hyperopic, 6 would have "normal" (hee hee...doesn't sound very normal to me) vision, maybe 1 would have something else - astigmatism without significant myopia or hyperopia, or another less common eye disorder.
I wonder, though, if there aren't a lot more latent hyperopes out there than I realize. My 'real' prescription is about -3, but for the past couple years I've normally worn -8 glasses. And while I sometimes find it difficult to focus at first, I have rarely experienced any eyestrain-related discomfort. After a few minutes, they feel comfortable and normal and my vision is fine. So as far as my eyes' lenses go, this is a lot like being a +4 hyperope. And the hyperopic people I've seen have been +4 or less, not more than that. So I wonder if there aren't a lot of hyperopes who are fairly young with a significant 'real' prescription but who never use correction. So those who do use correction are those who find it relatively difficult to deal with the constant accommodation. This would be consistent with something else I've noticed among reports on this site from "latent hyperopes": it's common for them to move to bifocals fairly soon after starting to wear glasses. That would make sense, since I'm suggesting that most young hyperopes who use correction are those who have relatively poor accommodation (compared to the majority).
Obviously, a lot of this is spec-ulative and it's almost all anecdotal. So it can't really be taken too seriously.
matthew 27 Sep 2006, 23:28
Tod...you asked about the percentage of women who wear glasses, and the break down by Rx type: myopia; hyperopia; astigmatism; full time wear and degree of Rx ; etc.
I've never seen any particularly good data about this. There was a post on this site maybe a month or two ago (I forget which thread) in which someone reported a breakdown by Rx.
My experience between looking around reading, etc, is that the answers vary a LOT depending on demographics. As far as I know, there isn't a big difference between men and women. Certain Asian countries supposedly are about 80% nearsighted. I've read that about 25% of Americans are nearsighted...but among my friends (Americans, mostly white, 20s and 30s, who mostly went to pretty intense colleges) the number is more like 75%. One thing that makes it tricky is that most nearsighted young women wear contacts. For example, of 15 friends/girlfriends of mine, 12 of them were nearsighted...of those 12, all but one wore contacts at least a fair amount of the time, and only two or three others wore glasses more than on a rare occasion. (By the way, since so many of them wear contacts, and since I really don't think I can tell most of the time whether someone wears contacts, I am pretty sure that my being an OO didn't really contribute to ending up getting close to so many nearsighted women. I could be wrong, of course...) Although I'm not sure, I don't think all that many people I know have had LASIK. I think among friends and acquaintances, I know of 5 (out of maybe 100 who I know well enough to know whether they had it done). But there are statistics on how many people have had the procedure - I just haven't seen them.
As for bifocals, I don't think I remember a gwg in her 20s or early 30s who wore bifocals. A couple girls in high school did - I think because they had eye doctors who believed it could help limit progression of myopia. I did have a friend (about 26 yrs old)once whose eye doctor was considering prescribing bifocals because she was having trouble with eyestrain at work (engineer - lots of computer work and detailed drawings, reading, etc), but I think she waived that off. Since she was about a -2 or so, she could probably just take her glasses off. It seems from my experience like bifocals are rare for people in their 20s (like 1 in 100 or less), though there have been quite a few posts on this site by such people. So I'm curious. There is definitely an attitude that bifocals are for old people, which is a pretty damaging attitude for any young person who needs them to see better.
Thomas 26 Sep 2006, 22:04
Also Astigmatism is due to the cornea of the eye or in some rare cases the retina to be shaped like an (American) football - 0 - instead of being shaped like a socker or basketball - O -. This causes light to be focused in more than one point on the retina. So yes, a "shadow" affect when reading a printed page or simular symptoms such as one eye seeing color shaded slightly differently than the other eye, is likely caused by astigmatism.
Thomas 26 Sep 2006, 21:49
Jane your vision is somewhat rare in that one eye is myopic and the other is hyperopic. Though I did know two people who has this condition. The one fellow never liked to wear his glasses but the other, a young woman almost never took her's off. You are fortunate in that your Rx is mild because too great a difference in Rx for each eye leads one eye to do all the work while the other eye may atrophy after time. Astigamtism is a very common condition and most people needing glasses for other eye disorder such as myopia also have some degree of astigmatism. As for prisms, they are used to correct stabismus also known as cross eyes. Sense light through a prism always bends toward the base of the prism it allows a person who's eye may turn outward to see straight ahead when a prism base in the lens is placed near the bridge of the nose.
As for your eyesight. I would suggest you wear your glasses full time for several weeks so to allow your eyes "adjust" to your new vision. But truly it is ones brain that really is doing the adjusting. Our eyes are simply a pathway for the brain to "see".
Jane 26 Sep 2006, 21:03
Thank you for replying to my post. From memory, my script is -0.5/-0.5 (right) and +0.5/+0.25 (left). I know that this is very slight. With my left eye there is no noticeable difference for istance vision whether I wear my glasses or not. With my right eye, even thought it is still a weak prescription, when I do not wear glasses everything further than about 2m away is not really clear and I have noticeable double vision when i look at print. Is this due to the astigmatism?
As for reading, when print is blurry there does seem to be a shadow type of effect, kind of like double vision i guess. I also seem to have to strain more with near work when I use both of my eyes.
I don't know what prescription the optometrist would give me for close work as she suggested that I come back in about a month and in the mean time, document any problems I have with near work. She suggested this because I was a bit reluctant to get reading glasses as I am only 29 and thought this was a bit young. If I start wearing reading glasses now, won't I just keep on needing stronger and stronger ones?
With the "ruler" she did say that the arrow should be at zero so i guess this means i do have an alignment problem. Can reading glasses help with this or would i need prisms? Can any one tell me a bit more about prisms or is there somewhere else on this website where they are explained?
Cactus Jack 26 Sep 2006, 15:05
Jane,
It would be very helpful if you could provide your new prescription and age.
I suspect the test you described as a “ruler” test may have been a test for muscle imbalance. The way it works is that one eye sees the rule with the numbers and the other eye sees the arrow. Normally, if a person sees the arrow pointing near the “0" it means that there is no muscle imbalance. However, that is not necessarily the case. The center point on many machines is adjustable so that the operator can offset the center point to other values If you saw the arrow hovering between the 9 and 11 it could mean that you have about 10 prism diopters of muscle imbalance or it could mean that the center point was adjusted to 10 and you have no muscle imbalance. This type of test is normally used for “screening” purposes and if the Examiner decides that some prism would be useful, the phoropter has the ability to more accurately measure prism requirements.
Just because you saw the arrow between 9 and 11 does not mean that you need prism. Have you experienced any double vision?
BTW, 10 diopters of prism is not much. Glasses with 10 diopters of prism are usually made with 5 diopters in each eye and each eye would be deflected about 2.5 degrees.
C.
Phil 26 Sep 2006, 08:17
I would be very interested in a reply to Jane's query.
When I was 18 I knew I was getting a bit short-sighted so went for a first eyetest. I told the optician that I had suffered headaches (because I thought that would get me glasses!) and he tested me in the way Jane describes. I think that, like Jane, I recorded a less than "perfect" result. But when the optician discovered from the Snelling chart that I was indeed a bit short-sighted (-.5 I think) he seemed confused. It was as if the two tests had yielded inconsistent findings. He put on his own glasses and applied the "ruler" test to himself. And he muttered something about the equipment possibly being dodgy. In the end he concluded that my eyesight was not "bad" enough to require him to prescribe glasses. In fact I think it was because it was time for his lunch!
Four years later (after reading law at Oxford) I went for another eye test. My rx was by then -2.75 and I got my glasses. The optician refused to believe they were my first. The ruler didn't feature and has never featured at any test since, even since I became presbyopic and have needed an add.
So what was the "ruler" testing? Why did it confuse that first optician? And why hasn't it been used on me since?
Jane 26 Sep 2006, 04:00
This is my first post to this site,so i am sorry if i ask questions that have been answered before. I just went for an eye test as it had been a couple of years since my last. (I am slightly short-sighted in my right eye and slightly longsighted in my left with some astigmatism in both). Anyway, lately i have been having a lot of trouble focussing on near work. It often goes in and out of focus and i find it hard to stop my eyes from straying around the page (does that make sense?)and have been getting head aches.
The optometrist said that I need a reading prescription now. She did this test where I had to look through an instrument and tell her which number on a ruler the arrow lined up with. It is apparently supposed to line up in the middle at 0 but for me it was a long way to the right (hovering between 9 and 11). Can someone please tell me what this means and whether glasses will help overcome this problem. Thank you.
Tod 22 Sep 2006, 15:54
I just ordered a pair of wire frames glasses. The exact same style that I remember this cute girl at our HS used to wear way back in 1970-1972.
Tod 21 Sep 2006, 19:25
Memory lane
http://www.eyeglasseswarehouse.com/metalframes.html
Tod 13 Sep 2006, 10:02
a question: what is the percentage of women who wear glasses? This to include contact lens wearers and LASIK patients. And a further break down by Rx type: myopia; hyperopia; astigmatism; full time wear and degree of Rx ; etc.
If anyone can report these facts, that would be great.
12 Sep 2006, 22:10
so it would seem, R
R 11 Sep 2006, 08:37
hey.
Im 20. In around may 2005 i got a prescription for -0.5 in each eye along with -0.25 astigmatism. The prescription remained the same in december that year. Recently ive noticed that when i hold my spare pair of glasses over my usual pair and look through both things in the distance are sharper althugh things nearby by look a bit less clear. Do i need a new prescription?
Wayne_D 02 Sep 2006, 13:01
Guest Poster,
Working at a hospital in 2004 I met a doctor from the Ukraine. She is -5.00 and she has a sister who was the same. Her sister used the Bates Method over a period of time and was able to bring her correction to 0 diopters.
Guest poster 02 Sep 2006, 00:18
This, from here - http://www.i-see.org/pullicino.html - is a plug for the old Bates quackery.
But read this below, surely it exaggerates a teensy bit?
"I first was prescribed glasses when I came to Canberra from Melbourne. I was then 14 years old. The prescription was very weak. If I remember correctly it was something like RE —0.25D LE —0.5D. [3] From then on my myopia got steadily worse and worse until two years ago and around three or four more prescriptions later I had RE —1.75D LE —2.25D. At that stage it was becoming necessary to wear glasses for reading, but I resisted this instinctively. I also began to wear my glasses almost full time. The time came during my law exams in 1999 when I couldn’t see the print of a book on my lap. I was on the verge of going to get my glasses re-ordered and I knew I was going to have to start reading with them."
tsirt emotpo 18 Aug 2006, 14:05
Candice, your boyfriend is nearsighted/myopic with a small amount of astigmatism. In my opinion, he has a low Rx and can likely function fairly well at most distances closer than 10 feet but further out than this he will run into an issue with seeing fine detail. You have a boring Rx, farsighted with some astigmatism, a very common prescription when you look at the general population. I doubt your contacts are the exact same Rx as your glasses, most toric contacts only come in either -0.75 steps of cylinder units and few correct in -1.00 units (I think focus toric still do). When you wear his Rx with your contacts you are effectively making yourself far-sighted again (like your eyes are naturally). Vice versa, if he wears your glasses he makes his eyes effectively more near-sighted (his distance vision will be even more blurry).
Candice 14 Aug 2006, 06:36
Hi..I wear glasses with a rx of R+1.5 -1.25 X80 L+1.5 -1.00 X70.I wear contacts most of the time though.I am 30 years old.My boyfriend got glasses about 6 months ago.The rx is L-0.75 -0.25 x 100 R-1.00 -0.5 x 160.He only uses the glasses from driving at night.I was just wondering if this is normal as the lenses don't look that weak.I see people wearing glasses of that strengh fulltime everyday in shopping malls.He claims that his vision is fine for driving during the day and for TV.I would love him to be a full time wearer.He is 25 years old.Will his eyes get worse as he get older that he will become a fulltime wearer or has it stabilised by this age?When I try his glasses on over my contacts they still feel fairly strong.Why does my glasses or contacts not neautralise his prescription.Would I need stronger contacts or is it the astigmatism.Is my vision worse than his uncorrected at say 50 yards judging from these prescriptions.He seems to have a bit more difficulty than me at distance at night.I just can't understand how he can walk around a mall without glasses on.I cannot bare to be without correction.I feel so much more relaxed if I do not have continous blur and eyestrain.At my prescription is it normal for my glasses and contact prescription to be the same?Whenever is get new disposables they have to be ordered for me.Is my prescription very rare?
Hope someone can give me insight into these question...Thanks
Phil 03 Aug 2006, 06:38
Miriam, that's quite an unusual rx!
With your left eye you might find that the -1 for distance lets you see more crisply for driving, tv etc. But for close work the add means that you will see exactly if you weren't wearing specs.
With the right I would have thought that the total of +2.5 for close stuff would make quite a difference when reading etc. And you will probably be more comfortable with distance vision too as you get used to wearing specs. Until now you have probably accommodated that degree of longsightedness but as one gets older one needs the help of a lense.
I would get a nice pair of specs made up and see how you go. You may feel more comfortable wearing them with the extra clarity they give you. But there are no "rules" about how often to wear specs. If you think uyou would be self-conscious with lined bifocals go for varifocals. In my experience it is well worth paying a bit extra for a high grade lense like Zeiss.
You'll probably soon find that you did not know how you managed without glasses. And you'll be flattered by the attention they bring you. Most women considerably enhance their attractiveness by wearing nice frames. And with good quality varifocal lenses you won't look "old ladyish"! They'll be indistinguishable from single vision lenses but avoid you having to have multiple pairs for close and distance vision.
Give it a go and let us know how you get on. Good luck.
miriam 03 Aug 2006, 05:25
Having not had glasses before and having experienced a mild deterioration in distance vision, not that troublesome really, is it worth aged 42 getting glasses with this prescription and would they need to be worn all the time?
L: -1.0
R: +1.5 -0.75
Add: +1.0
Very interested in any opinions,
Miriam
Bart 01 Aug 2006, 05:40
OttO (and all the others), the simulator you posted seems very accurate though it shows an already very bad vision starting just from -6. You think is it right?
In my researches I saw quite a few of simulators recently, I found one really cute: http://www.visionsimulations.com/BlurSimulator.htm
(you have to use Internet Explorer)
it is very interesting because simulates a large variety of situations, for rx over -10 seems very accurate too but for lower rxs it seems to show a better vision than the other one, maybe too good..
lazysiow 01 Aug 2006, 01:34
ahh.. this one :)
http://www.vsdar.de/english/virtualeye/index.html
Neville 31 Jul 2006, 22:36
There was another one of these someone posted a while back. It was a German site and looked slightly different to this one.
I just tried it and it seems to blur everything quite significantly from -0.75 out. Is this associated with a lasik clinic!! Anyone know the link to the German site?
Random_Eye 30 Jul 2006, 17:29
Was wondering where is was thought I might have really been going blind ;)
Cactus Jack 30 Jul 2006, 16:11
Oops! Thanks, OttO
C.
OttO 30 Jul 2006, 14:51
This may be the link that Cactus had in mind.
http://www.optiker.at/simulator/
30 Jul 2006, 14:14
Great thanks, but there's no link posted.
Cactus Jack 30 Jul 2006, 05:12
anon,
Here is a link to an Austrian site with exmples of various refractive errors. The language is German, but you can probably figure it out. "Alter" is age range.
C.
Dave 30 Jul 2006, 00:43
jo,
Interesting. Do you know anything about the Japanese system? Sachi from joyofspex says her Rx is 0.04. She is quite myopic, probably in the -7 to -10 range.
jo 29 Jul 2006, 23:50
in many asian countries like HK, Singapore, taiwan, malaysia etc, degrees is used as a term of measure instead of diopters. Hence, 100 degrees equals 1.0 diopter. When a person says, he's 1000 degrees, it means he has a prescription of -10.00.
29 Jul 2006, 23:32
Does anyone know a link to a vision simulator where I can check out myopia and astigmatism please?
guest 26 Jul 2006, 07:30
That was my first guess. I would have assumed his rx would have been higher, though, because he said he was exempted from military service because of his myopia. I would have thought that -10.00 isn't such a high RX in Taiwan...
specs4ever 26 Jul 2006, 03:15
that would be -10.00D I believe
guest 26 Jul 2006, 01:26
I recently met a Taiwanese myope who explained that his prescription is "1000 degrees." Does anyone know what this means, or how it translates into diopters?
ReplytoGuest 05 Jul 2006, 10:50
Exactly!
Plusfan 05 Jul 2006, 10:50
admirer, I agree with you !!!
05 Jul 2006, 10:12
ReplytoGuest 05 Jul 2006, 09:44
That is a very good question. What would they need them for?
Guest 05 Jul 2006, 09:25
Male 37. Why do you ask?
Question for Guest 05 Jul 2006, 09:23
Guest,
May I ask if your are Male or Female and your age?
Guest 05 Jul 2006, 08:50
Why would they be prescribed then?
Replyto Guestfrom6/29 05 Jul 2006, 07:01
Many people with a -.75 prescription see better than 20/40 without correction and do not have a restricted driver's license.
admirer 05 Jul 2006, 06:42
ladies who wear heavy plus glassses are adorable, to me they look so sexy and attractive, sometime ago had sex with a lady wearing very heavy plus glasses, she was a brilliant sexual lover, loved her to keep her glasses on added to the excitement, often a ladywith high plus glasses in a burning inferno of sex waiting to get out, so guys heavy plus glasses heave it over high- glasses, ladies who wear high plus glasses are definately the more sexy, and an added bonus they usually are very loyal and have beautiful personalities, guys what do you think and ladies have I described you.
admirer 05 Jul 2006, 06:35
EyeSpy 04 Jul 2006, 23:23
I’ve heard that a measure like 20/200 is influenced by whether the person corrects to 20/20, or better, or worse. So 20/200 could be the case for some -2.50 myopes but probably not for most. I only correct to 20/25 in one eye so up against others who correct to 20/20 I guess my ‘visual efficiency’ would be worse. Does that make my uncorrected vision worse than someone with the same prescription? Probably not I don’t really know.
At -2.50 I’d say it starts to become more difficult to function without glasses and there are more things that require glasses than not, for people who want to see well that is. (‘Managing’ as you put it Philosofer is slightly different). I think John probably gets closest – both have difficulty seeing in the distance but what really makes the difference is not being able to see up close either. I imagine someone who had -2.50 for distance and a +5 for near would actually feel blind as they wouldn’t be able to see clearly at any distance.
I was sceptical about the statement but like most things, in the end I think you can argue them either way.
John 04 Jul 2006, 20:19
Philosopher - One of the biggest reasons that a person with 2.5 D of myopia can manage fine but a person who is legally blind (20/200) will have real difficulty is that the legally blind person can't see things up close any better than things far away. The myope can read (up close) just fine, and that's a huge difference. (Granted, it won't make a difference doing something like driving...but neither of these people can drive safely.)
Philosifer 04 Jul 2006, 10:45
While the paper on Myopia posted by Guest on July 3 does seem to come from a well-informed source, the following paragraph seems to contradict things I have read before, and also go against certain personal experience.
" 2.50 diopter of myopia reduces vision to 20/200 level and the visual efficiency is reduced to 20%. 'Best corrected' vision worse than 20/200 is the 'legal definition of blindness'. Therefore at or above 2.50 diopter of 'uncorrected' myopia the eyesight is reduced to a vision-level that defines 'legal blindness'. Without glasses or contact lenses, a myope of -2.50 D sees what a legally blind person is able to see (with his/her best corrected eye)."
What I thought I had read before is that 4.00 - not 2.50 - dioptres of myopia reduces vision to 20/200 ?
And, though I have not heard the term 'visual efficiency' before, intuition would suggest that 20/200 sounds more like 10% than 20% efficient ?
And, finally, I know all too sadly and from long personal experience, that a female person with 2.50 dioptres of myopia can manage perfectly well for most practical purposes (except watching TV and driving), so I really must believe than she is seeing better than - even the corrected vision - of someone who is legally classified as blind ?
specs4ever 04 Jul 2006, 06:24
Well guest, I am not 100% sure, however I believe that up to -1.00D of astigmatism can sometimes be corrected by adding -0.50D to the sphere. The usual rule of thumb is that 1/2 of the astigmatism correction is added to the sphere. And over -1.00D of astigmatism pretty well requites toric contact lenses. Although back in the days of hard plastic contacts as much as -3.00D of astigmatism could be corrected by adding to the sphere. I think RGP contacts work much the same way, as the hard lenses reshape the irregular cornea. However, I do not know any of this absolutely for sure.
Julian 03 Jul 2006, 18:25
OK Guest, the line you quote makes sense in context. You quoted it out of context.
Tim 03 Jul 2006, 18:08
"The odds of having myopia increase with increasing numbers of myopia (sic) parents". Odd - I have never met anyone with more than two biological parents, myopic or otherwise.
Guest 03 Jul 2006, 14:22
Julian
I'm not sure what you're quoting, but here's the original article
http://www.agingeye.net/myopia/myopiaindex.php
What do people make of that
Julian 03 Jul 2006, 12:59
"wat a legally blind person is able to see *with the best possible correction*". I thought Guest's post was misleading to say the least.
EyeSpy 03 Jul 2006, 12:08
"Without glasses or contact lenses, a myope of -2.50 D sees what a legally blind person is able to see."
Can this really be true?
29 Jun 2006, 12:28
Guest,
Perhaps you did not provide enough information to answer your question.
Guest 29 Jun 2006, 12:21
ps - could no-one answer my questions of 20 June? I thought someone would know.
Guest 29 Jun 2006, 12:20
Here's interesting for anyone's who's ever wanted to know about visual acuity and prescription strength.
0.75 diopter of myopia reduces vision to 20/40 and the visual efficiency is reduced to 83% (20/20 is 100% visual efficiency). 20/40 vision is the cut-off used in most states for getting a driver's license. At or above 0.75 diopter of uncorrected myopia, you will fail the vision test to get a driver's license.
• 1.50 diopter of myopia reduces vision to 20/80 level and the visual efficiency is reduced to 58%.
• 2.50 diopter of myopia reduces vision to 20/200 level and the visual efficiency is reduced to 20%. 'Best corrected' vision worse than 20/200 is the 'legal definition of blindness'. Therefore at or above 2.50 diopter of 'uncorrected' myopia the eyesight is reduced to a vision-level that defines 'legal blindness'. Without glasses or contact lenses, a myope of -2.50 D sees what a legally blind person is able to see.
Guest 20 Jun 2006, 22:41
A couple of questions in one really. If someone had some astigmatism that was only corrected by sphere in their contacts, say -2.50 but with the astigmatism correction the contacts were -2.75, how much real astigmatism is being corrected by the extra -.25 in the contacts?
Secondly, how much can be corrected by sphere? I thought that torics were prescribed over .75 but am not sure.
spexfan 12 Jun 2006, 13:18
On the topic of convergence, I've just got my first ever pair of multifocals. Luxotica Panamic. +1.00 with 0.50 cyl in each eye and +1.5 add.
The right eye works very well. The left, however, is a little blurred for anything closer than 2 feet. I personally think it's because the sweet spot of the lens is placed too far to the left (though my monocular pd is definitely 2mm bigger on that side.) The dispensing optician/doctor (not my doctor, who is in another country) thinks it's because my left eye wanders out slightly - apparently the lens is correctly aligned for the pd - and I therefore am unsuitable for progressives.
There may be some truth in the alignment issue as I was wearing +2.5 base out prisms in my last Rx (my doctor then decided to prescribe an add instead of the prism, hence the progreesives.)
Anyway, I disagree with the optician. I took the left lens out of the frame and manually moved it towards the bridge by 3mm. Voila. Pin sharp vision up close.
Don't Luxotica have a warranty/trail period on their progressives? Can I demand the optician replace/realign the lens? They seem vary reluctant to do this.
Thanks.
PS. Otherwise like the progressives a lot.
Cactus Jack 12 Jun 2006, 09:49
anon,
What kink of convergence problems do you have?
C.
Cactus Jack 12 Jun 2006, 09:47
anon,
For some people with overconvergence problems, the connection between focusing and converging is so strong that fusion is overcome when trying to focus close and they have double vision. Plus glasses can be used for close work to allow the focus system to relax and reduce the tendency for the eyes to cross.
One of the things that make the total visual system so interesting is the interconnection and interaction of the the various subsystems.
What is your age and Rx?
C.
anon 12 Jun 2006, 09:23
Cactus Jack,
I suffer from this problem and was advised by several eye professionals, as well as having read quite widely out on the topic out of curiousity, that plus lenses aggravate the convergence problem. If you have problems getting both eyes to work together, you have to wear the right rx.
I've also tried plus lenses recently to experiment, and found that they caused me many problems.
Cactus Jack 11 Jun 2006, 19:45
anon,
Where did you get that idea?
C.
anon 11 Jun 2006, 19:09
Apparently wearing plus lenses of you've got convergence problems is not a good idea.
Cactus Jack 08 Jun 2006, 13:13
Plus Fan,
Not to worry, If anything, wearing plus glasses with myopia might (very tiny might)cause you to become a little less myopic or might encourage presbyopia because your internal lenses and ciliary muscles don't have to flex as much to focus.
C.
Plusheavy 08 Jun 2006, 07:19
Nothing is going to happen unless you bump into things and fail to recognise your friends because of temporarily increased myopia resulting from wearing plus lenses. Wearing wrong glasses only results in temporary discomfort. Permament damage is a myth promoted by opticians who claim that only a perfect fit can prevent the progression of myopia and who are naturally interested in attracting clients.
Plusanheavy 08 Jun 2006, 07:18
Nothing is going to happen unless you bump into things and fail to recognise your friends because of temporarily increased myopia resulting from wearing plus lenses. Wearing wrong glasses only results in temporary discomfort. Permament damage is a myth promoted by opticians who claim that only a perfect fit can prevent the progression of myopia and who are naturally interested in attracting clients.
plus fan 08 Jun 2006, 06:26
I'm myopic but like wearing plus lenses. Would wearing plus lenses full time harm my eyes? Would I become farsighted or more nearsighted?
Mariel 07 Jun 2006, 14:17
Hi Rich
I'm 32 but why would that make any difference to whether I'm 37 or 40?
Phil 07 Jun 2006, 01:54
Katy, it's such a pity you didn't become an optician (or whatever they call themselves nowadays). You'd have been so good: at an intellectual level and the level of sound common sense. And I suspect you'd have found it great fun too!!
Rich 06 Jun 2006, 23:09
Mariel, how old are you? Whether one needs glasses full time or not depends on how much blurriness one can tolerate.
Mariel 06 Jun 2006, 11:13
I posted on the 'When I was at school' thread but think it's better to continue here.
I am -2.25 and -2.75 and I'm happy to wear glasses and I do for anything when I need to see well, ie not full time. My friend is -2.75 and has worn contacts for a long time and can't really go without correction for long. She first got glasses, weak I guess, at 17. Is the -.5 difference so much? She's recently had a test otherwise I'd think she needed an increase.
Since my eyes started changing I've got a bit obsessed by all this optical stuff. I'm left eye dominant - though I'm right handed which is unusual apparently!! - would that mean I get a better deal than my friend because I'm seeing more of the -2.25 than the -2.75 which is the same as her prescription? I don't think she has astigmatism because her contacts are regular -2.75 disposables.
Just discovered this forum, it's great!!
tortoise 13 May 2006, 20:45
Philosifer, I know some high myopes and have tried GOC up to -36.
I think the vision centres in the brain adapt incredibly well to glasses, even with very strong lenses. Retina problems aside, I think acuity with glasses over -20 can be surprisingly good. I have noticed, though, that people with very strong glasses seem to lose a lot of co-ordination with objects in space. They seem to find ball sports much more difficult, for example, stepping onto stairs and even reaching for something can take a split second more attention than someone with normal vision would need.
It seems to me that people with strong glasses tend to gravitate towards sedentary occupations and activities. This is not just a stereotype, it's because of real visual limitation.
Katy 13 May 2006, 14:22
chromatic aberration, even :-)
Katy 13 May 2006, 14:19
Philosifer - that is an interesting question. I suppose that of the problems that strongish glasses can cause, some disappear once you are used to the glasses (like straight lines appearing curved) and some don't (like blurred peripheral vision). My boyfriend has almost the same prescription as your wife (-4.75, -6.00 with some astigmatism) and has never even tried contacts. I would be fascinated to see his reaction to the vision he could get with them, but worried that that would be the end of his glasses! A friend of his with -5.00 got contacts 'to try' a couple of months ago and hasn't been seen in glasses since - he is now talking about laser surgery.
Problems such as chromatic abberation and blurred peripheral vision are made quite a bit worse by high index lenses, but I don't think opticians tend to point this out to people - it is usually more like 'you have to get these expensive lenses or your glasses will be incredibly ugly and thick'. :(
Wei 13 May 2006, 04:20
Philofier - i have -17 and see much with contact. No minification no distortation with contact. I have friend who -6 and find same but this is much less than for me i think. I think it importatnt for some people have unobstruted all round vision and feel restricted wear glasses, but others comfortable wearing glasses and adapt difference in vision from glasses. Personal choice mainly. But for very high script contacts a cheaper option than very hi index lenses and have better vision.
Philosifer 12 May 2006, 22:43
S4E - it was good to get your direct response; almost like meeting you in person after these several years of simply being part of your audience !
There is always a pile of psychology involved in the "To Wear or Not to Wear" decision, even for us of the less-than-fair sex. For the ladies, I think, vanity used to be a bigger factor than it is now - with lots of attractive designer frames, and specs having become essentially mainstream ?
In my case I don’t think this was in fact a major factor; she accepted that I would really prefer to see her in glasses, and offered to wear frames with plano lenses in them, if that would cheer me up ! Of course I felt that would be totally phoney, and refused, so hardly ever saw her wearing spectacles.
It would be interesting to hear from others, though. Are there some in this OO community who have considered that, at some point in the progression of prescriptions, wearing glasses can be substantially less than fun for the wearer ?
Peter 12 May 2006, 21:53
Philosifer --
I don't have experience with terribly strong glasses to relate, but I can say that with my -8 glasses, my acuity is fine; I notice no difference in what I can see in the distance between glasses and contacts.
But there are other aspects of vision that ARE much better with contacts than with glasses, I think. Most of the time, these things don't matter - like field-of-vision (it's not really peripheral vision, but rather the ability to turn my eyes toward something/someone without turning my head and see it clearly). Certainly, being outside in the rain without a hat is a lot less pleasant in glasses than in contacts. I wouldn't seriously consider trying to play sports in glasses unless there was no way I could wear contacts. Most of the rest of the time, it makes little difference, as "acuity" is what seems to matter most in vision, even though it isn't the whole story.
I've done some GOC, and I'd say the difference between glasses and contacts in these 'other' aspects of vision besides acuity gets larger and larger the higher the prescription. There really is quite a bit of distortion (or a very small field of vision, or both) with -20 glasses.
As for acuity (just the ability to, say, read an eye chart), there is some point where minification decreases acuity, but I think it's at a higher point than most of the fantasy stories I've read via EyeScene seem to place it. I have a pair of -28 glasses, and even with them, the minification doesn't seem to cause a loss of potential acuity beyond maybe one line or two (20/25 or 20/30 instead of 20/20).
Of course, real-world high myopes can have retina problems and such, which can be a cause of decreased vision that would be more or less the same whether they wear glasses or contacts.
specs4ever 12 May 2006, 19:58
I know from where you speak philosefer. My wife was a similar(-6D) prescription, and wore contacts almost exclusively. Although, she never once complained that her vision was not as good with glasses. She just hated the idea of being seen wearing glasses in public. I have known a number of myopes with -10D or greater, and the ones who wear glasses full time seemed to be able to see pretty darned good with glasses. The ones who wear contacts most of the time bitch about the fact that they can't see as well with glasses. I know there are a couple of ladies around -25 that I know, one in fact was -30D and -28.50D, and this lady had good enough corrected vision to keep a driver's license. The lady who was around -25.50R and -22.25L with about -2.25D of astigmatism always told everyone her eyesight was terrible, but every time I had coffee with her, and pointed out something outside, she always was able to see it, so I figured the terrible eyesight part of it wasn't that she didn't see ok, it was just that everyone had told her for years that her glasses were so strong that she must have terrible eyesight - if you follow my thoughts.
Philosifer 12 May 2006, 17:57
Guys and gals
Here is (I think) a new and interesting topic: "Just how strong do glasses need to get before they actually start to impede vision ? " In the real, not fantasy, world, that is.
For about 20 years I have been married to a myopic lady (-4.50, -6.00). She got contacts at age 18, and has worn them consistently since. Sadly for me she is dead set against wearing her glasses and gives, as the principal, simple, and uncontrovertible reason, the fact that she can she a whole lot better with her contacts. When she puts her glasses on the world gets smaller and her peripheral vision is substantial reduced.
Presumably, it is mostly her 'bad' left eye that is doing this, but it does makes me wonder what the effects of a pair of minus tens are, and does anybody as high as that really have fully satisfactory corrected vision ? And when we, in this fantasy land that is Eyesecene, go on about -15, -20, and -25, what - in terms of actual Corrected Visual Acuity - are we wishing on the objects of our dream ?
Clare 08 May 2006, 14:14
We had that conversation, he said he wouldn't wear contacts. Then something about one day soon he might have to his sight is getting so bad. But that was over 2 months ago and this is the first time I've seen him with glasses. The prescription is not more than -2.
Beth 06 May 2006, 13:20
Hi Bronwyn
Bronwyn 06 May 2006, 08:30
guest
of course, but i would luv the blue moon times. make him wear them? clare works with him, not me!
06 May 2006, 02:06
claire, maybe he's a contacts wearer?!
Any guess on his prescription?
Guest 05 May 2006, 13:36
Bronwn
But wouldn't you want him to wear glasses more than once in a blue moon? How would you MAKE him??
Bronwyn 05 May 2006, 12:25
clare
he sounds perfect!
Clare 05 May 2006, 11:42
I've been away on business with some work colleagues. One, attractive guy, mentioned him before, will occasionally wear some *very* low minus glasses for the whole day. Then not for a month or so. I can't figure it out. In the past he's said things like "my eyesight is dreadful" but surely he must think people think it odd that he appears to see fine most of the time (he does) then wears glasses with all the gusto of a fulltime wearer once in a blue moon!! Fascinates me.
Kristen 27 Apr 2006, 13:08
Okay we'll just have to see but thanks for the replies.
Puffin 26 Apr 2006, 17:48
I could just float the hypothesis that maybe this optician/eye doc thought that you had the potential for a higher prescription, and wanted to get you there sooner rather than later by means of what might be termed the "reverse Bates Method".
Or else he might have made a mistake. :)
Paul 26 Apr 2006, 15:26
Kristen - You asked about the concept of not being able to take "the full prescription". This is *not* an issue that comes up for nearsighted (minus-prescribed) people like you and me. It's an issue for farsighted people; if someone has "latent" farsightedness -- that is, it's been there for a long time but they didn't know it -- then their eyes are accustomed to overfocusing all the time. They can't easily stop doing that all at once and relax their eyes, so sometimes they have to work up to the prescription that allows their eyes to relax completely and see clearly in the distance.
For nearsighted people, the lens of the eye is typically relaxed...it's just that the focusing power of the eye with the lens relaxed is still too much, allowing the person to see things up close but not in the distance. For someone who is nearsighted, their full distance prescription will give them clear vision as soon as it is placed before their eyes.
There can still be a period of adjusting to new lenses, but that rarely would mean it made sense to make up a whole pair of glasses in a weaker than full prescription.
Julian 26 Apr 2006, 12:38
Kristen: You don't say how old you are, but what Emily says is true at any age: two years is plenty of time for your eyes to have changed. Your Rx now doesn't give much of a clue to your Rx then, except in the most general terms, i.e it's not likely that you're less myopic now than you were then.
Kristen 26 Apr 2006, 12:13
Emily
Thanks for the reply. I do have a test booked but wondered if anyone else had had a similar experience. I was so shocked that my prescription was diagnosed so high and convinced it was wrong. It obviously was at the time but I was interested to know if anyone had come across anything like it before. I had read somewhere that sometimes people can't take the full correction at once and wondered whether that was in fact the case with me.
Emily 25 Apr 2006, 14:37
Hi Kristen. After 2 years, you should definitely have a new exam, because that's plenty of time for your eyes to have changed. I would tell the eye doctor that you think you need stronger glasses, but let him or her make the decision. Good luck!
Kristen 25 Apr 2006, 14:27
2 years ago I went for a routine eye exam and got a hefty increase in one eye that took me to -3.25. The eye dr prescribed me contacts of -3 and I wore them the next day. I felt the prescription was too strong and the prescription in that eye was scaled back to -2.50. I thought that was a pretty big error of judgement to come up with what I thought was such an over prescription.
My prescription in the right eye has always been higher than the left and I’ve noticed that even with contacts the vision from the right eye isn’t as good as the left. Today I decided to try one of the -3 lenses that I still had left over from the trial 2 years ago. I wasn’t too surprised to find that the vision I got from it was fine, not too strong like before. I’ve read that some people can’t take the full prescription all at once and I wonder if the -3.50 prescription actually wasn’t far off.
The reason for my post is to ask other people’s thoughts on my story and if I go back for another test should I say up front what happened and that I would like a stronger prescription for my right eye?
Cactus Jack 25 Apr 2006, 08:29
Guest,
Yes. However, I doubt two uncorrected individuals with the Rxes you stated could describe the differences in their binocular distance vision. Vision is just too subjective and it is hard to describe differences in small degrees of bluriness.
That is why glasses and contacts are usually not prescribed by the results of the autorefrator or the retinoscope alone.
Could I ask why all this concern about something so insignificant.
C.
Guest 24 Apr 2006, 22:37
Sorry Cactus Jack
That was my typing error. I was trying to compare -2.25/-2.75 and -2.50/-2.50 but I rather made it look like -2.25 and -2.50.
So -2.50/-2.50 in your opinion is still wosre than -2.25 and -3?
Cactus Jack 24 Apr 2006, 21:02
Guest?,
I'm not absolutely sure what you mean by "threshold". If you mean "is there point where a better eye and a much worse eye is worse than two equally medium bad eyes", I don't think so. I base that thought on my understanding of how the brain processes images.
There is plenty of evidence that that the brain can teach itself or be trained (programed?) to "see" more than what one would expect by pure logic.
If given two images of differing quality, the brain quickly learns to select the image from the eye with the sharpest image as the basis of what it "sees" and then fills in what additional details it can, using information from the poorer eye or even from memory.
A prime example is the regular practice of fitting cataract patients with IOLs of very different powers to provide distance vision with one eye and near vision with the other (Monovision). In a few days, the patient hardly notices and comfortably goes about his business and still has depth perception.
Causing the brain to see something other than what is really there is the basis of most optical illusions. The eyes see what is there but the brain misinterprets it.
This ability to construct a "usable" image from memory may also help explain why a person with uncorrected myopia can learn to function quite well with blurry vison except when faced with completely unfamiliar small details.
There is also plenty of evidence that the brain can quickly reprogram itself if the visual environment suddenly changes - such as getting glasses - and quickly decides that constructing a usable image from lousy data is a waste of time and energy.
I have experienced some interesting "reprograming" myself. Many years ago, my company was one of the pioneering users of CRTs with flat faces. When we first got them, nearly everyone thought there was something bad wrong because the data on the screen looked concave. We were ready to send them back when we began to notice that the longer we looked, the flatter the screen looked until they soon looked normal. Then it dawned on us that we were used to looking at CRTs with curved face plates that looked flat and until our brains reprogramed themselves they were "correcting" the flat images to look concave. Curiously, both curved and flat CRTs looked flat from then on.
Enough said. You don't have to take my word for it or theorize. If you can get hold of a trial lens set, you can set up the conditions described in your question and experiment for yourself.
C.
24 Apr 2006, 17:20
Cactus Jack
So when does the 'threshold' as such get reached. I mean, surely L -2.00, R -4.50 is not better than L -2.50 and R -2.50 is it?!
Cactus Jack 24 Apr 2006, 15:54
Guest,
Certainly. If the two people wore corrective lenses and assuming there was nothing else wrong, they both should have been corrected to 0.00 refractive error and have equally good vision.
In your second proposition, the individual with -2.25/-2.50 would have better uncorrected vision than the individual with -2.25/-3.00. Even though the brain selected the eye with -2.25 as the source for a distant image, the eye with -2.50 would supply more/better supplemental information than the -3.00 eye.
C.
Guest 24 Apr 2006, 13:49
That assumes that both the -2.50/-2.50 and the -2.25/-2.75 wearers are going without correction. I have to say why would they?
I see your reasoning but when does the process you describe Cactus Jack break down. Is -2.25/-3 still better than -2.250/-2.50?
Cactus Jack 24 Apr 2006, 12:01
REd,
Did you win the bet?
C.
Cactus Jack 24 Apr 2006, 12:00
REd,
It is hard to believe, but -2.50 / -2.50 is worse.
Vision occurs in the brain and the brain automatically selects the best image for the situation. Therefore, if a person has -2.25 / -2.75 the brain will usually select the -2.25 eye as supplying the better distance image and supplement it with information from the -2.75 eye if useful.
In many respects it is a form of monovision, but instead of one eye being for distance and the other for close up, the -2.25 eye is for close and the -2.75 eye is for closer.
C.
REd 24 Apr 2006, 11:34
Jer
I have the same. I can see better out my =2.25 eye than the =2.75 even with my glasses on. But I don't have a test till September when it may be even worse.
REd 24 Apr 2006, 11:32
Which is worse - 2.50 and -2.50 or
-2.25 and -2.75?
We are having a discussion at work and even have some money riding on it. I need to know the answer!
Cactus Jack 24 Apr 2006, 06:21
Oops. Last post to Jer was from me.
C.
24 Apr 2006, 06:20
Jer,
It depends on the elements of your Rx that have changeed: Sphere, Cylinder, Axis or all three. If sphere only, Left -0.25 to -0.50 increase. Right -0.50 to -0.75. If cylinder or axis nearly impossible to estimate.
All this is very subjective and depends on your tolerance of blur, your preferences, your skill at working with the examiner, and the skill of the examiner to arrive at an accurate Rx.
In any event, the change will probably not be noticable to anyone but you - unless you change frame styles.
C.
Jer 24 Apr 2006, 00:05
Ok I have -2.75 in my left eye and -3.00 in my right eye. I've had my glasses for 2 years plus now and finally started wearing full time (ya i know its sad)...But, I've noticed stuff is becomind hard to see again when its far away. I have to squint with my glasses on or look with a tilt. I have also noticed my right eye is a bit blury than my left even with glasses.
I've taken the online tests and my vision is w/ correction is about 20/30 in the left and 20/60 in the right. I should probably schedule an eye appointment...any idea how much my prescription will increase...all I could find was the - on my prescription...
I'm 18 if that helps
23 Apr 2006, 16:40
Guest remember 'relatively low' is in professional terms. It would not be considered 'low' by the person who was uncorrected at -2.75.
It is all about relativity. Compared with a plano, -2.75 is 100's times worse. Compared with a -5.00, it is 100's times better. In my view, anything over about -2.00-2.50, is 'high enough', because one is inhibited without correction as much as someone with a higher presciption (withinin reason!)
Cactus Jack 23 Apr 2006, 14:47
Guest,
-2.75 is considered relatively low.
If you have near 20/20 vision, you can experience what she sees by getting a pair of inexpensive +2.75 over-the-counter reading glasses. Wal-mart is a good source.
If you decide to try it, I would appreciate your comments.
C.
Guest 23 Apr 2006, 14:15
My friend got glasses with this correction. She had glasses before but didn’t wear them. She wears these now and I wondered what she could see. Would this be considered strong?
Clare 23 Apr 2006, 13:08
That's absolutely true Cactus Jack. In fact your calcuation, or my conformity, is accurate - I'm exactly 36cm from the PC screen.
Guest - Cactus Jack is right, at -2.75 someone couldn't *watch* the tv - they wouldn't be able to see the screen cearly enough.
Cactus Jack 23 Apr 2006, 12:40
Guest,
I was being facetious. -2.75 means what I said about anything beyond 14 inches or 36 cm being blurry. If the TV is farther than that distance you couldn't read any text and if there were no sound, you would have little idea about what was going on. I have difficulty understanding why anyone would want to do that.
If I may be so bold, why do you ask?
C.
Guest 23 Apr 2006, 10:12
I see your humor. I guess you mean at all times out of the house? What about the tv?
Cactus Jack 23 Apr 2006, 09:38
Guest,
They would need to wear them only when they wanted to see clearly beyond about 14 inches or 36 cm. They probably would not need them for reading very close provided there was no astigmatism.
They probably would not need them for finding their way about familiar surroundings, but it would approach hazardous outside or in unfamiliar territory.
They would not need them while sleeping.
C.
Guest 23 Apr 2006, 08:46
How much would someone with a correction of -2.75 wear it?
ChrisB 20 Apr 2006, 15:08
Katy,
I bet not many people who have had lasik are aware that the police and train companies dont see it as a procedure that gives reliable vision in all circumstances!
Reading this, I am not sure I would get into a taxi if I knew the driver had had lasik.
Chris
Puffin 20 Apr 2006, 14:22
I have no need of glasses (as of yet) but I understand, but then I'm a glasses nut. :)
Curt 20 Apr 2006, 13:49
Karly: The next time they tell you that you still have your glasses on, your response should be:
"Yes, I need them to see!"
I'll bet neither of them wears glasses either. People who have never worn glasses or needed them really cannot understand...
Katy 20 Apr 2006, 12:46
Oh yes, the other thing was, can you squint if they are testing uncorrected acuity? :-)
Katy 20 Apr 2006, 12:37
My boyfriend was looking at the requirements for becoming a train driver in the UK, and apparently you need 3/60 uncorrected vision in both eyes. Also, they won't consider you if you have had laser surgery. I think I read that it is similar for the police. Is 3/60 equivalent to 6/120 and 20/400? And with an rx of -6.00/-1.25, would it be likely that he could see that? Thanks :-)
Karly 17 Apr 2006, 14:19
My mom is just so critical to think I need glasses. Even pointing out I can't see things doesn't seem to make her see. What can I do? I really want to wear my glasses and see without the aggravation of all the comments.
Phil 14 Mar 2006, 01:26
Clare, if you let me be one of the first to see them u'll at least be sure of getting a compliment or six!
Clare 13 Mar 2006, 14:22
Phil - you're right, that typing was shocking and I don't THINK it's because I need an add just yet. And by the way, the funky frames aren't getting much of an airing yet, just getting used to them before I try them on others - a shocked reaction would destroy my confidence!
Phil 13 Mar 2006, 01:02
Hi Clare. Nice to see you back. Your typing's terrible! Are you sure you shouldn't be getting some reading plus? When we having that coffee? I'd so like to see those new frames.
Clare 12 Mar 2006, 11:05
Karly - that must be difficult for you. I'm -2.75 and wear contacts all eek, during the weekend I give myself a rest from the contacts and wear glasses. I too have mother who finds it hard to accept that her offspring is less than perfect, but she's beginning to understand. That's happened just naturally when she's pointed out things that I couldn't see. For me, it wasn't intentional - but you could try that, she probably doesn't realise what you can/can't see and thinkis it's just a fashion=thing (mum's are like that eh?).
Karly 12 Mar 2006, 10:15
That's my prescription. I don't even wear half of the time becuase boyfriend and my mom disapprove. They always say things like - do you know you've still got your glasses on. So of course I take them off then. One of my friends is -2.75 and she's either in contacts or glasses all the time. Is there that much difference between my prescription and hers?
daisy 12 Mar 2006, 09:10
Probably most if not all of the time.
Joe 12 Mar 2006, 08:36
Hello glasses fans
If you were -2.75 and -2.25 how much would you be wearing your glasses?
presbyopia_23 06 Mar 2006, 09:27
welcome back specs4ever! The best way for me to tell the power of someone's glasses is try it on. If they are too weak, ill see well from near and still blurry from distance. If they are near the right power, distance will be clear and near will be somewhat blurry. If they are too strong, I dont see a thing from near and blurry from even distance. Astigmastim can be found by rotating the lens to check for disortions. If I dont try the glasses, I judge by thickness, minification and cut.
Johanna Mueben 05 Mar 2006, 02:27
To Larika: But by observing the cut, you often could notice the thickness of the lens because a thick lens would produce much blur, and from Serna's pic you could notice the blurry region is very small, probably that's a hi-index lens on her right eye, and prescription is probably about -2D to -3D if it cuts that much. Astigmatism might exist, but must be less than 1.00D at her right eye. I could not determine her left eye but base on the pic it's probably a stronger prescription around -3D or -4D, as spec4ever said. That's because I notice the reflective edge is much thicker.
Serna 03 Mar 2006, 19:23
Spec4ever is correct that observing their cut is pretty risky, especially for prescriptions with strong astigmatism.
Larika simply use my posted pic to show an example. Some factors like face shape, lens size, the direction the person is facing corresponding to your camera or eyes, etc. These are factors affect the cuts, but the position of cuts could not show the prescription accurately.
Like, if a person is right facing your eyes or camera, the cuts is not as significant as when the person is looking 30 degrees from your eyes or camera. The same could applied to + lenses as well.
Another factor is lens size, if one use smaller lens, then you would think one would have smaller prescription, especially when you can't see the cuts! Anyone with less than -5 glasses could do that if they have small lens. And with large lens size, even a small prescription could be shown clearly from the cuts (For example, that pic posted by Larika, actually her prescription by then was about -2.25)
And I think Larika had tried to put her glasses (or her friend's glasses) much away from their eyes, and noticed the image formed is much smaller. Actually this could show how - glasses could actually diminished the image a lot, if you put it far enough, but in that way our eyes is just like staring through those lenses, no matter it's just weak prescription like -1.
Serna 03 Mar 2006, 19:05
I have strong regular astigmatism.
Left: -0.75 -6.00 90
Right: -2.75 -5.50 90
With glasses, acuity: 20/50
Without glasses, acuity: less than 20/400 because of astigmatism.
Clare 03 Mar 2006, 13:50
S4E - good to see you back, I'm sure I'm not the only person who's missed your posts.
specs4ever 03 Mar 2006, 13:46
Well, I never left Clare. I just don't post unless I have an opinion. But, it is nice to know that someone noticed my silence
Clare 03 Mar 2006, 13:38
Specs4Ever - welcome back!!!
specs4ever 03 Mar 2006, 12:28
Well, guessing a prescription from the amount of cut in is always risky, and I actually doubt that any of us who do it really can get it correct, as there are a lot of factors to consider. High astigmatism will change the cut in, the angle at which you view the person will change the cut in. And, sometimes a person who would normally have a lot of cut in will be wearing small frames that mask the amount of cut in. So, really, all it is is a guess. The picture that you sent me to would make me guess at about a -3 to a -4D prescription.
Different indexes of lenses do not change anything. The important part is the power of the lens, and a -15D lens acts the same if it is in a 1.9 hi index, or a 1.5 low index.
Hope this helps.
Larika 03 Mar 2006, 01:28
Actually how would you know other's prescription by looking their "cuts" formed by their glasses?
for example, this pic
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a100/kuusel/pg092.jpg
and we could only notice her glasses is a kind of (-) glasses.
But I've heard the refractive index of the lenses does affect the position of the "cuts", is that possible a strong prescription could be reduced like the above pic.
and what's the difference of the "cuts" between a 1.5 lens and a 1.9 lens, I think the 1.5 lens would bent less so the lens would be much thicker... yet would the "cuts" be less significant?
Tod 01 Feb 2006, 14:08
http://www.eboards4all.com/175280/messages/243.html
Tod 01 Feb 2006, 14:07
http://www.eboards4all.com/175280/messages/243.html
Ted 31 Jan 2006, 14:35
Two detached retina, righteye, I'm nearsighted right eye, Vision is 20/50 corrected. Bifocal right eye is taken over by my near sightness, so I dont have a bifocal?? but I do. Regular vision somewhat distorted. Why cant they give me a bifocal with more power. I'm at 250 right now.
presbyopia_23 21 Jan 2006, 21:19
I also tried monovision contacts but its annoying being able to see clearly with only one eye. With glasses I see clearly with both eyes and I take em off to read.
I dont like wearing glasses but I like the clear vision thru glasses. My 20/400 UCVA is too poor to go without correction for anything more than about a foot from me. My brother is only a -1.25 so he sees fine without glasses, lucky him!
Tammy 21 Jan 2006, 12:48
Presbyopia_23
Do you wear glasses or do you just like them? If you are a wearer, what is your Rx? I haven't recieved my new glasses yet. I guess there was a mix up with the insurance or something. :( Hopefully that will be straightened out soon.
Tod 21 Jan 2006, 11:10
Today I am wearing monovision contact lenses instead of my varifocal glasses. There is a little getting used to seeing this way. I can only read with my left eye and can only see distance with my right one. My left eye can only see clearly out to 18 inches away.
21 Jan 2006, 11:05
presbyopia_23 20 Jan 2006, 23:35
Oh my mistake! So how are you doing madam? I read about your dilemna and that your glasses didnt come out right. Does pushing them closer/further from your nose help? What about tilting them? Are you still able to drive if you arent seeing 20/40?
Feel free to ask me anything you want :) I love talking about vision anything :)
Tammy 20 Jan 2006, 14:37
I don't know where to post this so i will put it here. Yesterday, i was at the club, and there were 3 or 4 of us chatting, and somehow the subject got turned to glasses and pretty soon i was telling them my Rx and we were saying how blind we are without our glasses. It was a very interesting conversation, from my point of view, naturally.
Tammy 20 Jan 2006, 14:31
Thanks, Julian. I am indeed female. Maybe Presbyopia thought the "A" in my user name was an "O".
Presbyopia, i will give you the benefit of the doubt. No hard feeling between us, ok?
Julian 20 Jan 2006, 06:13
presbyopia_23: I rather think Tammy is one of our lady members ::)
Wei 20 Jan 2006, 05:22
Tammy I hope new glasses improvement. If having still difficulty consider myodisc. For small print use old weaker glasses.
presbyopia_23 20 Jan 2006, 01:56
Jeremy, I read your thread. Your 20/200 in your -3 eye and a bit shy of 20/200 in your -3.75 eye. This makes you a moderate myope(range -3 to -5.75) I am -4.5 in one eye and -5 in the other also making me a moderate myope but considerabily worse than you. You might want to wear glasses full time except when reading something, youll be able to see it clearly from 13" I see clearly from just 9" :( My uncorrected vision is barely 20/400 so im twice as bad as you. We dont like glasses but our vision is bad enough that we dont have a choice except for reading.
"My new Rx is OD -13.25 -1.00 x 10 and OS -12.50 -1.25 x 134."
I read about Tammy's dilemna. He used to be corrected to 20/40 partially due to glasses minification, partially due to astigmastim and also due to the nature of his very high myopia. I was thinking this: can you try moving your glasses closer or further from your nose? It could be a vertex distance issue. As for presbyopia, thats normal, you are 40! Its true high minus glasses are slightly forgiving because they make things seem further away.
Tod 18 Jan 2006, 14:34
Tammy, everybody becomes presbyopic by age 40. Hyperopes get the symptoms usually earlier. Myopes later because they can use their near vison to compensate. Bifocals are prescribed. I knew a girl who is nearsighted but has a lot of astigmatism and has had to wear bifocals sense age 12.
Tammy 17 Jan 2006, 15:25
My new lenses will be regular plastic lenses. Not high index or myodiscs as i originally thought. I can hardly wait to get them.
Tammy 16 Jan 2006, 14:31
Wei,
Thanks for the information. Maybe i'll give them a try.
Wei 16 Jan 2006, 11:23
Tammy you may find regular myodisc better than blend myodisc. I find this also. I recommend you try, I find vision better with myodisc than regular lens. RX is now -17.
Tammy 16 Jan 2006, 09:50
Thanks. Will do.
Puffin 16 Jan 2006, 03:23
Tammy, here's hopeing things will be OK for you in future, and do please keep us updated if anything else happens.
Cactus Jack 15 Jan 2006, 17:19
Steve: Vision really occurs in the brain. The brain will automatically select the best image and use that one as the primary source and it seems to use some of the secondary image if it can to construct a 3 D image.
C.
Tammy 15 Jan 2006, 16:05
As far as myodiscs are concerned, i've had them before. They actually were blended myodiscs, which i really did not like. I've never tried the regular myodiscs, so i don't know how i would like them. As far as the lower va is concerned i don't know what is the cause of that.
Steve 15 Jan 2006, 14:30
Cactus Jack
Thanks for your reply. Does that mean that where the prescription in both eyes is different, then the 'overall visual acuity' of that person is the lowest of the two? i.e. if one eye was -2 and the other -4, is that person's vision with both eyes nearer to -2 then -4?
The latter prescription is mine and I wear fulltime but the other was a friend of mine who only wears for driving and tv etc. My prescription is very similar in both eyes but my brother has -1 difference between eyes and he says that with both eyes he sees the equivalent to his right(stronger eye) its not until he covers the stronger eye up that the vision deteriorates.
Wei 15 Jan 2006, 13:59
Tammy you think you need of myodisc soon? Is aciuty worsen due to astegmatism?
Tammy 15 Jan 2006, 09:58
You're right i don't drive. As far as my va is concerned, yes it does impact my view of the world. In regards to my age, i'm in my 40's.
Puffin 15 Jan 2006, 03:52
Tammy, does your visual acuity have an effect on the way you see the world, other than eyecharts? Yes, I realise you shouldn't be driving. And your astimagtism seems to change all the time, "???" comes to mind. Oh... how old are you?
Tammy 14 Jan 2006, 19:26
I really don't know why my visual acuity has gone down. The optometrist said that i am missing pieces of letters. Also, get this...he said that now, not only am i highly nearsighted, but now i am also presbyopic...lol. I do realize that it's fairly rare for someone as nearsighted as i am to have presbyopia too.
Puffin 14 Jan 2006, 18:24
Tammy, I was going to say something very like what Tod said. How come it's gone down??
Cactus Jack 14 Jan 2006, 18:14
Steve: Uncorrected, #2 has the poorest vison because the images from both eyes are blurry. #1 obviously has the poorest monocular vision in the left eye but fairly good distance vision in the right eye. If the astigmaitsm were corrrected #1 would have good "natural monovision" by using the right eye for distance and the left eye for reading. The left eye is focused at 13 inches (33 cm).
C.
Tammy 14 Jan 2006, 18:02
The optometrist told me that my prescription went up in one eye and down in the other.
Tod 14 Jan 2006, 12:57
Tammy, I may be all wet but your new Rx that you posted seems less strong than your old Rx. Maybe that's why you are only seeing 20/50 and 20/60 instead of 20/40. Best check back with your optom about this.
Jamie 14 Jan 2006, 07:43
To whoever asked how I was getting on, I have been wearing my new glasses all the time. The fact that my mate said something about how blind I'd become as well as my girlfriend made me realise that I should be wearing them. Also, for the first couple of days after getting the glasses I sometimes took them off at home and things seemed really blurry without them.
I've really got depdendent on wearing them, for the first few days it felt a bit strange wearing them, now I don't notice that I've got them on anymore and it's the odd occasion when I've not got them on that it feels strange. However, I still haven't quite got used to the way I look in them, if I see myself in the mirror, the reflection looks odd still.
Tammy 13 Jan 2006, 16:07
Puffin,
Yes, i am concerned about it.
hi 13 Jan 2006, 05:16
Steve
#1
Puffin 13 Jan 2006, 03:15
That's progressing worryingly fast... (I suppose you know that)
Tammy 12 Jan 2006, 22:44
Puffin,
With my glasses, my vision will be corrected to 20/50 right eye and 20/60 left eye.
Puffin 12 Jan 2006, 17:11
Tammy
I think your astigmatism has changed from last time? I can't really remember, anyway, hope all is well as it can be. :) Curious about what your cva is now.
Tammy 12 Jan 2006, 15:50
Puffin,
Yes, i am still having problems in that area...and more so now than ever. I am waiting for my new glasses to come in. I am getting some brown metal frames. Hopefully they will come in soon.
Puffin 12 Jan 2006, 15:20
Hello Tammy, are you stil having trouble with corrected visual acuity?
Steve 12 Jan 2006, 11:57
Which of these two prescriptions would you think has the poorest vision?
1)L-3.00, -0.75x180, R plano -1.00x 150
2)L -2.00, 0.25X30, R -2.00
Tammy 12 Jan 2006, 08:06
My new Rx is OD -13.25 -1.00 x 10 and OS -12.50 -1.25 x 134.
08 Jan 2006, 22:39
Jamie
How much stronger are your new lenses? Are you still wearing them all day now?
08 Jan 2006, 17:04
what is the new prescription?
Tammy 08 Jan 2006, 16:33
I just had an eye exam and have gotten a new Rx. I also picked out new glasses. They're taking their own sweet time in getting back to me, but hopefully soon my new glasses will be in my hand.
Hansel 05 Jan 2006, 13:43
Jamie
In your earlier post you noted that your eyes had got slightly worse, but you have noticed a real difference with your new ones.
Can you recall what the old prescription was?
Jamie 05 Jan 2006, 11:48
I picked up my new glasses this morning. I have worn them for most of the day, including work. Two things have struck me – these glasses seem much stronger then my old ones and the lenses are much thicker, also when I took them off after I got home I noticed a real difference. Things seems much blurrier without them now. I haven’t actually decided if I am going to wear them full time, but I think the reality is that I need to be wearing them most of the time.
So far most of the comments have been positive, my girlfriend really likes them, one of my mates at work said it was about time I finally realised how blind I was (which makes me feel a bit stupid, I didn’t think my eyesight was that bad). On the odd occasion I’ve seen my reflection, I think I look strange wearing glasses, but I do quite like how they look.
Cactus Jack 01 Jan 2006, 02:13
Lazysiow: To keep from getting confused in my previous post, what I described is the view looking at trial frame (AO, I think) and describing what I saw.
If someone is refracting me, I always ask them to place my hand on the angle knob of the phoropter or trial frame so I can make the final adjustment.
C.
Lazysiow 31 Dec 2005, 21:10
oops typo there 74 = 64
Lazysiow 31 Dec 2005, 21:08
I thought 0 and 180 would be the same, I thought it might have been say 0 for left eye and 180 for right eye for whatever reason.
The axis in my right eye is 156, but if the maximum is 180 that means substract 40 degrees? Then that would mean rotating the angle clockwise. I get worse vision that way so it can't be right. When it comes to straight lines i.e. 90 and 180, either side is equivalent but otherwise the direction is wrong.
Using 90 as my midpoint to determine left or right, clockwise = 116 = 90+26 and counterclockwise = 64. Okay using my old prescription if I rotate down to 74, my vision is pretty good. Things are supposed to skew to the top right for what I need.
The problem is using the system you described and also described here, 156 would mean things skew to the top left, not the top right. Either I'm missing something or whoever did my current prescription buggered it up.
Hence the reason I dont want to get another eye exam lol, they've never been able to get my right eye quite right each time even though I know what looks good for me if I move the lens around a bit.
Cactus Jack 31 Dec 2005, 20:13
Lasysiow: Looking at your face, 0 and 180 are the same angle (horizontal) 90 is vertical and the rotation from 0 to 90 to 179 or 180 is counterclockwise.
I have seen Rx writen as 0 or 180 for the horizontal axis but the axis is never written as more than 180.
Hope this helps.
C.
Lazysiow 31 Dec 2005, 19:08
Anyone know the difference between say 0 and 180? trying to come up with my own prescription. I know my astigmatism axis has changed 40 degrees in my right eye when I rotate the lens counterclockwise so do I subtract 40 degrees or add 40 degrees?
Andrew 31 Dec 2005, 12:01
I can't answer your question, atrici, as in those days, there was no obligation on the optician to tell you it, and my sight was not good enough to see what was written down at the patient - optician's desk distance. It happened because I was at School, and was putting my glasses on before the start of a lesson, and then removing them at the end, walking to another room bare-eyed, and then putting them on again. This seemed a bit pointless, so I started wearing them full time. With hindsight, I would guess I was about -4.00ish, but I'm not at all certain.
Clare 31 Dec 2005, 05:01
I have more glasses/contacts-wearing friends now than I've ever had. That should make for some conversations. What's interesting is when they started wearing them - one got glasses at 18 and is still only -2.75. I got them nearly 10 years after but we're still at the same rx. How is that?
-5.00 who luvs gwgs 30 Dec 2005, 15:56
I have never been told to wear glasses full time At first at 8 years told to wear them for TV and blackboard very low prescription then -1.00? By the time I was about 25 when I was left -3.50 -0.50 right -2.50 -0.50 I was wearing them about 50% of the time got to about -4.00 and -3.00 and went full time .Wish I had gone full time at age 8 although I have always suspected that not going full time did slow down rate of progression as since I was 25 has progressed to -5.50 and -4.25 plus astigmatism I have suspected I would have got to maybe -8.00 if I had always been fulltime as rate of progress when in my teens quite slow when trying to go bare eyed
atrici 30 Dec 2005, 10:12
Andrew
What was that critical 3rd prescription? Best new year wishes.
Andrew 30 Dec 2005, 09:45
Jamie,
I have never been told to wear my glasses full time, but now that I'm -8, I don't have much option. With my first glasses, I didn't want to be told to wear them full time. I started doing so with my third pair.
Clare 30 Dec 2005, 08:58
Jamie - Hollie's right, just wear them! Don't be shy like me, it's just stupid. Or, if you are, do like I do and get some contacts. The worst thing is the fear of people's comments, at least if you go for contacts you can use that as a reason if/when you are faced with questions.
Hi Hollie - how are you?
Wei 30 Dec 2005, 03:49
yes i agreement hollie choose glasses look nice and will be much better than blur vision. Also agree have contact - vision very good.
Hollie 30 Dec 2005, 03:30
Jamie, I agree with Julian, just wear them! I couldn't wear my contacts for 6 months so I went around in a blur, I was about -3.50 and had astigmatism too. Looking back I was stupid not to wear them all the time. I had to squint to see anything further than about a foot away clearly, and couldn't recognise friends in the street. I only wore them for university and driving.
Now I'm around -4 and always wear some sort of correction, sometimes glasses and sometimes contacts. Get contacts if you can- I know I feel a lot more comfortable in mine, more confident.
But you'll definitely look better with a well-chosen pair of glasses on your face than squinting all the time- guaranteed!
Wei 30 Dec 2005, 01:42
Yes Jeremy Julian is corect. Perhaps ask girlfriend for choose glasses?
Julian 29 Dec 2005, 17:28
Jeremy: your eyes are bad; you don't know where they're going? May as well be realistic: they're getting worse and likely to go on getting worse; you can expect to need stronger glasses every year or two till they stabilize, probably sometime in your twenties. You are alrady short-sighted enough to be at a disadvantage if you go around without correction, so you need to get over your hang-up about wearing your glasses full time - or if you can't do that get contacts. You aren't alone in this; there are thousands, millions even, in the same position.
Jamie, you're another; for pity's sake, your girl friend likes you to wear your specs; just keep them on and enjoy the view!
Brian 29 Dec 2005, 05:52
Jamie, When was the last time that your girlfriend had her eyes tested? You should try to get her to go to the eye doctor and who knows, maybe she will need glasses and you can bug her and try to get her to wear her glasses.
Wei 29 Dec 2005, 05:03
Jeremy you will probably need glasses all time but I know of person wear glasses part-time and is -5 so maybe you manage OK!
Jeremy 29 Dec 2005, 03:39
Julian
Yah, my eyes are bad I'm 17, so I don't know where my eyes are going. But as of late I've noticed my eyes are strained a lot more and I get headaches a lot easier.
I just need to get over the whole fear thing of wearing them. But, yah I can see great with them which is good, I just find it hard to read somethings from a difference when I notice friends of mine can see it w/o correction or with their correction and some have worse vision than me. It isn't a huge thing, but I'd really like to see with full correction 100%.
Wei 29 Dec 2005, 03:31
I agree is no point waiting for permission to wear glasses or contact if you not able see you make decision yourself! Is not good having ask people all time what sign say.
Cactus Jack 28 Dec 2005, 18:25
Puffin: True, but I think she likes the glasses.
C.
Puffin 28 Dec 2005, 16:37
If your girlfriend has a problem with your glasses, perhaps the real problem is the girlfriend not the glasses?
Cactus Jack 28 Dec 2005, 14:03
Jamie: I can understand why your gf is annoyed with you. A person with a -3.00 Rx is a nuisance (and not much fun to be around) when not wearing their glasses or contacts. Because everything beyond 13 in (33 cm) is a blur, they either have to squint, struggle, or be constantly asking someone to tell them what something says when they ought to be able to read it with a glance.
Also, I'm a little annoyed because I don't understand why some people think they need someone else's permission to see well, without effort, all the time. I know people with a plus or minus 0.25 who would not even consider not wearing their glasses all the time. It is YOUR vison, YOUR glasses, and YOUR decision.
Your gf probably likes you better when you are wearing your glasses for several reasons, but if you are lucky, she may even have a slight glasses fetish. If so, enjoy!
C.
Wei 28 Dec 2005, 13:29
Jamie why you not wear glasses all time it seem you want wear them anyway so is not problem, see? Is no point not to wear glasses i think. Get contacts if you not like wear glasses all time.
Jamie 28 Dec 2005, 11:54
I’m wondering at what strength people usually start to wear their glasses all of the time. My girlfriend who has got perfect sight has been getting irritated with me recently for not being able to see things properly. I’ve just ordered some new glasses which my girlfriend wants me to wear all the time.
I’ve had glasses for two years, since I started to drive. Usually I just wear them for driving or when I’m in a lecture at university. I know that recently my eyes have changed and that things aren’t as clear with my glasses on as they used to be and I’ve started to wear them a bit more often, I now use them to watch television or at the cinema. The other thing that I’ve noticed is that before I used to take my glasses off as soon as I’d finished lectures, driving, etc, but now I sometimes leave them on.
Most of the time at home and for things like shopping, socialising and work I’ve been going around without my glasses. My girlfriend has been getting annoyed recently that I’ve been squinting a bit and can’t always see things clearly. I got a reminder card from the optician just before Christmas. My girlfriend booked the appointment, convinced that I’d be told to wear my glasses all the time.
I went for my check up today. As I suspected, my eyes have got slightly worse: my new prescription is left eye –3.00, -0.25, 90; right eye –3.00. The optician did not offer any advice about how often I should wear my new glasses, but she may well think that I already wear them full time, because I had them on when I went in and after the test when she took off the trial frames she gave me back my old glasses and said that I could put them back on, which I did. After the sight test, my girlfriend and I spent some time choosing new glasses, which should be ready later in the week.
I guess the fact that I’m starting to leave my glasses on once I’ve put them on is a good indication of the fact that I probably should be wearing them more often. Also, by doing so I will please my girlfriend. However, I don’t know if I really want to wear them most/all of the time. Any advice would be appreciated.
Julian 28 Dec 2005, 03:58
Good grief Jeremy, a first prescription of -3.00/-3.75? As you've only learned to drive in the past year I imagine you're in your late teens - how did you cope in school? At that age it's fairly normal for myopia to get worse with or without glasses; you can't put it down to wearing them, and after all you need them to see. Some people reckon that if you take them off for close work that can slow the progression down.
Jeremy 27 Dec 2005, 23:54
Yah, I think I should get stronger glasses. I mean I can see pretty clear with the ones I have on now, but I mean there is something I still have to kinda focus on to see. I am -3 in the left eye and -3.75 in the right eye, if I remember off the top of my head.
When I first got my glasses (these are my first pair ever). Before that I was squinting a lot and everything was a blur, when I got my glasses I kinda chicken out and didn't wear them, but more and more I noticed I just had to have them. So maybe that made my vision a lot worse? But, for a while I have been wearing them full time. And even when I don't wear them I think I am squinting all the time, just naturally.
I also believe like you my right eye is significantly worse than my left eye with and without my glasses. Plus I want new frames :). So, I probably should visit the eye doctor very soon. Because I do like my vision crisp.
Glinthia 27 Dec 2005, 21:03
Hi Jeremy,
Your eyesight is really bad, but mine is not much better than yours. I wear -9.5 in my right eye while -1.75 in my left eye, and I have quite significant astigmatism in my right eye. It's very uncomfortable to drive without my glasses of course. I have another -1.5 glasses for both eyes. (That's a fake prescription, I just try it for fun) And I can see everything comfortably by covering my right eye. Yes, I sometimes cover my right eye in order to see things more clearly, it disturb my sight.
Jeremy 27 Dec 2005, 07:16
I can see decent when I'm driving. When I took the eyetest for the driver's licence 9 months ago. I passed it with my glasses on, but I noticed I had to focus for a second, and it could be clearer. I have kinda been embarassed by having to wear glasses so I really hadn't until then. But, I would rather have as clear vision as possible, because squinting is annoying.
Julian 27 Dec 2005, 07:07
If you drive a car or anything of that sort you need new glasses. Get a test. If you're happy with the blur carry on with the ones you have. But a test every two years makes sense anyway.
Jeremy 27 Dec 2005, 04:33
hey all..
I took that test on the eye chart and I tested I think 20/400.But I don't know if it is accurate, because on the snellan chart I could make out 20/200 with a lot of fuzz, I made it out, but I think I squinted. When I took the picture test it was very hard to make out. The 20/200 line I couldn't see at all..the 20/400 I barely made out with a squint. So, I put on my glasses and I could only see to the 20/60 line. When I did the letters I could see down to 20/40..so any suggestions. I haven't had an eye test for two years and that was the last time I got my glasses. I never remember my vision being that bad.
So do I test to where I can see clear or the time where I can barely make out the letter or picture...any who, I don't think with my glasses I can quite make out 20/40-20/60. So is it time for a lot stronger pair of eyeglasses or will these do?
antonio 17 Nov 2005, 09:10
Hi Nicole
it's possible your worse right eye is undercorrected
or it changed in any other way, you should make an eye test again.
If you see worse with that right eye things far away wearing the -2,75 lens in front possibly it's to weak for that eye
if you get headaches when reading close using your glasses it could be something else
if you are without glasses at all, probably your better eye does all the work
which could cause inconveniences too
best regards
antonio
DWV 16 Nov 2005, 21:30
This is a how-to guide for Ophthalmic Assistants on how to test vision, perform refractions, and prescribe glasses.
"Quality Assurance In Refraction"
http://laico.org/v2020resource/files/QA_refractiveerror.pdf
DWV 15 Nov 2005, 22:53
Criteria for prescribing optometric interventions: literature review and practitioner survey
Authors: O'Leary C.I.; Evans B.J.W.
Source: Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, Volume 23, Number 5, September 2003, pp. 429-439(11)
Publisher: Blackwell Publishing
The core function of optometrists is the prescribing of refractive corrections, yet a literature review revealed a lack of evidence-based research on criteria for determining when a refractive correction is required. The reported criteria used by practising optometrists were investigated using a questionnaire to survey prescribing habits for borderline hypermetropia, presbyopia, astigmatism, and horizontal and vertical heterophoria. Thirty-eight questionnaires were returned and the results analysed. We calculated the ‘cut off’ point above which the anomaly would be corrected over 50% of the time that it was encountered. There was a large variation for each category, but it was clear that the presence or absence of symptoms was an important factor for most optometrists when deciding whether to correct a small error. It was found that for symptomatic patients, most optometrists would correct an anomaly if it reached: +1.00 D of hypermetropia, a reading addition of +0.75 D for presbyopia, -0.75 DC of astigmatism, 1.5 prism dioptres () of horizontal aligning prism, and 1 of vertical dissociated heterophoria. For asymptomatic patients, optometrists would not correct any of the hypermetropic anomalies or heterophorias that were specified in our questionnaire. However most would correct a presbyopic error of +1.50 D or above, or an astigmatic error of -1.50 DC or above, even in the absence of symptoms. These results were compared with previously published guidelines.
Nicole 10 Nov 2005, 13:58
Presbyopia_23
Just saw your other question - without correction my right eye feels like much much worse than the other one. The left one obviously does all the work in that case.
Nicole 10 Nov 2005, 13:54
Wei
It seemed strong then but I had a smaller increase and now I wonder if it was right after all. Individually I could see fine through each eye but close it felt odd
Presbyopia_23
If I compare eyes I can see better through the left but its not a real problem with my glasses on. I wear my glasses for distance not near and after a while not wearing them I get discomfort. I wondered if this is a sign of undercorrection.
Wei 10 Nov 2005, 11:32
Nicole i know of problem this happen when i around -12 and lens precibe of -13.5 so much disconfort follow. I not know of reason.
presbyopia_23 10 Nov 2005, 06:05
how well do you see with those glasses of yours in each eye? How well without correction? If you feel the pescription is wrong, tell the optometrist this and ask for an eye exam with those glasses on
Nicole 09 Nov 2005, 22:17
Two years ago I got an eyetest and came away with a prescription of -2 and -3.50. I was convinced it was wrong - I couldn't believe my eyes could get so bad - so I got a retest. I came away with -2.25 and -2.75 and felt much better. Now I can see fine through the eye with the lower prescription but not so good with the -2.75 eye and I often feel alot of strain in it. Is it possible that the first prescription was actually right for me, has anyone heard of this sort of reaction before?
presbyopia_23 09 Nov 2005, 20:16
This article is over 4 years old. Much has changed by then. This isnt the forum to discuss lasik though, theres one titled refractive sugury
Slit 09 Nov 2005, 18:33
Disasterous effects of LASIK,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/31/health/main327664.shtml
Bob W 09 Nov 2005, 16:32
My 2 bits:
The distance in inches is referring to the 'far point', the theoretical maximum distance of clear vision until you first notice any blur, typically with small print in myopia.
Best regards, Bob W
myofan 08 Nov 2005, 16:20
Clare, Those numbers are MAXIMUM distances. You should be able to easily read up to roughly 10 or 12 inches away, but not a lot further. Make sense?
Clare 08 Nov 2005, 14:23
DWV - does this have any caveats or age guidelines? I just checked and I can easily read at 6" but am only -2.75. I'm in my late 30s so I guess I should be grateful!!
presbyopia_23 08 Nov 2005, 14:21
of: Acuity Print at:
-1.00 20/40 40 inches
-2.00 20/100 20 inches
-3.00 20/200 13 inches
-4.00 less than 20/200 10 inches
There :) I agree with the near point test. I can see clearly from 8 inches or 1/5 meter which goes in accrodance with my -5 diopters. I have corrected the 20/something. There is no way your gonna be this bad at 20/80 with only -1 diopters. I know I was 20/50 at -1 and thats with a 20/25 BCVA. I woulda been 20/40 if I was 20/20 with glasses. -2 diopters results in an accuracy of 20/100 for many people(some even 20/70) but I can see it being worse than that if your BCVA is less than 20/20, Somewhere between 20/100 and 20/200. -3 diopters results in 20/200 if your BCVA is 20/25 or better, sometimes 20/30. -4 is generally the limit for 20/200 and youd need a BCVA of like 20/15.
Theres alot of disagreement how diopters correlates to 20/something and the "rule" can vary on the person, their BCVA, even in the setting and light. A good rule that applies for most people is -1 20/40 -2 20/100 -3 20/200
DWV 08 Nov 2005, 01:27
So much for carefully aligning the columns using spaces... anyway, the column headings should be "Myopia of:", "Distance Acuity", and "Reads Fine Print at:"
DWV 08 Nov 2005, 01:24
I spotted this table while browsing through the how-to parts of the Reichert Phoroptor pdf manual (obligatory attribution).
Myopia Distance Reads Fine
of: Acuity Print at:
-1.00 20/80 40 inches
-2.00 20/200 20 inches
-3.00 20/400 13 inches
-4.00 less than 20/400 10 inches
presbyopia_23 05 Nov 2005, 03:46
whats your BCVA with those -10 glasses? I am assuming 20/25 due to glasses minification where that line would be about the size of the 20/20 line if you have contacts or for someone whos plano. Therefore a -1 diopter undercorrection will indeed result in 20/50 or "half vision accuracy" I tested my sister's friend who can read the 20/13 line then I give her +1 glasses and shes not quite 20/25 but can see all of the 20/30 with +1.5 she sees 20/40.
To the guy who can see 20/80 with -2.25 and worse than 20/100 with -2.75, this also goes accurately with diopters vs. 20/xxx but you are a mild myope and have functional uncorrected vision, especially in your better -2.25 eye
Emily ----BB 02 Nov 2005, 06:02
Hi Emily how you doing long time since seen you in here, you were a gem in the chat room miss our little chats. I was chatting to your friend from Lancashire the other night, her glasses are -14, she is a lovely lady, I do fancy her, but we are not compatiable because of her faith we are opposites, still we do have a nice friendship, I hope I see you in here more. Hope your enjoying life, see you RX has jumped alot, hope it soon settles dowm. Take care Emily. BB (Arnold) xx
Emily 01 Nov 2005, 15:54
Hi, Lauren,
I'm also nearsighted, but more so than you. I'm in the -10 range, and I'vce had 13 different prescriptions since I bedgan wearing glasses, so I've learned a lot about prescriptions and vision. When I go for an eye exam and my vision with my old glasses is 20/50, my new preswcription is usually aboyut -1.00 stronger. One time I pushed my exam off until my vision was 20/70 and my new lenses weree either -1.25 or -1.50 stronger, I forget which. So with 20/100 vision, you will probably need between -1.50 and -2.00 more of correction (assuming your self-test is accurate). I'd schedule an eye exam without delay! You will love how well you will see through your new glasses. Goold luck!
Cactus Jack 01 Nov 2005, 14:19
lauren - The reason you haven't received good answers is that the questions you asked are nearly impossible to answer without long explanations - sort of like asking what is the square root of orange.
Part of the problem is that we don't know the actual size of the letters on the chart as you viewed it nor the distance. Maybe, this will help a little.
An eye chart of the size used in a doctors office is designed to be seen sharp and clear at a distance of 20 feet. A 'normal' eye can read the 20/20 line with ease and may be able to make out a few letters on the 20/15 line, but it takes effort and guess work. it is not significant if they can't.
To a nearsighted person the chart will be fuzzy, but there is no accurate optical power correlation between the degree of fuzzyiness (is it a little fuzzy or a lot fuzzy?) and the Rx required to make it clear. Based on what you said, I would guess that you need an additional -0.50 to -1.00 power in your glasses to see the chart sharp and clear and read the 20/20 line easily at 20 feet. The only way to determine the exact amout is an eye exam.
BTW, an eye exam is not a test in the academic sense, you can't "fail" it. The object is to determine what optical correction (if any) you need to see as clearly as you can.
Good luck. Get an eye exam, get some attractive new glasses - if you need them - and get on with your life. Not seeing well is a bummer.
C.
Puffin 01 Nov 2005, 13:55
Lauren, you should take the test with the glasses you have now. I assume you're a full-time wearer. As for the chart itself - yes, you need to correctly identify all the letters on a given line to get that level of acuity. It doesn't how the letter looks, but obviously if you're squinting like crazy and pushing the glasses against your face, etc, well, I think that's a bit of a cheat that won't fool anyone, certainly not an optician.
As for the scaling factor, I'm reasonably sure that the size of the letters on a normal chart (on a wall) is in proportion to the distance at which it should be read at. This nice site does the scaling for you according to distance. I think if you do it from nearer to the computer screen, the site might rescale the letters so you can check the in-between lines. BTW if you try it too close up, the site doesn't have a row of letters small enough to test you with.
Julian 01 Nov 2005, 13:33
Lauren, it seems to me you could get the best answer to your query by trying the online test with your glasses on.
lauren 01 Nov 2005, 12:35
I posted earlier down the page - can anyone help me please?
Vic 30 Oct 2005, 19:55
I would still think its worth to wear them.
Ardief 30 Oct 2005, 16:03
I would say their logic is seriously flawed. After all, the issue is not the level of correction, it's the difficulty in functioning uncorrected. Even a prescription that is slightly insufficient would provide a level of functionality. I agree, Puffin, it's a pretty feeble excuse.
Puffin 30 Oct 2005, 15:45
Here's a question, if I may. If one had a small prescription, say minus 1.5, and had glasses made to correct this - then the prescription goes up to say minus 1.75 or 2, could you say that it's not worth wearing the glasses full time because they're the wrong prescription? Or do you think that, as I do, that this is a feeble excuse from someone who doesn't want to wear them?
(ps this is based on real-world friend, would appreciate answers!)
lauren 30 Oct 2005, 11:58
Patrick B
I think you may have thought those were the results with glasses, but it was without them. Thanks
Patrick B 30 Oct 2005, 08:04
Lauren,
Your eyes have got substantially more myopic, and you'd probably benefit from going for an exam and getting a new prescription. I would venture to guess that you will need at least two diopters of additional correction to bring your vision up to 20/20. Clearly, you are no longer in the "low myope" range which goes up to -3. You're now in the "moderate" range of myopia which generally goes up to -6 before it is considered "high" myopia. If you are young and haven't had your eyes tested in over a year there is a very good chance that you have had a substantial increase in your myopia. Right now you shouldn't be driving a car without additional correction. You'd never pass a driving eye exam at this point, even with your glasses on. You might find that by tilting your glasses you can improve your acuity. Let us know how it goes.
Glasses are sexy 30 Oct 2005, 05:24
Hi all ladies who wear glasses, I think you are sexy sensuous and really attractive in glasses, I would never dream of dating a lady who was not a glasses wearer. I love high plus glasses, I love the big eyes as seen through the lenses, I love the look when you look over the top of the frames, I have found ladies who wear strong glasses can be shy at first, but they definately have beautiful personalities, also high plus glasses the lady behind them has beautiful eyes more so than ladies who don,t wear glasses. Ladies al you high plus or minus glasses wearers love you all. This from a guy who does not wear glasses or contacts.Admirer in the post room.
lauren` 30 Oct 2005, 01:22
Sorry, I meant how could I check the difference between 20/100 and 20/200 not 20/100 as I said.
lauren 30 Oct 2005, 01:21
I've just done this online eyetest http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/oph/ped/IVAC/IVAC.html With my right eye which has a -2.75 presecription I failed the 20/100 letters. In the left which is -2.25 I could get away with saying I could read the 20/80. I have 3 questions - anyone know how I can check where my right eye is between 20/100 and 20/100 (that's the only option awvailable) and when you say you can read the letter, does it have to absolutely clear or is it okay just to be able to recognise it, blurry or not? And does anyone know if those results would be similar to what I'm wearing now? Thanks
Cactus Jack 26 Oct 2005, 19:13
Geoffrey - I also want to thank you for telling us about your experiences. I also want to complement you and your wife for your attitude and can do sprit. I wish you every success in your law careers. Hopefully, since both of you are young, some of the almost unbelievable research into artificial vision directly to the visual cortex of the brain will bear fruit and your and your wife will benefit from it.
Lentifan - I had cataract surgery with IOLs in July of 2001 and I have never regreted it for an instant. Prior to surgery, my Rx was R -1.50, -1.00 x 110 and L -2.75, -1.50 x 73.
The IOLs are R +16.50, L +13.00.
My current Rx is R -1.25, -0.25 x 90, L +0.25, -1.25 x 75.
With glasses (trifocals) I have slightly better than 20/20 in both eyes.
The Dr. suggested that one eye be as close to 20/20 as possible and the other eye slightly nearsighted (monovision). With current IOLs you have no ability to focus and with the monovision, I don't absolutely have to wear glasses if they are inconvenient. For example: if I have to get up at night, I can read medicine bottles etc. without my glasses and if I had to, here in Texas, I could drive without my glasses if I needed to (though I can't imagine why I would want to).
Also, if I want to, I can do reasonable ranges of GOC, + / - 20 approximately, without super special $$$ contacts.
BTW, the surgery was an incredible experience. The story is too long for a post. I intend to write it up and maybe Bobby will publish it on his site if enough people are interested.
C.
Geoffrey 26 Oct 2005, 11:34
Lentifan: You are right, with my "reading" lens, I am very clost to the material to read, about 4", but can manage 14 point and sometimes 12 point if it is veery bold and black.
Puffin: I don't know what CVA "requires" a white cane, it is a personal thing. The white cane is used both for navigation, to feel for obstacles, and for identification, so other people know a person is visually impared, or partially sighted. I have used one since I was 10 or 11. On the other hand, my wife first got one when she was around 3 or 4. Oct. 15 every year is "White Cane Safety Day" to make people aware of those of us who use them.
Puffin 26 Oct 2005, 02:03
Another question for Geoffrey, or anyone else who might know: at what point in terms of CVA does a white stick become obligatory or basically a good idea, because otherwise you'd be falling over all the time? I'm talking about in broad daylight, here, of course.
lentifan 24 Oct 2005, 15:53
Thanks for your reply again, Geoffrey.
You are to be congratulated on being so active despite your poor vision. Good luck to you and your wife in your law studies.
I guess that when reading with your +28 lens you must need to be pretty close to the print. Does this enable you to read smaller than 18-point?
Clare 21 Oct 2005, 23:28
Irritant - I agree with what others have said about different types of CLs and varying degrees of comfort. I first started with daily disposables but, like you, found they could be uncomfortable toward the end of the day. I now mostly wear the 2-weekly disposable type and find them much more comfortable and for longer. Try another brand or type, you may find that they're much better for you.
DWV 21 Oct 2005, 22:52
Also cats, domestic and wild:
http://www.unbc.ca/nlui/wildlife_diseases_bc/toxoplasmosis.htm
Julie 21 Oct 2005, 22:36
No, toxoplasmosis is not just found in tropical environments! A very very high proportions of pigeons in cities (at least in Europe, where I am from) are infected with toxoplasmosis. I had a friend who once adopted a wounded pigeon and cared for it in her apartement, and she fell sick with the disease. Her doctor thought she had mononeucleosis for a very long time (as the symptoms are very similar) and she was only diagnosed correctly when she didn't get better, and brought up the pigeon story!
Geoffrey 21 Oct 2005, 10:38
Lentifan: I don't know if Toxoplasmosis is found usually in just tropical countries or not. We were in Africa, at that time Congo, where my folks were missionaries.
As to what I can or can't do, I can do almost everything I want. Obviously, I cant drive, and have little night or peripheral vision. For sports, I swim (with +20 prescription goggles), can't do sports that require depth perception. In college I was on a rowing crew. I also ski (with a guide) occasionally.
What I see is rather little. I can see fairly well out to about 8-10ft. Make out faces at 5-7ft. Read 18 point type at about 6-8in. I use a white collapsible cane, and hand held magnifiers and a CCTV system. My wife and I both went to college in Boston and are now in law school there. The public transportation system is very good and free to the visually impared. For longer term reading, I have a pair of glasses with a +28 lens for the right and left occluded.
Andrew 21 Oct 2005, 10:19
When I had problems with dry eyes, my optician suggested washing my eyelids using cotton buds with a little Johnson's baby shampoo on them for a week or two. It seemed to help, as he was a lot more pleased the next time he saw me.
Myhopeinhere 21 Oct 2005, 03:05
I was on the Acuvue monthly disposables that you take out every night and like you sufferd from dry eyes and irritation,the optician had a look and found a blocked tear duct which she said wouldn't help the dry eyes.
She suggested I try the monthly disposables that you sleep in Bausch and lomb purevision,I told her I didn't want to sleep in them and was told take them out,I've been wearing them 6 months now,had no trouble at all,cost me £15 a month home delivery and the odd occasion I have sleptovernight in them no problem,only down side is the soloutions only come in a small bottle so every ouple of weeks have to get another bottle at £3 a go,hope this helps
Irritant 21 Oct 2005, 02:17
Thanks for your advice.
I have just changed to my next monthy lens and the problem still persists so I don't think it's got anything to do with an actual individual lens.
How much do contact lenses vary? I mean, are the cheaper ones 'the less comfortable ones'. My brother has changed to these o2 new optimax lenses but they are twice as expensive as my ones. In your opinion are these newer lenses twice as good or are they simply more expensive because they are new and marketed well?
I think next time I'm at the opticians I will mention that they irritate me - Does anyone know if these contact lenses from specsavers (I think pro-combatibles) are low in oxygen and are prone to drying your eyes out?
Random_Eye 20 Oct 2005, 14:57
Irritant
Well I think when the age thing starts to get to people there are in there 40s or 50s.
Have you looked at your contact really close to make sure nothing is one it. I also had a problem with mine once, there was a protein build up on it. I think thats what they said it was. Pretty much I had to go about a week not wearing them, get a new cl and I was good to go.
If you keep having trouble might not be a bad idea to go back to the doctor and let him take a look.
Myhopeinhere 20 Oct 2005, 14:57
I'm on the monthly disposables with specsavers the exrended wear ones,just go back and tell them they irritate you.
There are literally hundreds of types of lenses they can try you with so give it a go.They might try ones with a higher oxygen content or the like
Irritant 20 Oct 2005, 14:53
Random_Eye - I'm 23, female and have only worn contacts for a few years.
Random_Eye 20 Oct 2005, 14:21
Irritant whats your age? I know sometimes as people age they are no longer able to wear contacts. I am sure there are manything it could be.
Irritant 20 Oct 2005, 13:58
I'm having a lot of discomfort with my contact lenses recently. They are constantly irritating and my eyes are also really dry with them in. Any advice anyone? (Other than not wear them - that is not an option!). I have only been wearing them for 2 years and I wouldnt say that they have always been really comfortable but the past couple weeks/months I just don't seem to be able to tolerate them at all. I do have the cheapest brand (Specsavers £10 a month) - do you get what you pay for? Dya think it would be worth me spending a bit more?
I went for a contact lense check only last month and foolishly when asked if everything was fine I said yes! He said my eyes looked really healthy so I didnt like to say anything negative and look like a whimp!!
I guess some people say they ' can't wear contacts' - is it perhaps that I have entered into this category of people?! Anyone else worn contacts fine before and now can no longer wear them?
Many thanks! x
lentifan 19 Oct 2005, 15:29
Geoffrey
Thank you for answering my post.
I had never heard before of the condition Toxoplasmosis which caused your problem - is it confined to tropical countries?
Your lensectomies caused your Rx to increase from +4 to +22, but I suppose it was the retinal damage which has caused your unfortunate loss of VA. I note your advice about IOLs, but I still can't see why choosing spectacles rather than IOLs would substantially reduce VA. I can understand that the field of vision would be much reduced with spectacles and that there would be magnification and distortion away from the centre of the lens. But VA would be measured through the centre of the lens?
Is it possible that the people you know with lenticulars also have some other defect which is reducing their VA?
I would be interested to know how you cope with your reduced VA and your lenticulars - what you can and can't see, what activities you can and can't do, etc
Geoffrey 19 Oct 2005, 11:26
Lentifan: Before the lensectomy I had about +4 glasses. When I was 9-10 we were living abroad and my younger brother and I got Toxoplasmosis an infection thought caused by undercooked food. This went to Uveitis which came and went repeatedly over about 3 years and was treated by various medications (we were back home by then). I developed cataracts plus considerable retinal damage, hence the lensectomies, otherwise I would see nothing. My brother recovered fully and wears +5 glasses now (he's 2 years younger).
You mentioned the power of average glasses after lensectomies, I had heard that the natural lens is around +14.
If I were you, and speaking from some experience, I don't suggest not getting IOLs if you can get them. You can always do GOC if you want, but I don't know of anyone with lenticulars following a lensectomy whose CVA is 20/20.
lentifan 15 Oct 2005, 16:58
Geoffrey, thanks for telling us your Rx. It is very impressive!
Did you have a +Rx before your lensectomy or was it all the result of the lensectomy. I am interested in the range of Rx after lensectomy without implant, as I have the beginnings of cataracts and presumably will have lensectomy myself someday. I am already toying with the idea of refusing implants so I can wear glasses with + lenses, but your Rx surprises me as I think I read somewhere that the average post-cataract Rx is +11. Maybe that includes all the myopes who get cataracts and the shift is really more than that.
Do you have some other defect in addition to your aphakia which reduces your visual acuity?
Please excuse all the questions, Geoffrey, and I quite understand if you don't want to answer, but there are very few genuine wearers of very high Rx glasses and your experience is very valuable and interesting to us.
Geoffrey 14 Oct 2005, 11:50
Lentifan: My prescription is +22.0 +3.75 add +4.50 both eyes. I have had approximately the same since I had a lensectomy when I was 12 (23 now). They cannot implant IOLs, and I don't tolerate contacts of any sort. The CVA in my right eye is much better than the left (20/350 vs 20/550) so I really only use one eye.
Wei 14 Oct 2005, 10:57
Yes maverick I think many person over state of myopia or hypopia when rx is very low! I think all person with rx see improvements with glasses but not realize eyesight not very bad really.
Maverick 14 Oct 2005, 10:40
Did'nt see 'This Morning' today, but having seen Philip Scofield wearing specs a number of times I'd say -2.00 looks about right.
Not sure what motivates some people to have a need to crank up how 'blind' they are without glasses when in truth they are nothing of the sort.
14 Oct 2005, 09:55
Did any UK people watch This morning today? They had an article about those contact lenses you wear at night which supposedly do away with the need for comtacts/glasses in the day. Phillip Schofield was the guinea pig and he referred to his sight as being badly shortsighted. I couldn't quite make out his precription on the screen but I think it said -2.00 - did anyone else see it and could read it? If I am right in thinking it was -2.00 then he was making out it was a lot worse than that! He said that he would have to get someone to lead him to the exit if he had to get out in the middle of the night - which is unlikely with this prescription! Being a -3.00 myself I could more than easily function without correction in such an event!
lentifan 13 Oct 2005, 13:18
Geoffrey
I was curious to know how strong the girl's lenses were. Could you tell us what your glasses prescription is?
Puffin 12 Oct 2005, 14:16
That's very interesting, thanks.
Geoffrey 12 Oct 2005, 14:04
My glasses would look about like that girls in the photo.
With the glasses, my CVA (better eye) is about 20/350, without it is impossible to guess. I wear the glasses because that is the only way I have any useful vision at all. Mine are also bifocal so I have some assistance for close as well as distance, although I usually add a magnifier too.
My wife is also legally blind but has a weaker prescription but her CVA is in the 20/500 range.
Puffin 11 Oct 2005, 16:34
Yes, she does look interesting, but I think she must wear the glasses for closeup vision, and any distance vision she gets is just a bonus. The question was more to do with distance CVA, though, and I suppose myopic correction.
I mean, if you're that blind, and you're adverse to glasses generally, surely there's a point where the disadvantages outweigh the small amount of extra vision you get?
11 Oct 2005, 16:13
Some usable vision is better than none.
lentifan 11 Oct 2005, 15:58
I was asking myself the same question, Puffin, when I saw the absolutely gorgeous girl with the lenticulars in Nietopereks pictures from the blind school.
http://www.tsb.k12tn.net/TSB/photoalbums/Photoalbum%20-%202002-03/Graduation_2003/dsc01485.jpg
http://www.tsb.k12tn.net/TSB/photoalbums/Photoalbum%20-%202002-03/Graduation_2003/moseley%20copy.jpg
http://www.tsb.k12tn.net/TSB/photoalbums/Photoalbum%20-%202002-03/Field_Day_2003/dsc01443.jpg
She presumably has poor vision, but must have some usable vision, otherwise she presumably wouldn't wear the glasses.
Assuming the young man in this picture is her boyfriend and is also blind, I thought it a great shame he can't see how stunning she looks.
http://www.tsb.k12tn.net/TSB/photoalbums/Photoalbum%20-%202002-03/Prom_2003/dsc01022.jpg
Puffin 11 Oct 2005, 02:31
Just a question... if you wore really strong glasses, but could only get really lousy CVA, at what point do you think that you'd give up on the glasses because they're not really doing anything, ie that the acuity with them isn't worth the wearing of them?
woodframes 07 Oct 2005, 21:37
Good day,
I am a maker of hand carved wooden glasses, each being specific in design and construction to the desires of the customer. I personally pick all my woods to ensure uniqueness and quality. If anyone is interested in a one in a kind pair of eyewear, feel free to contact me as we could discuss further the possibilities of custom wooden frames.
Scott Urban
8hhhhhhhh8@gmail.com
05 Oct 2005, 09:11
Wei -- 1.25 of Astigmatism is mild. Astigmatism is usually caused by the shape of the cornea not being a perfect sphere and is corrected by cylinder in the Rx. It may optically add or subtract slightly to your myopia but it is probably from a different cause. It doesn't take much change in the shape of the cornea to cause astigmatism, approximately 0.4 mm at the cornea will cause 1 diopter refractive error.
morgana 05 Oct 2005, 00:45
can ne one help me. I wear glasses to correct astigmatism and slight myopia and I had my annual check up this morning and while my prescription has not really changed my visual acuity has decreased...i don't understand how this works can someone explain this??
Wei 01 Sep 2005, 11:19
I have question on astigmatesm. I have stigmatesm of 1.25. Is this bad astigmatesm? I understand -16 very very bad myopia but I know little of astigmetesm and wonder how affective this is of rx? Does it add myopia?
Cactus Jack 30 Aug 2005, 21:23
AHA - Depends on the width of the lens and the index of the lens material.
I have misplaced my mm scale. I having to measure in inches and convert to mm. I have some glasses with 5/5D BO. The Sph. Rx of the lens is about -2.00. The lens is about 54 mm wide. Outer edge thickness is approx. 8
mm the inter edge is approx 2 mm. I believe the lens material is CR-39. The power rings are on the outside with none on the inside. I would estimate that the prism increases the outer edge thickness a little less than 1 mm per prism diopter.
A lens can be made with BO and BU prism. It would probably look like a 3D BO lens that had been rotated 45 degrees.
Your eyes easily handle small horizontal BO prism. Vertical prism is a different matter because independent up or down movement of the eyes is unnatural for a human. Some lizards do it handily. Unless you have some vertical muscle imbalance I suggest you stick with BO or BI prism. You might wind up having to tilt your head to fuse vertically displaced images.
C.
AHA 30 Aug 2005, 20:31
Cactus Jack
What will the thickness be on the side
with 1 BO,2BO,3BO.
Is it possible to make a lens like
2BO/2BU,what is the picture?
Cactus Jack 30 Aug 2005, 10:26
AHA - Sorry about the table, it didn't display correctly. I hope you can figure it out
C.
Cactus Jack 30 Aug 2005, 10:24
AHA - 1D BO will result in or correct 0.6 degrees of inward convergence which is not very much. I doubt you will even notice much help with 1D BO. I had to get 5 BO / 5 BO (3 / 3 degrees) before I noticed much help.
I believe that it would be very difficult to “damage” anything with moderate prism. One thing to remember is that it is absolutely necessary for your eyes to converge (“cross”) when you look at something up close. I made up this table of approximate total convergence required to fuse images at various distances. Normally, each eye has half the total. The distance is in meters (1 meter = 39.37inches). I hope the table displays properly.
Distance + to focus Prism to Converge
Far 0.00 0
1m +1.00 4
0.5 +2.00 8
0.4 +2.50 10 (normal reading distance)
0.33 +3.00 12
0.25 +4.00 16
If your eyes already have a tendency to over converge (which mine do) you may find that wearing prism is very comfortable. You may also experience something similar to people wanting stronger prescriptions. You may also find that you see double for a time after taking off your glasses.
One tip. Most lens makers will try to keep the outside edge thickness as low as possible which can result in a very thin inter edge. When they mount the lenses the thin edges may distort and introduce Rx errors right where you are looking. Tell the lens maker to keep the inter edge thick enough to not distort in the frame.
Also, lenses with more than 10-12 D of prism are hard to make and fit.
C.
AHA 29 Aug 2005, 23:37
Cactus Jack
I mean 1/2 (half) a D,example you get
1D,2D,3D ect.If i make lenses with
1D BO what would the effect be and
can it damage my eyes very much.
MY RX is then
L: -1.50,-1.00X170 ADD1.75 P: 1D BO
R:-1.50,-1.00X20 ADD 1.75 P;1D BO
I put above in multi focal lenses.
I am from Holland.
Cactus Jack 29 Aug 2005, 21:30
Looking Around - I don't think it is legally bait and switch where they advertise a low price to get you in and then explain that the low price doesn't apply to what you need. I think they are just trying to confuse you to run up the prices. I think their business ethics are weak. I'd suggest you go elsewhere.
Your story reminds me of an old joke where a patient asked what his new lenses were going to cost and the Optician replied: "100 dollars". If the customer didn't flinch, he said: "Each".
C.
Cactus Jack 29 Aug 2005, 21:19
ARZAN - The triangle is probably a symbol for prism diopter. It should also include the orientation of the prism i.e., BI, BO, BU, or BD meaning Base In, Base Out, Base Up, or Base Down.
A very complex prescription might include Sphere Power and Cylinder Power in Diopters; Axis of the Cylinder in degrees; plus Add in Diopters for bi or trifocals, Prism - Base In or Base Out in Prism Diopters; and Prism - Base Up or Base Down in Prism Diopters for each eye.
C.
Cactus Jack 29 Aug 2005, 21:02
AHA - I need to think about your reply a bit. Unfortunately, I didn't quite understand what you meant by .50 Base I+O in both eyes.
0.50 prism diopters is not very much correction, only about 0.3 degrees of angle. And, I don't know how prism can be both In and Out at the same time. Sometimes, small amounts of Base In prism are used with + Add to reduce the amout of convergence and focus effort necessary to read or do close up work.
I'll try to give you a better answer in the next day or so. Hopefully, I will be able to suggest some simple tests that will help you decide what to ask for in your next Rx. Small convergence errors are hard to define without optical tools.
Do you have access to some clear red plastic and a penlight flashlight?
By the way, where do you live?
C.
ARZAN 29 Aug 2005, 20:35
Can somebody explain this prescript to
me: 0.75 with a triangle behind.
Cactus Jack 29 Aug 2005, 20:08
Puffin - I think you are right and my experiences tend to confirm that hypothesis. Of course, it is highly likely that the lab that made these glasses back in 1995 really didn't know what they were doing.
I think there were several factors:
1. Optical center not offset from the measured PD inward to where my eyes were looking.
2. Outside of the lens not mounted forward enough in the frames so my optical axis (9 degrees from straight ahead for 15 diopters) was as near as possible to perpendicular to the lens at the optical center.
3. Variable Vertex Distance across the lens because of 2 above.
Since my original adventures with those glasses, I have had cataract surgery that corrected most of my refractive error and muscle surgery that corrected most of my strabismus - for a while. The strabismus seems to rearing its head again but it is different this time. Before, I had extreme difficulty fusing and maintaining fusion when I was tired (esotropia). Now, when I'm tired, if the images drift apart, I can fuse them easily (esophoria). If I close my eyes for a few moments, I will see double when I open them and have to fuse the images again. I have found that wearing prisms again is very comfortable and keeping images fused with the prisms is effortless. Before, prisms were necessary, now they are optional.
I have ordered some new 15/15 BO glasses, with my current sphere and cyl. Rx, from a US lab that specializes in complex Rxes. Until they arrive I'm using my old 15/15 BO glasses with L:+4.25 and R: +1.50 contacts. I have been very surprised and pleased with the results.
I am very curious to see what the expert lab produces. I told them to not worry about anything but visual acuity.
C.
P.S. I also tried wearing toric CLs with my sphere and cyl. Rx and prism only 12/12 BO glasses. The combination worked very well except the torics wouldn't stay at the correct angle on my cornea. This concept has merit and may be very useful for some people.
Prism only glasses have no optical center (being optically flat). The combination may provide a very wide field of good vision if the contacts correct the sphere and cylinder.
AHA 29 Aug 2005, 20:07
Cactus Jack
1.a Little sometimes,but mainly for a
sharper vision.
2.I am 45.
3.Do not know,a friend have the same
rx like me but with prisms .50 Base I+O
in both lenses,when i try his glasses
it is so sharp and clear and i like
a kind of feeling in my eye.
Looking Around 29 Aug 2005, 15:01
I have 1 1/2 BO in each eye. Site for Sore Eyes charged me $40 extra for this. They said I was lucky it wasn't 3 BO in just one eye. Then they would charge $60.
My Cylinder is 2.25 in the left eye. They charge an extra $10 for each 1/4 over 2.00.
What's this about? I've never had those charges from other vendors.
The whole experience seemed like a bait and switch.
Puffin 29 Aug 2005, 13:03
That's very interesting, I always thought that prisms could interfere with the ordinary correction in a lens - if you could give some idea why this happens, it would help.
Cactus Jack 29 Aug 2005, 09:45
AHA,
A couple of questions:
1. Are you having problems with double vision or just want to wear prisms? (Either one is a valid reason)
2. How old are you?
3. Eyes turned inward (Cross-eyed (Esotropia or Esophoria)) Eyes turned outward (Wall-eyes (exotropia or exophoria))?
Comments based on experience with adult strabismus - esotropia/esophoria (crossed eyes):
1. Less than 5 BO (Base Out) in each eye is barely noticeable. 5 prism diopters is about 3 degrees of correction. I wore 5/5 BO for about 10 years and it really helped me keep images fused when I was tired.
2. The highter you go above 11 or 12 diopters BO, the harder the lenses are to make, mount, and fit correctly so that you can see reasonably clearly.
Even after muscle surgery, I occasionally have to wear 15/15 BO to keep images fused. I also have have to wear low plus contacts to correct the apparent Rx error in the glasses. With the combination, I see very close to 20/20. I had to come up with the CL Rx by trial and error about 7-8 years ago before I even heard of GOC. And had to do it again after cataract surgery - this time with the help of the GOC Excel program and a friendly Optometrist.
3. Making high prism glasses is almost a lost art with modern eye muscle surgery. One-Hour "labs" simply don't have the toos and skills necessary to do more than a few diopters.
4. Avoid Fresnel Sitck-ons. They work fine for the prism but the optical distortion that occurs when they are attached to a lens cannot be corrected by contacts or accomodation. They are intended for temporary use in young children who have serious vision development problems and reading is the least of worries.
Hope this helps.
C.
AHA 29 Aug 2005, 06:42
I am a -1.50,-1.00 add1.75 in both eyes.
I want prisms in both lenses,not to
strong in multi focals.Any recommodations were to start
ehpc 26 Aug 2005, 09:43
Ah....................yes................patience, eh Phil? :)Have fun...............Pete
Phil 26 Aug 2005, 08:47
Clare, I'm back from my hols! Ready for that coffee yet?
Clare 23 Aug 2005, 14:14
Julian - you're right, thank goodness!!
Julian 22 Aug 2005, 12:55
Clare: there are two ways of looking at every question. Vanity, convenience and style will always be the first consideration of some, so there'll always be a good body of people who won't abandon their glasses ::)
Clare 22 Aug 2005, 11:53
Daffy - so pleased to hear your friend is making good progress.
I think there'll always be a good body of people who won't abandon their CLs. Vanity, convenience and style will always be the first consideration of some.
Adam 22 Aug 2005, 02:13
Daffy. I think the days of CL's must be numbered. With spex becoming more of a fashion statement more young people don't mind wearing them and all the old prejudices are going fast. Let's not mind making a spectacle of ourselves!
Andrew. Went to a match on Saturday and was amazed to find around me such a number of glasses wearers - nearly all men and nearly all myopes too. Mostly black, wire narrow spex but a good number of rimless like myself. It certainly gives one a feeling of solidarity. Mind you, in the pub afterwards with my mates, I'd to take off my glasses more than once because they couldn't believe how I could see anything with such thick lenses. My new spex are much commented on these days - what a difference it makes from the old 'four-eyes' and 'goggle-eyes' remarks of the ignorant.
daffy 22 Aug 2005, 00:42
A quick update on my female friend. They ended up treating the eye and won't lose it. However, she swears to never wear contacts again. Somehow, i thought she would think that way. Thanks for the thoughts and prayers!
Andrew 20 Aug 2005, 12:57
Funny you should mention that, Puffin. I went to a football match today, and the half time challenge involved someone trying to kick four footballs in to the goal from various distances to win a car. I think it was only when the first kick only got half way to the goal that I, and most of the others who were watching, realised that he only had one real leg. He received a much louder round of applause for his efforts than normal.
Puffin 19 Aug 2005, 02:02
Its a bit like if you were unfortunate enough only to have one leg, saying that wearing your false leg was harmful.
(I mean, hopping around and falling over isnt?)
Watcher 18 Aug 2005, 17:03
I have just received a copy of a pamphlet called ' Why Eyeglasses Are Harmful For Children And Young People, © 1969 by Joseph J. Kennebeck, O.D. I assume it's a joke because it's nothing but a rant against people like me wearing specs. Has anyone else received such rubbish? As someone who really can't see much beyond my nose now without specs it's too late for me and millions of others to try the theories in his book. At one stage he says that it's better to drive without glasses - if I were to do that I'd soon be prosecuted for running over someone! Can all of you myopes combine and let's write to him and tell him that we NEED our specs just to see. I took mine off to read his drivel but had to hold the page an inch from my nose - is that how he wants us all to go through life? What rubbish - he's nothing but a crank. I LOVE my glasses and their strong lenses and nothing is making me give them up!!!!!
26 Jul 2005, 11:33
would you mind not posting the same thing to multiple threads.
We will read it one just one thread thanks
26 Jul 2005, 11:27
Can anyone help, I pleased someone just mentioned having an add on there prescription as this is what my question is about I've always really had a thing for glasses and before needing them I used to wear reading glasses but really wanted a pair of minus distance glasses and I guessed I might be able to see out of them anyway when I was 20 I got the courage to go and get an eye test and blagged the doctor and got a pair -0.25 in both eyes I really didn't need them as my eye sight was near on perfect but she thought they would help me with head aches I said I got, anyhow as time went on I wanted to get stronger lens but my dream started coming a bit too true and five years down the line I now really do need glasses, I have to say now I don't want to need them well not this much buy hey its happened, I don't know if I should blame my self for wearing glasses when I didn't need them or computer use maybe a bit of both it may not sound much but I'm up to -1.25 in both eyes and my distance vision is not good at all now and its affecting my life, problem is I don't wear them out as the glasses thing is too much of a fetish I just can do it, Right OK I'm going to get to the point now, I've now got a thing for + glasses but can't really see at a distance through them, I did find some weak ones on line +0.25 which I wear for the computer at home, but what I really want now is distance glasses with a + add I've found a shop on line where you just put in your prescription but don't have to send the real thing, so can anyone suggest a prescription i.e.: -1.25 add + 0.50 I don't have anything else on my normal prescription its just -1.25 in both eyes and nothing else so how much of an add do you think would be ok? bearing in mind I do want to see out of them clearly for close and near, and you never know I might start wearing them to work!
Julian 23 Jul 2005, 01:37
Prayers, of course...
presbyopia_23 23 Jul 2005, 00:42
Oh this is so sad :( cant they do anything? Operate? cornea transplant? Do they even know what type of infection or disease it is? Contacts dont seem as safe as people would like to believe. I have read the risks of them
tortoise 22 Jul 2005, 08:19
Daffy, that sounds horrible, your friend must be terrified! Certainly best wishes and prayers go out to her. Keep us informed as to how she is doing. Also, if you find out anything about what might have caused her infection, (scratched cornea, poor disinfecting habits)
I hope you will let us know. It might help prevent similar problems for someone else.
daffy 21 Jul 2005, 22:01
I didn't know which topic to post this, but this seems the most appropriate.
I discovered last night that one of my female friends was a contact lens wearer. I would have never guessed. But she is in hospital fighting an eye infection from wearing contacts. It looks as though she may lose her right eye as none of the antibiotics are working. I never heard of such thing. I'm shocked. Please pray (for those that are inclined).
Ella 20 Jul 2005, 03:46
Hi Clare
It didn't so much annoy me as make me think, wow, do I really squint so others notice? Especially the MD, as hes mostly locked away in his office or out on business, and I don't often chat to him. He's a lovely guy, and wears glasses himself, not sure what the prescription is because I have no idea how to guess! I do think hes shortsighted, as he'll take his glasses off to read things and seems perfectly OK, but he'll put them back on whenever he looks anywhere else.
It seems pretty strange when a stranger comments though, like your gym incident. They must have been paying pretty close attention to you to notice that :-)
I've had an interesting sighting at work this week. Lots of people seem to wear contacts, including a woman whos about 35 maybe, who commented last week that she hardly ever wears specs (this was when I showed up the first time in glasses). The end of last week and beginning of this week though, she had them on for a few days. She was suffering from a bad cold, and said her eyes hurt too much to put her contacts in. Her glasses were really nice, kind of a deep purple plastic, and suited her face perfectly. I commented that they were lovely, and she said she'd worn them since she was a child and hated them. They were quite thick (again, no idea about prescription) and made her eyes look a bit smaller than mine do, so I'm guessing her prescription is stronger than mine. We seem to be having lots of glasses conversations in the office recently!
Puffin 17 Jul 2005, 15:02
There was a girl at school, she must have been about 11, suddenly she turned up at school wearing glasses full time from nothing. After that the the progression was only to about minus 4 or so. She was a bit a bitch so I never spoke to her more than necessary. She had nice elder sister who wore a similar prescription.
Chris 17 Jul 2005, 11:43
Np, whether or not people go full time with their glasses straight away probably depends on a number of things. For presbyopia full time wear isn't needed, it shouldn't think it's all that uncommon for myopes to go full time straight away, afterall most of them will end up there eventually. I guess it depends on the strenght on the original prescription and/or how much the individual likes/doesn't like the idea of wearing glasses.
I had quite a strong first rx, I'd know I'd needed glasses for quite a while but never got round to going to the opticians, it was only when I couldn't cope with the blur anymore that I eventually got glasses. I was pretty much full time from the start, once I'd got the glasses I always wore them outside the house, for the first few days I didn't always have them on at home, but within a few days I put them on first thing in the morning.
Interestingly, I've got an eyetest booked for Friday, things are starting to look a bit blurry again.
Clare 17 Jul 2005, 06:31
Np - I can't comment on just how typical it is but it probably happens frequently enough. I remember one of my ex boyfriends got glasses at 21 and he went fulltime straight away. I didn't know anything about vision at the time but remember that they weren't too strong. Now, some 15 years later, we still bump into each other and I'd guess his rx is no more than -3, but not much more. Are you thinking you'll go fulltime? What's your rx?
Np 17 Jul 2005, 00:15
Just wondering how typical is it for people to go from not wearing glasses to wearing full time. Any ideas?
presbyopia_23 16 Jul 2005, 03:45
*countinued on 2nd post*
I would be very happy to just reduce my dependancy on glasses. I know ill never be free of glasses because of mild presbyopia.
Oh did I mention when im outside for a while, especially when I go on vacation and I start prespiring my sweat drips on the lenses and greatly distracts me. I wipe it which just causes it to smear. Sometimes I just put my glasses in the pocket and go without them as long as im outdoors in bright sunlight since I see 20/150 then due to tiny pupils which act like pinhole glasses to speak.
I have been working on natural vision improvement. Its quick(or not so quick)easy(if motivated) and cheap(just need some inexpensive guide books) and some say you can eliminate your myopia alltogether. However most people say this is impossible if you have more than -1.5 or -2 but however you can reduce some of it. You could probably reduce your -3 to -1.5 then youd never need glasses again except to drive. I could reduce my -5.5 to -4 or even -3 then be much less dependant on glasses.
http://wurm.laughingsquid.net/cgi-bin/read_thread.cgi?42
There is the topic in this forum in the above link but no one seems to post there.
presbyopia_23 16 Jul 2005, 03:33
The most annoying thing about glasses is the lenses always have some dust on them. I have learned to ignore particles of dust too small to interfer with my vision. Larger particles of dust I try to blow off but this doesnt always work then I end up wiping it with my shirt and this causes it to smear more. The only way to make them completely clean is use a damp papertowel then a dry papertowel to wipe it clean. Dust just gets back on the lenses in no time and clings to it due to static electricty.
http://eyes.bunbury.ws/pages/anti-reflection2.JPG
The lenses reflect and this bothers me. The left has antireflection coating which helps a little but my dad says its a gimmic thatll set you back $50-80 or so and youll still get much of the glare anyway.
There is also the issue of minification. While not a serious problem in my pescription, it nonetheless still is there. Contacts fix this problem, the dust problem and some of the glare but they dry my eyes out and when my eyes are dry I am constantly aware of their presence.
As for lasik I have been thinking about it since I first heard about lasik almost 10 years ago, I was like 14 or so and I was thinking I should get it when I turn 18. I read tons about lasik and became very aware of its risks too. I got an evaluation a few months ago. My pupils can dilate to 8mm, maybe even 9mm. I have mild dry eyes and cant tolerate contacts very well for very long. Finally I have some presbyopia(hence my screename) I say I have about 2.5-3 diopters of accomodation which is still some but less than normal. With my full power -5 glasses on things from less than about 15 inches start becomming blurry. Even from 2 feet my eyes get tired quickly and have a dull ache. I would just need reading glasses after lasik. I mean I could read ok without them(with my contacts in) but its not as clear and makes my eyes tired
so I always read without any correction.
You have it easy being -3 your dependancy on glasses is alot less than mine. You dont need them for eating, reading or using the computer(if you sit a little closer) and you probably dont need them around the house either unless you watch TV. You are probably 20/200, I am 20/600! Youd be able to see the clock when you wake, although a bit blurry. I can barely see mine! You can go to the restroom or eat a snack without taking your glasses with you, I usually take mine with me. You can read from 1/3 meter or 13 inches fine, I have to stick my face in fairly close.
Clare 14 Jul 2005, 12:33
Hi Ella
Did you feel annoyed when your MD made that comment? I had a comment made like that when I was in the gym a couple of months ago and it really hacked me off!!
Ella 14 Jul 2005, 11:23
presbyopia_23,
Why don't you like your glasses? I never had a problem with mine whilst I was at uni, so many people wore them and it just wasn't an issue. Its only since I started work I've become more shy about them. I've come to realise over the past few days just how much I was missing not wearing them for work. Even the computer screen is slightly blurred without them now, which I hadn't really noticed before.
As you said, I can definitely get around without glasses, but its quite difficult, because stuff like not seeing peoples faces, or being able to read notices on the wall, is actually fairly annoying. I'm very glad I've started to wear them now, and the comments have virtually stopped. the only one I got today was from the managing director of our firm, who said, I noticed you've been wearing your specs this week, you certainly look better than when you used to squint across the office. I hadn't even realised I was, but if I don't do it anymore, thats another bonus to wearing them!
presbyopia_23 13 Jul 2005, 22:52
Ella, I also dont like glasses but being -5.25 my uncorrected vision is like 20/600! Your only -3 so you can still see kinda ok to go around without glasses. Your 20/200 I presume, maybe a bit better. Man I wish I was also -3 then id be alot less dependant on glasses
Katy 13 Jul 2005, 10:22
Ella - brilliant! I know that feeling of wanting to whip them off - I actually did that once - my neighbour called me from over the fence and I whipped them off before I looked over! I bet you're glad you've got it over with :-)
Ella 13 Jul 2005, 10:16
Hi
I posted here recently about not feeling I was able to wear my glasses to work. I went to the opticians last week to get my eyes tested and pick some new frames. My prescription only changed a bit, its now -3 and -3.50, and -0.50 astigmatism. The optician was quite suprised when I turned up straight from work not wearing them. he told me he thought I really ought to wear them all the time, he said his prescription was less than mine and he did. After the test I picked out a frame, its brown and plastic and I liked the way it looked on me, although its quite a bold choice I felt! When I picked them up the next day after work, I kept them on all the way home and all that night. I even forced myself to keep them on when a friend came round later, but she is an old university friend and used to seeing me in glasses.
I've worn them for work all week as well! I did as you said and just kept them on. Really wanted to whip them off just as I was walking into the office but then I remembered clear vision, and kept them on. There were actually lots of comments! About 4 or 5 of the girls I work with asked if I didn't have my contacts in, as lots of people seem to wear contacts in my office. My boss actually commented that I looked very studious! Which annoyed me, as I hope they don't make me look like that!
I'm not really worried about anyone else seeing me in them as my friends from university and school, and my family, are used to seeing me in them.
Just realised I've rambled on quite a bit, but I want to say thankyou to everyone who encouraged me to wear them!
T2 12 Jul 2005, 15:04
Taiwanese friends say that theirs is the most myopic population with as many as 85% of students aged 18-26 myopic -6 about average but -14 is common and even higher RX's. We know a young girl from Taiwan who wears -15 glasses and has contact lenses to bring her sight up to where she can see - her total Rx is around an amazing -24/25 but she manages somehow!
Myopia in the Far East has reached epidemic proportions now and there is alarm in governments that blindness is going to affect more people there.
-5.00 who luvs gwgs 09 Jul 2005, 06:18
Not sure whether this is the right thread but I was talking to a Hong Kong optician about percentages with myopia He said about 80% of students in HK have myopia normally -2.00 or -3.00 up from -1.00 or -2.00 20 years ago he also said a very common prescription is -4.00 much more than -5.00 is less common From my sightings I would agree from my recent trip only 1 or 2 girls above about -6.00 (see sightings)
presbyopia_23 30 Jun 2005, 12:05
Katy......astigmistim isnt the same as myopia and does not add onto myopia. -4.5 is -4.5 reguardless of anything else. The two are seperate so he would be a moderate myope and have moderate astigmistim. His uncorrected vision would probably be like 20/600 or so. I dont even consider plus or minus quarter or half diopter as myopia or hyperopia as its so slight, its clinically insignificent.
glinthia, this is puzzling and not good. always being 20/40 best corrected is one thing, being 20/20 when you were young and only 20/40 now calls for investigation. I hope you dont have any eye diseases or ectasia. If not then I would blame your astigmistim. Glasses often can not fully correct this, especially if its the irregular kind. If your BCVA gets worse where you cant legally drive you might consider RGP to try to give you some lines back. Wavefront lasik might be an option but you must talk to your optamologist about this, I am not qualified to give any advice on that, not a doctor. As for me, I have gotten my topographies which showed irregular astigmistim, more so in the right eye. With my full power glasses I only see 20/40 in the right, 20/30 in the left. With both I can kinda make out a few of the 20/25 letters. I consider myself 20/30+ with both eyes open. My optometrist said most people wont get 20/20 vision and your BCVA depends on your shape and what the eye allows. Some only get 20/100 WITH correction, others are very lucky and get 20/15! 20/30 or 20/40 honestly isnt bad and good for everything, even driving! I just hope your BCVA doesnt get worse.
as for you contact wearers, dont let anyone else wear yours, it leds to infection! You may try someones glasses as they never touch your eye directly. I dont usually wear contacts since my eyes too are senestive and contacts dry and irriate them after a couple hours. I wish I didnt need any correction but being in the -5 range this isnt even close to possible. I need 20/600 to positivately see the letter and 20/400 is very difficult. Maybe if I was -2.5 or so and could see 20/200 without too much trouble I might not need glasses-much
Katy 28 Jun 2005, 15:53
I have been reading about the different categories that they put myopia in, which seem to be mild (-0.5 to -3), moderate (-3 to -6) and severe (over -6). The thing is, does anyone know whether they look at the rx with plus or minus cyl for this? A friend of mine has -4.5 with -2 cyl, so written with plus cyl he would have -6.5/+2 - and be counted as severe, which would mean a higher risk for eye problems.
Also, I know there has been a discussion about Singapore on another thread, but does anyone have an idea of how common different minus rxs are in the UK or USA?
John 28 Jun 2005, 07:14
Glinthia -- Have you been to an eye doctor about this problem? What did they say? What seems to be the cause of your declining vision?
I don't think anyone here is likely to have much insight that can help you (though it's possible). But good luck - definitely sounds like a frustrating situation.
27 Jun 2005, 23:22
Interesting looking equipment used in the eye exam
http://www.caf.dlr.de/me/Institut/Abteilungen/AeromedicalCenter/images/dia.jpg
glinthia 26 Jun 2005, 23:38
I am 23. My acuity is quite bad. about 20/40-20/45 even when I had my best prescription last year.Currently I wear -2.25 2.00 50 left and -1.75 (No Astignmatism) right. My both eyes cannot see any of 20/30 since I was 17 when my prescription was -0.75 for both eyes. I cant see the TV Script clearly only 3 m away from the screen now. When I was 10, I can see them 6-8 m away.
I think my acuity drops slowly and may affect daily life when it drops further. But any method to restore my vision to 20/20?
George1968 26 Jun 2005, 15:12
Ella,
After a couple hours of wearing them at work, nobody will notice. That way, you can save you contacts for special occasions, and still be able to see at work.
Ella 26 Jun 2005, 03:25
Phil,
I mostly wear glasses at weekends, if I am going ou or there is a big occasion I will put my contacts in for a bit, but a 10-hour day with them is just too much.
I might just try the suggestions of getting a new pair, I could do with my eyes testing anyway as its been a couple of years. I would quite like to try those plastic frames, but then they might look quite bold and as I'm trying to hide them, maybe not a good idea!
thanks so much for being so encouraging, its really helped me to see that maybe people won't notice that much if I start wearing them to work.
irishgal 24 Jun 2005, 10:59
Ella, I know how you feel, I was like that when I first started college. In school it was ok as people were used to seeing me in glasses... but at college I wore contacts each day for the first few weeks so the first time I wore my glasses it was a little daunting... but in the end it was ok. I did have a few comments, but I just explained I usually wore contacts, and no more was said... though some people did want to try them on, which lead to a few comments regarding their strenth which made me feel a little embarassed. (I'm -6.5, -7.25). But after a short while people didnt say anything. You said you'd worn yours once for a presentation, so I'm sure people noticed them then, so my guess is that people are expecting to see you wearing them again soon, so perhaps they wont say too much!! I've rambled a bit here but I guess what I'm trying to say is to just to go for it, it wont be as bad as you think!
Alan 24 Jun 2005, 09:50
Ella,
In my experience, the only trick is to force full-time wear for a couple weeks or more. At some point during this time, you'll most likely start to 'feel' like wearing glasses isn't such a big deal. Until you wear them full time, though, it's easy to stay embarrassed about them for years, even decades...even though it doesn't take long to get over it.
Katy's recommendation is a good one: go shopping for a pair of glasses that you really like. Be patient, go to as many shops as it takes. You'll find a pair that make you look just as good or better than you do without glasses.
Some other things that can be encouraging: *Work is the perfect place to wear glasses. Most people inherently think glasses-wearers are smarter. It's a good way for a young woman to get a little extra respect. *There's nothing odd about showing up in glasses all of a sudden; just say your contacts were being uncomfortable...it's true, and it happens to almost every contact lens wearer at some point, and the majority of young professionals are nearsighted.
Katy 24 Jun 2005, 04:05
Ella - I know how you feel, I used to be exactly the same. I felt like once I had met someone without my glasses, it was too late. But the thing is, it really isn't that bad when you actually do it - thinking about it is much worse. If you wear them to work, you will probably get a couple of comments in the first ten minutes, and that will be it. You will probably feel shy for the first day, but not after that - and it is really worth one day of shyness to be able to wear them and see! Nobody really takes much notice, which is hard to believe, when wearing them feels like such a huge thing.
What really helped me was getting some new frames before I started wearing them - I got some I liked and that made me feel more confident. And whenever anyone said anything, which wasn't very often, I just said I had had them for ages, and no-one asked anything else.
Phil 24 Jun 2005, 01:03
Ella, I'm more than twice your age and have felt like you do since university days! For me it has hardly got easier. I'm still too embarrassed to wear at work except when absolutely essential (only a couple of times in more than 20 years!), though I do wear a bit more outside at weekends now. And, of course, I have to wear when driving or at the cinema or theatre. Some people seem to overcome their shyness; others don't. I don't think I ever will. Amd maybe it's worse for me as I've never had contacts: don't think I could cope with them. Good luck.
-5.00 who luvs gwgs 23 Jun 2005, 15:42
I have read several posts about frequency of wearing glasses .Although I have been very keen on gwgs since I was first interested in girls I have always been shy about my own glasses at least until I was in my 30s .My first prescription at 8 was about -0.5 right and -1.00 left for school and TV this progressed to -1.50 right -3.00 with mild astigmatism by 16 no optician has ever told me to go fulltime .I have graduallyworn them more and more until I wore them fulltime by the time I was about -3.00 right and about -4.00 left. yes it was a struggle and for years I really missed out .Interestingly I have had very very few comments over the years apart from wives and girlfriends all who have been myopic girls the highest being a 1980s girl who proudly wore -15.00s and never wore contacts however as is so often the case I was rather keener on her than she on me! I now have a lovely gf mentioned in previous posts who is -6.50 in her worst eye she is about to get her first bifocals so will doubtlessly look even sexier.Yes she has proudly worn her glasses fulltime since she first had them at age 11 no contacts for thank goodness.So I would say to everybody go for fulltime wear if you are anything over about -2.00 hardly any one apart from ES members will notice.
George1968 23 Jun 2005, 11:58
Ella,
When you are not wearing contacts outside of work, what do you do? Do you wear your glasses, or do got without?
Ella 23 Jun 2005, 11:27
Hi Clare and Phil
I am in a similar situation to te two of you. My prescription is -2.75 and -3 and about -0.50 of astigmatism.
I'm in my first job since university, and for the interview, I wore my contacts, which I can only wear for a few hours at a time (my eyes are sensitive). After meeting everyone there with no glasses, I know it sounds stupid, but I couldn't bring myself to wear them. So now I don't wear them to work, and often have to squint to even try to make things out. The only time I have ever worn them at work is for a presentation, when I absolutely could not see a thing written on the wall!
I have no idea how to introduce them, as I am very shy and would find peoples comments embarrassing, especially since I don't think they suit me that much.
Phil 22 Jun 2005, 01:35
Hi Clare, Remember at -3.25 and -3.5 I'm not that much more shortsighted than you. And your rx is still on the increase: mine actually dropped by .25 last time but one. I find that I do best if I haven't worn glasses for a while so, as you use contacts, you might find things blurrier (is there such a word?) than me when you wear neither glasses nor contacts. We just must meet: we've got such a common interest. We can have a contest as to which of us can see least across that coffee-shop. Bet it would be a close run thing. Text me-07871436620.
Clare 21 Jun 2005, 13:07
Hi Phil
You said "If your rx goes up a bit you may just have to wear them a little more". Hey, I don't see you setting the great example there! What does 'a little more' mean in terms of the difference between my 'now' and that?
Sorry, I'm teasing you big time. I am curious how you get by though - when I'm tired I dread putting contacts in, this morning the sun was shining, I wore my sunglasses and am used to having some spare contacts in my drawer at work. But work is new, I haven't left any contacts in my drawer! Result - I've struggled with recognising people as they approach me, acted dumb when someone gesticulated across the office for something, and sat in a presentation that I couldn't see. How do you do it? !!
Clare 21 Jun 2005, 13:03
Einar - that's such a sad story. I hoped for a different result!
Einar 21 Jun 2005, 06:01
Hi Clare and Phil,
(sorry, my english is bad)
... a date ... many years ago ...
I (22 and very shy) met a girl (21 and also shy).
She never wore her glasses ( -3.5 or so) and so did I (-4.25, -4.5).
We knew our problem and we were sure to talk about and to wear our glasses.
My glasses were in my jacket. I felt them.
Her glasses were ... I don´t know.
Oh, what a craving for outing.
(...)
We talked about the wheather, her home-town, our parents ...
I was to shy.
She was to shy.
Bye-bye. Let´s meet again. Next week or so. Okay? Fine.
We never met again.
Greetings,
Einar
Phil 21 Jun 2005, 01:48
Clare, I'm still shy, even at weekends! As you say it never really goes away. But supermarkets etc. were getting dodgy! And as I have to wear them driving there I have started keeping them on sometimes. So I'm no braver than you. If your rx goes up a bit you may just have to wear them a little more. Luckily mine seems to have stabilised. I don't think I'll ever go fulltime. I think you are wrong about how we'd be if we met: each would know the other's thoughts and we'd just giggle. If you are ever in SW1 I'll buy you a coffee and we'll find out!
George1968 20 Jun 2005, 16:45
Clare,
I don't think myopia just goes away. Yours started later than most, but I am sure that it either stabilizes or gets worse, not get better.
20 Jun 2005, 14:50
Phil
ps - just noticed you said - "though I do now wear them at weekends and out of work .."
Given my previous comment, is this regularity only recent?
Clare 20 Jun 2005, 14:47
Isn't it strange? I never craved glasses, in fact I'd never thought about them and any friends who got them had no impact on me. Yours was a fair prescription wasn't it for a first one? Mine was -0.75 and I really questioned why it'd even been prescribed. Perhaps if I'd ignored it, it would have gone away, or at least stayed the same. But there's no point in that train of thought now.
I still think you're 'brave' enough (if that's the right term) to wear glasses outside of work, so that's a start. I'm sure at -3.5 you must sometimes wish you could just put them on!! And if two people like us met? I think the one like me would still be reticent, maybe forever like it ...
Phil 20 Jun 2005, 01:00
I can't explain any of it Clare. It's deep in my past. I can remember wanting glasses when I was 9 or 10, and trying to get them when I was 18 (and failing because my rx was "too low" and the optician wanted his lunch!). Then being so pleased three years later when I had progressed to -2 while at Oxford: the optician there was astounded I wasn't already wearing fulltime! Told me I must. I put my first pair on in his shop, then took them off as soon as I got outside! And there the shyness began: none of my college friends knew I needed glasses: most of them still don't! What do you think would happen if two people with "our" problem knew they were going to meet? My suspicion is that they would both wear their glasses for the encounter and not feel a spot of shyness.
presbyopia_23 19 Jun 2005, 07:56
"presbyopia-Did your brother wear his glasses for the eye test in Florida? I guess in Florida the vision requirement is lower because of all the elderly."
to my knowlege no and he doesnt have a restriction on his license either. You bring a good point and im thankful for the 20/70 requirement. I think 20/40 is too strict and not neccessary. Sure you might not be able to see street signs from like a mile away you 20/20 guys enjoy but 20/70 doesnt make you an unsafe driver. Many people either dont drive or drive illegally because their uncorrected or best corrected vision is worse than 20/40. One lady who had bad results in lasik only achieved 20/60 uncorrected and glasses couldnt help past that. Her uncorrected vision improved tremendously but she lost a couple lines best corrected. I dont know what will happen when the time comes to renew her license :( anyway my bro is -1.5 and -2.0 so hes 20/60 and 20/80 in his eyes.
"Presbyopia_23 - I have -2.75 contacts and -2.75 glasses. They both work fine for me ;)"
Then you are overcorrected almost 3/4 diopters with your contacts and have enough accomodation to cover that. If you can even read with your contacts in without alot of blurriness or difficulity then you can accomodate better than this 23 year old presbyope. I can accomodate 2.75 diopters which is like half as much as what other 23 year olds can do. I take my glasses off to read or read from half a meter with glasses on(which I probably shouldnt, thats 2+ diopters accomodation and bad for my eyes) so I make it a practice to never read or eat with my glasses and I use weaker computer glasses thats supposed to undercorrect me by 1.5. I cant get lasik or id need reading glasses for anything less than a meter :(
Clare 17 Jun 2005, 14:42
Phil, you and I share something in common eh? Funny though that you're prepared to wear them out of work and at weekends, that proves that you're not that shy about them. Whereas I, and admittedly my rx is lower than yours, prefer to go without if I can. I challenge you to define why that work audience is more difficult than any of your outside work acquaintances - an I only challenge you because I know we both have issues here, not because I disagree with you!!
newcomer 17 Jun 2005, 13:16
I was just wondering guys, at what strencth may some one start to notice / wear glasses for astigmatism on its own.
Also what does -.75 astigmatism equate to in terms of myopia????
Phil 17 Jun 2005, 01:34
Clare, I am tempted, but my shyness always wins through at work, though I do now wear them at weekends and out of work otherwise than when I have to (eg for driving). It's so odd because I love girls wearing a rx around mine. Yet I'm too shy to wear myself. I'm generally very straightforward and "normal", in an ultra-"conventional" job. But I'm a real oddball when it comes to glasses!.
Clare 16 Jun 2005, 11:22
Phil I think that's an amazing record - wearing them so little i mean when your rx is something that most here would consider way beyond part time wear. Aren't you ever tempted despite your shyness?
Phil 16 Jun 2005, 00:31
Clare - I've been in the same very specialised job, drafting legislation, for over 20 years and hardly anyone in the office has seen me in my specs (-3.5 ish). One girl, who had worked as my assistant for a whole year without seeing me in them, caught me with them on at a conference: I was forced to put them on to read the Power Point demonstration. She kept on and on asking me about them. I got so shy. Weird isn't it?
George1968 15 Jun 2005, 16:47
Clare,
It has been a year since my last eye test. Don't you go for an eye test once per year?
Hey, if there's an increase, there's an increase. I'm sure it wouldn't be much or I would notice. I'm wearing glasses all the time, so what's the difference if the glasses are a bit stronger?
Given my wife and I are splitting up, I am hoping that girls make passes at boys who wear glasses.
Clare 15 Jun 2005, 14:25
George, I'm at my new job but no-one's yet seen me in glasses. But it's early days yet, I'm just a few weeks in.
And, how quickly a year goes eh? I guess you're entirely comfortable with your new look now and I'm sure those rimless specs suit you just fine. Why the eye test so soon, I mean after just a year? Anyway good luck and you may even get an increase now you've let your guard down, stranger things happen don't we know it! Keep in touch won't you?
George1968 15 Jun 2005, 08:57
Clare,
Yes, things are fine. Can't believe that it's been a year since I went to fulltime glasses wearing. I am so used to it now I can't believe I fought wearing glasses for such a long time.
I have an eyetest next week. I don't expect any substantial changes.
Are you still at your same job?
Clare 15 Jun 2005, 08:15
Hi George 1968, I'd say "all the time" ... but that wouldn't strictly be true!! All well with you?
George1968 15 Jun 2005, 06:19
Hey Clare,
Nice to see you back. Still bare-eyed on the weekends?
Clare 15 Jun 2005, 05:58
Presbyopia_23 - I have -2.75 contacts and -2.75 glasses. They both work fine for me ;)
Brian-16 15 Jun 2005, 05:18
presbyopia-Did your brother wear his glasses for the eye test in Florida? I guess in Florida the vision requirement is lower because of all the elderly.
presbyopia_23 15 Jun 2005, 03:59
I calculate contacts vs. glasses by taking the contact pescription and multiplying by 1.25 to get glasses or multiply by .8 to get contacts. Therefore -1 contacts equals -1.25 glasses, -2 equals -2.5 glasses, etc. I have tested this myself and my simple formula agrees with me. I have a few contact prescriptions I got as samples ;) and my optomologist measured my glasses pescription as -5 well I see just as well with the -4 multifocal contacts I tried. The -3.5s I tried are slightly clearer than my old -4 glasses. The results I ask of others also seem consistant, one lady sees better with her -3 contacts than -3 glasses, I told her she needs -3.75 glasses. My sister wears -2.75 contacts and can barely see the 20/200 E uncorrected. This is about -3.5 in glasses.
As for lasik on someone -.5 or even -1 thats just dumb. You are taking a risk on your eyes with such low myopia that wont even limit you! I think lasik or any surgury on someone who can legally drive without correction is a big NO-NO! This generally covers anyone less than -1 to -1.5 diopters. I would be hesisant to even mention lasik if you are not over -2 diopters. My brother is -1.5 and -2 for 20/60 and 20/80 but his myopia is quite low that he doesnt really bother with glasses except for driving(not that he even needs glasses to drive, just good measure) Over here in Florida you gotta be 20/70 to legally drive.
Lasik doctors and centers just want your $ so yes ive seen some -1 get lasered and frankly any complications they get is their own fault for being so vain about a very, very slight blur. I really think lasik should be reserved for those with over -3 diopters and/or moderate astigmistim. Get intacs if you are -3.5 or less, at least those can be removed for any reason
Luke 02 Jun 2005, 07:36
I think the phrase would have been "obviously more dollars than sense". ;)
Anyway, in the lasik-ed person's defense, low prescriptions usually yield very good results. If the person wasn't very old, they could have a long period of very good uncorrected vision instead of sort of mediocre uncorrected vision; I don't really think Lasik was any less indicated in this situation than for a person with -3 or -5.
"In-tacs" corneal rings were supposed to be aimed at people in this Rx range, and would have been a better solution, I think - since they can be removed and provide excellent results for people with low Rx's. I think the company that makes them went out of business, though, since I think Lasik has a lot more marketing money and momentum behind it.
Anyway, too bad for the goal of having more people wear glasses. But they'll be wearing readers at some point.
02 Jun 2005, 02:48
Specs4ever - durely with -0.5 and -1.00 this person could not legally drive? Not in the UK anyway?
02 Jun 2005, 02:47
Obvisouly more money then sense!! lol -
specs4ever 01 Jun 2005, 16:59
Wow, this person should win the dumbest person on earth award. With such a slight prescription, in one eye their v/a would have been around 20/30, and the other about 20/40. They would not even have had their licence restricted for driving. Now, within a few years they will likely become farsighted - possibly quite farsighted. Why take such awful chances with your eyesight for such a minimal amount of improvement. But, I suppose that the laser surgeon would cheerfully have accepted their money. All this of course is IMHO.
01 Jun 2005, 15:30
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=31415&item=5585459721&rd=1
Do surgeries really provide lasik for low prescriptions like this? I always thought there had to be a certain threshold reached before they would recommend surgery? Anyone know if there are and, if so, what these requirements and limits are - i.e. lowest prescription to highest prescription!?
myofan 01 Jun 2005, 10:46
That calculator is interesting. The link doesn't work unless you leave off the period (.) at the end:
http://www.eyedock.com/calcs/cl_calcs.php
JJ 31 May 2005, 22:00
http://www.eyedock.com/calcs/cl_calcs.php. Contact lenses and eyeglass rx is the same until you reach -3.50.
31 May 2005, 09:07
Presbyopia_23 how does .5 contact equate to .63 glasses? Is there some formula to work this out? I have heard that contacts are a bit weaker usually then glasses because they are that much closer to the eye but I thought this was generally only with highre prescriptions? For example with -1.5 glasses is it generally accepted that -1.25 contact will be suitable? Does the hight the prescription mean the greater difference between glasses strength and lense strangth?
presbyopia_23 31 May 2005, 00:49
Puffin, someone whos 20/40 might not even know hes slightly myopic unless he compares his vision with someone else using a chart or a game of "who can see the furthest" Sometimes they complain they cant see the chalkboard from the back of class and ask to get closer. He may think everyone sees as good/bad as he does. My first pescription was -1 and I didnt relize this till I made my own vision chart with a pencil for fun. I remember doing this as bragging rights how good my vision was and I said I could see halfway down the bottom and told my bro if he can see as far down as he. To my supprise he saw two lines lower than me. I asked how is that possible? He said he really focused on the letters and squinted a bit. I was like ah I didnt put the effort you did. I guess things led themselves and my dad thought I might be a "little off" I was like no way but dad said he can see twice as far with his glasses as I could uncorrected(I was tested as 20/50) and got my -1 pair and ever since my vision slowly got worse. I probably overwore my glasses, if not id be alot less than the -5.5(improved to -4.75) I am now.
as for that ebay auction, ebay musta pulled it. I guess thats something your not allowed to sell(no pescription, wasnt a optometrist)
"-0.5 cls correspond to -0.75, which isn't negligable if you're driving or trying to read the subtitles on a film - it means that everything past eight feet or so is a mild blur."
-.5 contacts are equal to .63 glasses(but none are made like that just by .25s) but this is still a very mild myope. Probably 20/30 without astigmistim. Youd gain at least a line, possibily two if you dont have other problems besides simple myopia. Driving is not an excuse, 49 states give you an unrestricted license for 20/40 with many allowing 20/50 or even worse to drive. Only one state is very strict-20/30! I dont think being 20/30 would impair you unless you wanted to be a pilot or an occupation that requires 20/20 I honestly wouldnt bother with contacts or glasses if I was 20/40 or better. In fact doing so would just make your eyes worse like it did for me and most.
I have seen plano contacts, but those type are bifocal, multifocal or to change the color of your eye. Ive seen quarter diopter(both plus and minus) pescription contacts which is just silly in my opinion. For low hyperopes they can see just fine from far(nonwithstanding presbyopia) and young hyperopes, if mild can accomodate enough to see from near too. Low myopes also shouldnt bother with correction, if they do, just to drive or something
guest 30 May 2005, 17:54
I wear glasses and actually wear them more often than not. I have an add now and with the need for both distance and near correction, it is usually easier just to wear my glasses most of the time. I have never even thought about contacts.
30 May 2005, 16:02
Guest - do you wear -0.75 lenses - or just stick with glasses? I didn't mean to offend anyone when I stated that people with weak prescriptions dont NEED contacts - just that I usually associate wearing contact lenses with full time wear and I am surprised that people wear fulltime with such prescriptions.
But of course it is up to anyone to wear lenses at any prescription - I suppose at the end of the day if these companies sell such items they must be in demand! An I guess that even with low prescriptions why tolerate blue when there are ways of helping it!
Anybody else out there who wear low prescription lenses?
guest 30 May 2005, 12:31
I have a distance correction of only -.75 - but I wear for driving moviewatching tv etc.....the blur is noticable and bothersome to me.
29 May 2005, 02:32
Laura - what dya mean 0.50 correspondendes to 0.75? do you mean 0.75cyl?
what about astigmatism 28 May 2005, 15:24
might that mild rx in contact lenses also neutralise some mild astigmatism?
laura 28 May 2005, 14:35
-0.5 cls correspond to -0.75, which isn't negligable if you're driving or trying to read the subtitles on a film - it means that everything past eight feet or so is a mild blur.
28 May 2005, 11:21
continued... I think its suppose to read 0.50 - indeed 0.05 would be a truly neglible prescription!! even so 0.5 is pretty weak!!!
On another note any one ever thought about starting up a threads dedicated to contact lenses?!
28 May 2005, 11:18
A long time ago someone mentioned something about seeing some really weak contact lenses for sale and asking whether poeple really bother with them with such weak prescriptions - well obviously some people do!! See link!!
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=75084&item=5585483770&rd=1
Cant understand my self why people would bother with the expense and effort with such negligible prescriptions!! but I guess everybody is different and everyone has different tolerance levels?!!
Puffin 28 May 2005, 02:53
Yes, but if you'd never worn glasses and perhaps neglected to go to the optician for a while - you might not know what 20/40 is or what sort of vision it represents.
presbyopia_23 27 May 2005, 23:04
People generally start wearing glasses when their uncorrected vision is 20/40 or worse. This is about -1 diopters for their first pair. However many low myopes only wear glasses part time
Clare 27 May 2005, 14:53
Puffin - I think it's very possible. When I was -1.25 I barely needed my glasses but recognised that, legally, I had to wear them for driving. What would that equate to I wonder, would it be as much as 20/50?
Puffin 27 May 2005, 06:54
I wonder how common it for slightly myopic people to tolerate/ignore less than 20/20 vision without even thinking about glasses?
Daffy 26 May 2005, 19:24
I agree. The term 'computer glasses' is really a 'cop out' to say that you need reading glasses. Sure it will assist in vision for computer use. But they will also have them on while working around the PC. Before long, they will realize that it's just easier to read with them on and end up needing them for any close work. It just takes time.
leelee 14 May 2005, 15:06
Hi Clare
Actually - you friend is actually likely longsighted (or she has some astigmatism, or both) - she just isn't very presbyopic - yet -
Computers seem to pose a particular burden in that one tends to stare at this one brightly lit plane for many hours a day resulting in this dull stinging sensation for many of us. If you dont have too much cylindar in your prescription, you can get an idea of what its like by wearing your glasses over your contacts and then working on the computer all day - everyday. But chances are - things in the distance will be pretty sharp (untill you work on the computer for a while, and then it might take a few minutes (or more) to get your distance vision clear again.
Clare 14 May 2005, 14:24
A good friend of mine just got 'computer glasses'. Can someone explain what they do? She doesn't appear to be getting longsighted - she's 37.
Incidentally, I smile about this. She's my bestest friend but she hasn't the faintest idea what it's like not to have 20/20 vision. In the past it's made her unwittingly quite insensitive, with comments like "can't you see that ..." (incredulous), but that's just because she can and doesn't understand that it's usual that some people can't. That's why I'm curious about what the need for computer glasses actually means.
You know, I'm blessed - I have two great friends: one who doesn't understand what it's like to be myopic and the other who does and can't understand who someone who is myopic will tolerate anything less than 20/20 vision. What a brilliant paradox.
Sporty 14 May 2005, 06:21
Was on the paralympic website earlier and it said that class s13 (visually impaired swimmers) need visual acuity of more than 2/60 but less then 6/60 - what does this roughly equate to in terms of diopters? I never think some competitors on the telly are 'THAT' blind, as they seem to be able to navigate around the stadium or pool etc - will little or no assistance - also does anybody know if common conditions such as myopia will enable a competitor to be classified as a paralympian or does it mean that this visual acuity needs to be this bad WITH correction? Any feedback much appreciated!!
John S 13 May 2005, 12:41
How about a spelling class? That might be in order.
bloody_jojo 13 May 2005, 07:54
i am a teen of longveiw/kelso washington and would like to open a teencenter to help teens and give them something to do after school and on the weakends to keep them out of trouble and their grades up! if you would like to send me ur signature on this please do! bloody_jojo_05@yahoo.com
thaink you for your time
Bloody_jojo
myhopeinhere 12 May 2005, 13:19
I attended an interview a few years ago for Police selection and scraped by with my then -3,think that was the top limit then in the UK,might have changed now as they are having trouble getting recruits
Clare 12 May 2005, 12:10
Another guest - I don't know the actual answer but as there are lots of bespectacled policemen wandering around I imagine it's less of an issue than it used to be. I think they changed their entry requirements on height a few years back so why not this one too? As to what happens if your vision deteriorates, I'd imagine they'd move you to a desk job. That's kind of standard practice I think in jobs in our institutions like the forces I think. I've been out with a couple of policemen and it's very similar in outlook.
10 May 2005, 06:26
also - does anybody know what the consequence is if, on entering the police force or fire brigade, you have perfect 20/20 vision and then your eyesight deteriorates? Do you get kicked out of the force?!!!! Lol - surely this deteriotation in eyesight is relatively common?!
Another Guest! 10 May 2005, 06:21
I was just, as a matter of interest, looking up the police recruitment homepage and looking at what visual acuity is required. It says that uncorrected vision should be no more then 6/36 - what does this equate to in diopters? and is this correct? This doesnt seem to be very high to me and I guess about half the population have vision like this or worse - besides i am sure i know of police officers and have seen police officers with much higher prescriptions then this. I am around the -2 mark so, if I was interested in applying, would 6/36 unaided vision be unattainable?
JP 08 May 2005, 13:17
-10 sph, -5cyl x 1 is close to a prescription of –12,50 sph. It’s not the same vision because -5 cyl is strong.
Brian-16 07 May 2005, 17:59
Julian
I agree about the -15 glasses rx.I recently visited a college for preparation this coming fall,and one of the other students had around -15 and I could actually see a little better with my rx which is 3.5 or so less.He said he had 20/30 overall vision and squinted a lot to see things.I am going to see more of him and encourage him to get bi-focals now,not later..I was thrilled about actually being able to see better than someone else with specs!!
Julian 07 May 2005, 10:30
It isn't the 1 degree that will make a difference, but the fact that 5 dioptres of the Rx are cylinder and not sphere. I"d say his vision will be as bad as someone's with -15, but he won't see well with -15 glasses.
Guest 07 May 2005, 08:26
I probably should have posted here first:
A friend asked if a prescription of:
-10sph, -5cyl x 1 is close to a prescription of -15sph, or will he notice the 1 degree much?
Brian-16 30 Apr 2005, 10:24
pete
I also got 20/30 ...
pete 30 Apr 2005, 09:40
check this out:
i got 20/30!
Caroline 30 Apr 2005, 01:04
eating was another area I noticed my need for glasses for close work too, especially balancing my plate on my chest watching the TV (I have tri focals). Although not essential for eating, it is much more comfortable if whatever you are looking at is in focus. I hate not to be able to see clearly. I even wear my glasses in the bath until I wash my hair and face!
-- 29 Apr 2005, 10:31
my brother in law announced recently that he now needs his reading glasses to eat!
Matthew 29 Apr 2005, 09:18
Guest -- It depends. Someone who is completely blind could carry on a conversation across a table. Someone with, say, -6 wouldn't be able to see you clearly at all across a table, but could probably look at you as if he were making eye contact. "Comfort" is totally dependent on the person - some people can't stand the slightest blur (which, at 4 feet away probably happens between -1.5 and -2) while others wouldn't mind conversing in a fog of -20. But I think between -3 and -5, someone across a table is really quite blurry; might be fine with a friend, but probably awkward with someone you don't really know well.
Guest 27 Apr 2005, 14:34
A friend of mine is 45, now takes his glasses off to read but can comfortably converse across a table without glasses. Prescription is more than my minus 3 although I can't determine how much. Any guesses? If you think it's a stupid question I just wondered if there were any guidelines, like "no one of minus 4 would be able to see across a table to hold a conversation ..." etc. Thanks.
Bob W. 26 Apr 2005, 20:49
Meant to hit Tab! BTW, this is the link to the BBC article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4437067.stm
Enough from me for awhile!
Bob W. 26 Apr 2005, 20:47
Bob W. 26 Apr 2005, 20:47
Hi all!
I don't know if anyone noticed in BBC online 4/12, Smart lenses to halt short sight, an article describes a study at Anglia Polytechnic University, Cambridge.
Apparently, they're taking in myopes from 14 to 21 years old, fitting them with these lenses, and then watching to see what happens over the next 3 years or so. They will track progression of their Rx. I got curious (SUrprise!!) and I think they are fitting progressive or bifocal contact lenses, or just regular single vision Rx, so see if "readers" slow up the progression any. This is based of studies that myopes have some difficulty accomodating compared to others, although this only shows up when they first become clinically myopic. A couple of recent studies seem to show that bifocals help slow progression.
If anyone is curious about the current state of research in Myopia world, consider this link:
http://web.apu.ac.uk/appsci/optometry/myopiaconference/10th%20IMC%20abstract%20book.pdf
This is the abridged proceedings of the 10th International Myopia Conference in Cambridge. It contains very short abstracts of many research papers, and is not casual reading. Just glancing through it though, will give you an idea of where things are headed. If certain animal species have vision hampered in early developement, their eyes grow too long. Acetylcholine, a neurotransmitter, is believed to be part of this. 1 line of research lead to using Atropine (Acetylcholine Blocker), or something similar, as drops multiple times per day, with some slowing of Rx progression. Another line is that accomodation difficulties might drive Rx progression, therefore, try to assist with bifocals. 2 controlled studies showed that undercorrecting children by 0.75 Diopters led to increased Rx progression to the point that the studies were ended in 2 years instead of 3. In all of these studies, the length of the eye, behind the lens, called the 'posterior chamber' elongates in proportion to the change in Rx.
I wonder where this leaves bare-eyed wanderers? That could leave those like me in a real jam! The only way out that I can think of is considering straining, ie., the amount of effort made in trying to focus. Maybe strained attempts at focusing are more malignant than relaxed blur? This is the APU blurb about the study:
http://web.apu.ac.uk/appsci/optometry/pressrelease.htm
Cheers, or whatever.
Best Regards, Bob W.
Ted 23 Mar 2005, 07:32
have her read this http://www.optiboard.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-4734.html post #1881
still 22 Mar 2005, 20:43
Hasan, let her wear them as she wants. I think you'll see that soon she will be used to them and to people's reaction to the novelty. Then she'll probably prefer to wear full-time, and you won't have to argue about it.
Hasan 22 Mar 2005, 17:37
It finnaly happend! My wife got her glasses! It`s -1.75 right eye and -2.25 left eye. The only problem that she still don`t want to wear it all the time. How can I convince her to become fulltime wearer?
Mike 17 Mar 2005, 06:41
I suppose that near-sightedness is simply an unavoidable consequence of working in this industry. You can take precautions to minimize eyestrain, like using a good LCD monitor and taking frequent breaks, but ultimately, if you are sitting in front of a computer all day, you're probably going to become near-sighted sooner or later.
Truthfully, I probably should have gotten an eye exam two or three years ago, but simply kept putting it off.
Anyways, the moment I put on the glasses, the difference was startling. You really don't appreciate all of the crisp, subtle details of the world around you that you are not seeing, until you finally make the comparison.
leelee 02 Mar 2005, 15:45
A few years ago (ok, maybe a decade ago) I could see well at distance thru most weak to moderate minus lenses - up to maybe about -3 or -4, even up to -7 if I tried for a while (tho it was a real strain, and the minimisation was very apparent.
Now that age has made me respect my piddling hyperopia & mild astigmatism, even -1 is apparent to me, and quite impossible for near!
Horsey 02 Mar 2005, 15:05
Thanks for your views Andrew - I am now a -2.50 and usually where contacts but have tried my glasses on over my contacts - do you think this vision is what somebody with 20/20 vision would see through my glasses? I guess again, it is up to the person trying them on?!!
Andrew 02 Mar 2005, 14:45
Horsey,
I'm not sure there's an accurate answer to your question - it depends on the person trying the glasses on. Some people will declare even the mildest prescription "far too strong", in the same way as some people will say they are "blind" without their glasses, which are a -1 prescription. Then you need to add in the fact that the "trier-on" may need a mild prescription themselves, which will produce different results.
Not a helpful answer, maybe, but accurate, I hope.
Horsey 02 Mar 2005, 13:38
What RX do you think it takes for a plano to begin not to see clearly through? When I started off with glasses they were something like -0.75 and when friends etc tried them on they said 'there's no difference - are these clear glass? - since then my prescription has increased my firneds now say they cant see anything through them - but I'm interested to know when this clear image turns into a blur?!!
Jarred 27 Feb 2005, 09:48
Hi Matt, Thanks for your observations on the side vision with the varifocals, its interesting. I was wondering if mine had a flaw in them but it sounds like its the norm. My need for the multifocal is to control acomodative esotropia, I've been wearing either reading glasses or bifocals since I was about ten. I think my preference is for the quality if vision over what the glasses look like to anyone else, with the prism in my prescription my lenses are about 10mm thick at the edges so who am I kidding! But its interesting to hear your observations.
J
mattp 27 Feb 2005, 09:23
Jarred--
Your description of looking at the computer screen through the progressives is exactly what I experience--to see the edges of the screen clearly, I must turn my head slightly. Driving is also somewhat problematic--things in the outside rear view mirrors are blurred as are instruments like radio controls in the center of the dashboard. I've not had a problem with things to the sides of the car, though--I guess I've probably always turned my head rather than looking out the sides of my glasses.
Again, I do think the trifocals do give me better vision. Having just turned fifty, vanity is my motivation here. I have gotten used to the progressives, and there are no lines!!
Matt
-14 27 Feb 2005, 09:10
Jarred
I have HOYA progressives and I love them. I have a +3 add with 2BO prisms. Not all progressives are equal with some being better than others. With my RX (-14) peripheral vision has always been iffy but the Hoyas seem to be as good as my older single vision lenses.
Jarred 27 Feb 2005, 07:03
Hi Matt, I suppose one of the problems I have is I dont know what level of periferal vision is to be expected with progressive lenses? With these ones I have just got, if Im looking at the centre of my monitor and cast my gaze to the left and right sides of the screen its out of focus. To me this seems quite limited. Driving is ..... well interesting as well!!!
J
mattp 27 Feb 2005, 06:20
Jarred--
That awful peripheral vision in progressives is a problem. For years I wore bifocals and then trifocals because I could not get used to the blur on the sides of my vision. For three months now, I have forced myself to wear progressives--and I have gotten used to it. And the progressive vision in the center is nice. Good luck!!
Matt
Andrew 26 Feb 2005, 14:34
Jake,
In answer to your question about the extra line of letters, it is probably just that - an extra set of letters. If you have to read / try to read the same set of letters too often during an eye exam, you think you can just about read them, when actually, you cannot really. By having alternative sets of letters for you to read, they can tell whether you can really read them, or are just remembering them from 30 seconds earlier when you actually could read them!
Jarred 26 Feb 2005, 07:46
Hi All, I collected my new glasses today with my revised prescription. R+1.50 -1.75 105 5.50 Base Out L+1.50 -1.75 65 5.50 base out I have +2.00 of add and the prisms to control acomodative esotropia. I was told that varifocals would be better for me than the bifocals I have used for years ... but the peripheral vision is appalling! All but the very centre of the lens is useful both distant and close. Is this normal? They are Nikon lenses which have taken them over a month to make up so you would think they are reasonable quality. The other thing I have found is that the high index material creates even more chromatic abberations. I will give myself a few days to TRY and get used to them but at the moment its not looking good. Has anyone else noticed these problems with hi index and varifocals ......and found a solution? The clear focus (in the middle) at all distances is nice!!
Dave 26 Feb 2005, 00:50
My astigmatism is -1.75, -1.25 (sphere +0.25) and while not impossible reading and computer work without glasses is very uncomfortable. Daytime driving isn't a problem but I wouldn't drive at night without them.
Christy 26 Feb 2005, 00:01
My cyl is -2.00 and -2.50. That's more than my sph correction, which is -2.25 and -1.75. My astigmatism means that nothing is really clear at any distance, even though I could walk down the street in safety without getting hit by a truck. The bonus, of course, is that it means I can wear my glasses all the time!
Julian 25 Feb 2005, 22:58
Agreed. My astigmatism is less than either of yours and it's still enough to be a nuisance. But it can be really high for some people. When some people calculate a 'total error' they add HALF the cylinder to the sphere...I think this is nonsense as a dioptre of astigmatism is as much of a handicap as a dioptre of hyperopia - or presumably myopia though I have no experince of that.
STEVE 25 Feb 2005, 16:02
Jared I totally agree with you, without my glasses using the computer is just about impossible.
Jarred 25 Feb 2005, 13:41
Hi Steve. Astigmatism from about 2d upwards is considered quite high. My Astigmatism has stabalised at -1.75 and I certainly wouldnt drive without glasses. Reading and using the computer is pretty hard work without them as well.
Steve 25 Feb 2005, 10:24
Does anybody know how bad can astigmatism be? The reason I ask is my prescription is +.75 / -1.50 @ 165 and +50 / -2.00 @ 142, and without my glasses everything is pretty bad.
Jake 24 Feb 2005, 11:48
Does anybody know what all the things on the 'eyetest board' (sorry dont know the technical term 'if any'!)are?
Obviosuly the letters test basic subjective vision and I have read that the red/green divide simply gives a more precise reading, but last time I went to the opticians he kept asking me to read the row of letters under the red/green diagram. Does anybody know what this measures? is it astigmatism perhaps?
Thom 24 Feb 2005, 11:38
Hi Paul,
My 1st visit contained:
- autorefraction (+/- 5 mins) (watching to a balloon at several distances)
- subjective refraction (+/- 15 mins)(reading with different glasses)
- visual field (+/- 30 mins) (you place your head in a half bowl and light dots are lighting up, every time you see one you have to press a button, the computer calculates your visual field)
- colour tests (+/- 15 mins)
- EEG of the visual paths in the brain (+/- 30 mins) (3 electrodes when you're watching at the centre of an image consisting of moving black and white squares)
- slit-lamp examination with dialated eyes (+/- 45 mins, dialation takes 30 mins) (they give you eyedrops to widen your pupil (? - not sure of the correct term), so they can examine your retina quite well)
- eye pressure (+/- 5 mins)
- talks
Hope you're helped with this information...
Greetz,
Thom
Paul 24 Feb 2005, 06:11
Can anyone tell me what to expect on a 1st visit to an orthoptist? My eye doctor is sending me to see one as I have been having slight double vision on and off and she cant find the problem
Bored 15 Feb 2005, 15:03
Richard: Can you point me in the direction of this "clinical evidence". Clinically, I find most people with the type of symptoms described to have a small amount of hyperopia when cyclopleged. During refraction they crave minus, hence the term we use, "minus eater", but it all goes away with either Tropicamide or Cyclopentalate.
Tammy 11 Feb 2005, 12:54
Dave, Yes, i believe they are the ones.
Dave 11 Feb 2005, 12:39
Tammy are these the ones?
http://www.framesdirect.com/framesfp/Eyewear-lcmgsa/r.html
Tammy 11 Feb 2005, 12:27
Well, i got a compliment on my new glasses today, so i guess i really didn't need to complain about them.
Tammy 11 Feb 2005, 08:18
Katy, Yes, my new glasses are brown plastic frames.
Katy 10 Feb 2005, 16:53
Tammy - are they plastic frames? They sound great. I got some dark brown plastic ones that are a bit dramatic and it took me about a week to get used to how they look - but I love them now :-)
Tammy 10 Feb 2005, 15:47
Well, Tuesday i got my new glasses. They weren't what i expected them to be like. When i went in to pick them out, i fell in love with these frames right away when i saw them on the rack. I had to have them. When i tried them on before ordering them, the receptionist said that they looked good on me, that is why i got these frames. That day there was only the receptionist there to help me pick out my new frames, the optician is only there 2 days a week, and my grandpa didn't want to help me pick them out. I must say that these frames are different from what i've ever had in the past. They are a limited Edition frame. The color of the frames is called brown crystal, and the name of the frame is Manhattan. The lenses are kinda a rectangular shape, only they are wider towards the outside of the frame, and more narrower towards the inside of the frame. The lenses are also high index plastic and about a 1/4 of an inch thick on the outer edges. I will get used to how they look on me, and please forgive me for complaining. At least i can see!
Richard 08 Feb 2005, 14:13
I think John's theory is right - there's clinical evidence to back up the concept of 'almost myopia' leading to real myopia.
John 08 Feb 2005, 09:48
Bored -
"Almost" nearsighted is an expression, pretty obvious I think, for someone whose refraction has gone from a low plus (say +0.5 to +1) to Zero or a very low minus (say -0.25). "Almost nearsighted" in the sense that changing focus from near to far takes some time because of how completely the lens needs to relax, and also in the sense that it's likely the person is on their way to becoming nearsighted, even if they currently can see 20/20 in an exam. If you're in this category, you're going to notice that it takes a few seconds to see clearly in the distance after looking at things up close, and this isn't something that used to happen to you. This is not to say the hyperopia theory couldn't be correct, but the very-low-myopia theory does fit the symptoms.
Puffin 07 Feb 2005, 18:38
I think "almost long sighted" means when you are long sighted but your accomodation is just about enough to cover up for the undercorrection of the natural lens.
Then either your accomodation ability goes down and it can't make up for the unchanged amount of hyperopia, or else the hyperopia gets worse and you're stuck the other way, and it's time to visit the optician.
DNM 07 Feb 2005, 17:38
Thanks!
Katy 07 Feb 2005, 17:10
D.N.M - it is where they paralyse the accomdation muscles with eyedrops so they can see whether there is any latent hypermetropia that is being hidden by the patient accomodating over it.
D.N.M. 07 Feb 2005, 16:40
I'm sorry, but what exactly is a cycloplegic refraction?
thanks
Bored 07 Feb 2005, 15:10
John, what the heck does "almost" near-sighted mean. Either you are or you are not. Willy's right, he just doesn't know why. She's has a small hyperopic Rx and is suffering from accommodative spasm. Andrew, I bet your friend did not have a cycloplegic refraction, almost all of those with symptoms of dist. blur following extended near work are hyperopic when cyclopleged.
Hollie 05 Feb 2005, 13:06
Kate
I had a similar thing about a year before I got glasses, switching from board to book was difficult. A few months after this the board started to get blurry and I had an eyetest, resulting in a mild prescription for shortsightedness. So Andrew is probably right.
Andrew 05 Feb 2005, 12:36
About a year ago, I would have said long-sighted, Kate, but someone I know was complaining of exactly the same sort of thing. I managed to persuade her to get her eyes tested, and she came back with a prescription of -0.25 and -0.5; she got it filled as she was getting headaches from switching from near to far and back. Result? No more headaches. She's about due for a check-up, I reckon, so it'll be interesting to see if/how her eyes have changed in the last year.
John 04 Feb 2005, 20:16
Kate -- Willy is probably wrong. More likely, you are *almost* nearsighted. This is a normal symptom of someone just before they become more noticably nearsighted. (When you are a little farsighted, it's easier for the eyes to relax *enough* to see clearly in the distance. When your eyes are just barely emmetropic, almost nearsighted, they have to relax ALL THE WAY in order to see clearly in the distance, and this can take a few seconds or even several minutes.
Are you someone who would like to have to wear glasses, or someone who wouldn't?
Willy 04 Feb 2005, 13:08
Kate -- Of course, another even more commmon symptom of hyperopia would be headache or eyestrain from reading. If you have been experiencing that, then all of us here would certainly recommend an eye exam...
Willy 04 Feb 2005, 13:03
Kate -- You would be farsighted rather than nearsighted; if you were nearsighted, you would not be able to focus on distant materials regardless of how long you looked at them. From your post, it sounds like you are not at the age where presbyopia is hitting yet. Time in changing focus from near to far can be a symptom of farsightedness, so it may make sense to get an exam. If you do, let us know how it goes.
Kate 04 Feb 2005, 12:14
I have been noticing that when I'm reading a book or looking at my notes in class and then looking up to the overhead or powerpoint screen, it takes a few seconds to focus, does that mean I'm nearsighted or farsighted?
Digger 02 Feb 2005, 11:15
Yes, one sphere and one cylinder is just an approximation. I read somewhere about a scientist who built lenses to correct all of the refractive error of his eyes, which he measured with a laser. When he tried them he had fantastic acuity, 20/10 or maybe 20/5, literally eagle-eyed. Must have been a strange sensation. It would seem that the retina is not the limiting factor.
Puffin 01 Feb 2005, 17:00
Maybe you have a bit of secondary astigmatism, ie in another plane to the first bit.
01 Feb 2005, 16:30
You probably need more minus sphere.
Val 31 Jan 2005, 21:44
Maybe your best corrected vision is 20/15 or even 20/10.
31 Jan 2005, 16:56
I was playing with my wife's glasses and found that her left lens rotated gives me better distance vision than my own.
Hers: OS -0.25 -1.50 x 080
Mine: OS +0.25 -1.25 x 023
My own prescription is up to date and gives me 20/20 vision. I can't imagine why hers would be better.
big ES fan 31 Jan 2005, 08:55
I hit the wrong button.
big 31 Jan 2005, 08:53
Niall, I prefer the green and red test because for me it seems to be more accurate. I'm farsighted with moderate astigmatism. I'ts been awhile but if I remember right, as they add plus power the green gets clearer and the red gets out of focus, and just the opposite with minus. I asked the eye doctor and he said each color has a different wave length which your eyes focus on differently. If they use the clearest green reading you will leave with a higher plus power. It's hard to get some doctors to use this test because they get more complaints of too much plus power and they have to remake your glasses. I'm sure someone else here can explain this better than me.
Niall 31 Jan 2005, 05:58
Does anyone out there know what the circles using the green and red backgrounds in an eye test show? Sometimes when I go to the optician they only use the letter (snellen chart?) but others seem to be obsessed with using this green/red distinction!! Does it give a more accurate reading then the straightforward letters test and which one is suppose to be clearer becasue I can never tell the difference!!
Phil 31 Jan 2005, 00:46
Well done Hollie: an inspiration to us all! Just Clare and I to go!!
Hollie 30 Jan 2005, 15:22
I must admit, it wasn't that bad. But still feels very odd whenever I go out somewhere and realise I still have my glasses on! Not that many comments from people, except my boyfriend, who asked why I was wearing them now, and I told him I was fed up with not being able to see clearly. He said 'You've managed up till now' which I thought was a bit rich coming from someone whos a fulltime wearer at -1, but there you go!
Hopefully, in june or july will be able to go back to contacts again.
Bespectacled Professor 30 Jan 2005, 11:12
Good for you, Hollie.
Bet it wasn't nearly the problem you thought it was going to be.
Hollie 30 Jan 2005, 07:55
I have finally give into it- have been wearing my glasses fulltime for 5 days now!
I'm still getting used to it- am loving the clear view but the fact they are there on my face most of the day is still new to me.
The first day I wore them was on wednesday, to a tutorial, and I always wear them there, so not much different. But on friday, I wore them to a nightclub- something I thought I would never do! Have been wearing the plastic pair because you can't see the lens thickness with them, which is good.
Can't believe I actually had the guts to do this, am quite proud of myself actually!
Helen 30 Jan 2005, 03:16
Hi, I just found this site and I didn't know anything like this existed on the internet!
Me and my three sisters all wear glasses, all the time. We don't really like wearing them but our parents won't let us get contacts (we are twins aged 14 and 2 others me, I'm 15, and the other 12) because they say we are not old enough. My parents can't believe we all need to wear glasses because they don't!
26 Jan 2005, 18:02
Puffin,
Whose glasses are you referring to as pointless? Katy's bf or guest's friend or both???
Puffin 26 Jan 2005, 17:14
I think glasses that weak are fairly pointless - unless you are making money from making glasses.
Katy 26 Jan 2005, 16:34
Kay - my bf has -0.5 cyl in both eyes and says things are just as clear with or without his glasses - he can't tell the difference. He just wears them because they have prism in them.
-- 26 Jan 2005, 16:11
guest, her prescription is primarily for astigmatism
Brian-16 26 Jan 2005, 14:58
Prism Desirer- Be careful in going for prism rx.Start low around 2d or 3d base out.
guest 26 Jan 2005, 14:36
Kay,
I asked a similar question the other day and got no reply. I have a friend with a prescription of R- plano, -.50 cyl and L- +75, -1.00cyl. She has excellent distance vision that is at least 20/20 and yet she wears them for distance vision even though she can see all kinds of things without her glasses that the rest of us have to strain to see. Does anyone know what her prescription is really for and can explain it. Does she even need this??
-- 26 Jan 2005, 14:24
for me (-.5 cyl) the difference seems to be between 20/15 and 20/30 (befoee I started wearing lenses with cyl), but then I am in my 40s now, and this is sort of new, so maybe I will end up with more. When I was younger I was 20/15 w/o glasses, now I am low plus, lower cyl, medium add.
I can read without the cyl, but then I get headaches
Kay 26 Jan 2005, 14:07
Many people write here about prescription of weak cylinders (0.5 or less) standalone or as addition to sphere. Eye doctors from my country treat astigmatism
0.5 and below as "physiological" and don't want to prescribe correction. They say "You don't need this!".
Does somebody know about acuity with prescribed weak cylinder glasses? How acuity better with cyl than without?
Prism desirer 25 Jan 2005, 14:12
Thanks Prism user. I'd love to try wearing prism. I'm intrigued, as many of us here, about what the experience of various lenses is like. And yes, I would like to be more dependent on my glasses, as strange as that might sound to some.
Spexman: How have you got on trying out prism?
Phil 25 Jan 2005, 00:49
Cooper I have varifocals with a +2 add. But still take glasses off to read, assuming I've had them on in the first place! Even the optician admits that a myope like me will always see better to read without any correction.
Cooper 24 Jan 2005, 17:09
Phil, have you given any thoughts to getting bifocals?
fulltime wearer 21 Jan 2005, 08:24
Also, I agree with phil- once I went fulltime going without seemed much harder than before because my eyes were used to having the correction. But you guys should try it- its definitely worth a bit of embarrassment at first to be able to see everything clearly with relaxed eyes, no headaches....glasses are great!
fulltime wearer 21 Jan 2005, 08:23
At first when I started wearing glasses fulltime, I was scared of what people would think. But I have some great frames and feel much better and more confident when I can see everything clearly. When I take them off I feel like you do when you have them on phil, quite awkward, because I think I must squint and just generally it irritates me not being about to see things really clearly. I guess it helps that my boyfriend loves me in glasses, he thinks they really suit me and knew I needed them before I got them because he would often have to point out things in the distance to me.
Phil 21 Jan 2005, 07:49
Yes Clare, exactly. I would think that you looked great wearing yours but worried that I looked terrible wearing mine! I do like to see clearly though. Putting on a new pair of specs with an increased rx is great. So I am just a mixed up chap!!
Clare 21 Jan 2005, 05:10
... and Phul, are youlike me - really glasses on others but not on yourself?
Clare 21 Jan 2005, 05:08
Phil I do agree with you about getting used to them and so not being able to go without. Can you explain the difference though between my vanity and your awkwardness/embarrassment? - aren't they a symptom of the same issue? I guess in the end what matters is how much clarity you need eh?
Phil 21 Jan 2005, 04:23
Clare, My rx is slightly higher than your new one (-3.5 and -3.25) and I don't wear full-time. For me it's not vanity but more embarrassment or awkwardness. We OOs make so much of glasses that we think that it is hugely significant whether we are wearing or not. That is something the rest of the world just can't understand! I also think that once one does wear fulltime it must be harder to imagine what it is like not to (whatever one's rx). If I wear for a whole day I just can't see anything when I take my specs off!
Clare 21 Jan 2005, 01:34
fulltime wearer - vanity I guess and a desire to put it off as long as possible. I'd never had any guidance from an optician before so I asked this time and he said that it would be helpful (!) to wear them for all distance activities. So the advice wasn't to wear fulltime but just often I think. I usually wear contacts, I just can't make that leap to wearing glasses all the time when I'm not. Hey, I get by!
fulltime wearer 21 Jan 2005, 01:15
Clare, I think my prescription card just says -2.25 under a box saying 'sph'. The 'cyl' box is empty.
How come you don't wear fulltime? The optician told me my eyes were bad enough to benefit from fulltime wear, and I guess they are the ones in the know.
Prism user 20 Jan 2005, 23:25
Prism Desirer:
Why do you only desire them?
Why not have them?
They won't hurt you if you don't need them. If you end up crosseyed from continous wear, then you probably needed them in the first place.
Val 20 Jan 2005, 22:20
experimenter, yes, a change in degree makes a difference.
experimenter 20 Jan 2005, 19:48
Hi, my actual Rx is
R: +0.75 sph
L: +1.00 -0.50 25 deg
As an experiment I got a pair slightly stronger:
R: +1.00 -0.25 180 deg
L: +1.25 -0.50 25 deg
I'm trying them out and experiencing slight headaches, though I can see fine. Is it from the higher plus or from the new cylinder in the right eye? Would a change in degrees make a difference? Thanks.
Clare 20 Jan 2005, 15:40
Actually makes little difference, but I was -2.50 not -2.25 ... sorry not concentrating! I'm sure no-one cares but me.
Clare 20 Jan 2005, 15:33
fulltime wearer - otherwise known as astigmatism ...
fulltime wearer 20 Jan 2005, 15:26
what is cylinder?
Clare 20 Jan 2005, 15:15
Hi fulltime wearer – I recently graduated from –2.25 to –2.75. I’ve been a regular contacts wearer for the last couple of years but never a fulltime glasses wearer so without contacts often means without correction for me. Yes, you’re right, it is a blurry world without them but one that I think you can adapt to if you choose. There are times when I don’t have my contacts in that I’d love to wear glasses instead, but I’m vain so I put up with it until it becomes an absolute necessity.
Does your prescription include any cylinder?
fulltime wearer 20 Jan 2005, 06:53
I am a first-time visitor to this site and was just reading the posts on this thread. My prescription is -2.25 both eyes and I wear my glasses all the time, I was told to by the optician and also I really can't see without them! I can't understand how people who are -3 or even -4 can manage, I broke my glasses and had to go without them for a day once, it was really annoying and couldn't even see peoples faces in the street til they were really close!
Am I weird that I wear glasses fulltime with -2.25? People must be walking around in a blurry world if they go without their glasses!
Hollie 19 Jan 2005, 07:01
Hi all
Haven't been on this thread for a while as I didn't have internet access. Someone asked me if I wore glasses for my job, well I'm a student, and I definitely wear them for lectures. I also usually wear them for my tutorials, even though most of its close work, in case I can't make something out. But the rest of the time- pretty much no. Usually on the computer, but not usually for reading unless its small type/ my eyes are tired, because when I'm tired everything seems to be more blurry- is this normal? I put my glasses on at night if I'm not going anywhere just to relax my eyes. So, in fact, I guess I do wear them quite a bit!! Yesterday I went for lunch with them on, and when I was in the queue, noticed I could read the menu board from where I was standing and realised I had left my glasses on. One of my friends commented on them, and asked to try them (she wears glasses herself, just for distance, probably about -1 I would guess) and said she could see through them OK but they felt like they were 'pulling' her eyes. She is one of the first people I have come across that hasn't commented on the strength! Maybe that means she needs a stronger rx- she squints a fair bit at distant stuff I noticed, and often wears her glasses for the computer.
Bespecatcled professor, how did you get to the -4 figure? I presumed my sight wasn't much different from someone with just my sphere, which is -3.50 and -3.25.
Spexman 18 Jan 2005, 12:01
Prism desirer
Hello !!
No I don´t think so I have made up a pair for goc with minus 14 and 2 d prism out each, which I wear sometimes but they don´t real good it should be more correct measured and calculated then I have done..PD vs amount of prism and strong hi index lenses is not best to mess with...I was I think more interested in how she so fast could tolerate that pretty strong + glasses she had been wearing without needing them I can´t even see with + 1 at distance and on the other hand never tried for longer times either..
Tammy 18 Jan 2005, 08:07
Guest, Yes i do know that!
Tom, Thank you for your kind words.
Tom 18 Jan 2005, 02:26
Tammy, I would like to meet girl with glasses like yours. I imagine you're beautiful!
I wish you to have perfect vision with your new pair.
guest 17 Jan 2005, 21:45
Tammy,you know most of us here can only dream about a girl like you.I'm sure you'll look great in your new glasses.Take care
Tammy 17 Jan 2005, 20:13
Guest, Oh, you would like to eat them, huh? lol :)
I'm in a good mood, what can i say? I know you are really saying that they sound very nice and like the Rx! Thanks very much!
guest 17 Jan 2005, 20:06
Tammy,your glasses sound YUMMI!!!
Tammy 17 Jan 2005, 19:47
Well, today i picked out my new glasses. I chose some brown plastic frames, with rectangular shaped lenses, which are kinda similar to the ones i am currently wearing, except that my new glasses will be plastic, not metal, and a little bit bigger in size. They also will be a little bit lighter in color. Again the Rx that's going to be in them is OD -15.00 x +1.00 x 180 and OS -14.00 x +2.00 x 045 add both side +3.00. I will get them in about 4 to 6 weeks...i know that's a long wait, but she told me that my new glasses could come in much earlier than that.
Prism desirer 17 Jan 2005, 14:55
Spexman: Are you thinking of starting with prism?
Spexman 17 Jan 2005, 11:33
Hello Katy and thanx for your help it was correct..I had forgotten where it was posted.. It was in lenses
I find it very interesting it would be even more interesting to know how old she was when doing this..And also more in detail know how long time it took to get used to this +3.50 something she got from her friend..
Maybe it´s easier to "ruin" your vision by using + glasses then with minus glasses if you don´t need them at all and then if you also add prism then.....
Jules 16 Jan 2005, 17:37
Ok, perhaps this is the wrong forum for this question...
Today, I bought some glasses at Lenscrafters (some really funky tianium half-rimless ones - quite cool!). My prescription is -5.25 in both eyes. I was floored when my final bill was $407.00 (that included a $100 discount, from insurance). The frames were $170, 1.67 lenses $260, and AR coating was $70. Granted, they have the 30-day return policy. However, I feel like I could do better, price-wise. Searching through various websites, it seems that the same lenses and AR coating aren't NEARLY as much. What do you guys think? I'm sort of weary about purchasing online - and I can't find the same frames anywhere :-( (I believe the brand/model number is Hikari 4687 - perhaps this is a Lenscrafters-only brand?). I really like these glasses, but I'm such a tightwad. Help?!?!
16 Jan 2005, 14:26
I think it was Larissa's friend, but was with minus lenses.
Katy 16 Jan 2005, 13:49
Spexman - was it Zane, in Lenses, 19 Nov 04? Don't think Zane is a girl's name but could be.. :-)
Spexman 16 Jan 2005, 12:42
Hello I just wanted to ask for some info and help...There was a girl a while ago who had used a friends + glasses with prism and who had got depended on them afterwards... Ihave checked many of the threads and spend a lot of time but not found it..Is there some one who remember it and can give me knowledge about where to find it again ??
15 Jan 2005, 19:11
Brian-16 15 Jan 2005, 12:49
Tammy-The reason I asked is because my parents do not have 20/20 with their glasses and their rx is slightly less than mine.I already have 20/25 in my right eye,and strain to see 20/20 with my left eye even when I get examined.
Tammy 15 Jan 2005, 10:25
Brian-16, As far as i know, i used to have 20/20 vision with my glasses...i don't really know, as i only became interested in my Rx a short time before i found Eye Scene, and that's probally been about 4 or 5 years ago. I've been with ES now so long that i actually have lost count of how many years i've been with this website.
-- 15 Jan 2005, 07:00
they must be making some improvements in lenses - my good friend, who is a very high myope, told me that her latest prescription has her seeing 20/20 out of both eyes for the first time in years. She is very much relieved. They are sv high index lenses.
Brian-16 15 Jan 2005, 05:39
Tammy-Did you ever have 20/20 vision with glasses? I asked because by the time I get out of college in four years or so,my rx will probably be like yours.I am just under -12d now.
Tammy 14 Jan 2005, 16:13
Me again. I forgot to mention that when I was given my new paper Rx today, i asked what my visual acuity would be with the new glasses, and i was told that i would be 20/30 in both eyes with the new glasses. This is good, since with my old glasses, i was corrected to 20/40 in the left eye and 20/50 in the right.
Tammy 14 Jan 2005, 10:36
I had my eye exam today, and i got a new Rx. My old Rx is OD -15.50 x +1.00 x 090 and OS -13.00 plano with an add of +3.00 in both lenses.
My new Rx is OD -15.00 x +1.00 x 180 and OS -14.00 x +2.00 x 045. I still have an add of +3.00 on both sides.
I haven't picked out my new glasses yet.
Wayne_D 13 Jan 2005, 22:56
Mary,
I believe your question about the difference in contact lens strength versus glasses has been on the board before. I remember the answer to be that the stronger your correction the greater the differential will be between contact lenses and glasses. In low prescriptions there is little or no difference between the two.
guest 13 Jan 2005, 22:54
Luke
How strong is your rx and do you wear glasses all the time now?
Luke 13 Jan 2005, 20:47
Clare - "other issues"...well, lots of things, probably, but an example (and probably a typical one) is that I somewhat frequently hesitate to go ask a colleague at work a question. There will be something we are working on that I figure they know about. I will figure that it is something I probably should already know, and I don't ask them because I don't want them to think badly of me. Obviously, the productive approach is to ask; ignorance is combatted by learning, not by remaining ignorant. But my silly fear gets in the way; it's largely the same as the glasses/vanity thing.
Andy 13 Jan 2005, 14:42
Julian, I'm not really sure why I waited so long for a second eyetest. I knew my eyes were getting worse and I did wear my older glasses more often, although most of the time I still went without. For a few months before I knew that I should book an appointment to get new glasses, but for one reason or another I never got round to it. It was only when I was about to be 17 and was going to start driving I finially got round to it. Although I knew my vision was getting worse, I don't think I really noticed how much worse it had got. It was only when I got my glasses and started wearing them I realised this.
Clare 13 Jan 2005, 13:23
Luke - you're right. I'd love to be liberated and confident enough to make that choice and disregard everyone else! If I'm tired sometimes the last thing I want to do is put in CLs and that's when I'll go without and put up with it. The optician said sometimes you may not want to wear them if you're tired or your eyes are dry, but I don't think that meant go without anything! That's okay when I'm just at my desk.
Sounds like you made good progress though, so what are your issues?
Andrew 13 Jan 2005, 13:06
My glasses are -7.75 and -7.50; my contacts are -6.25 (both eyes). There will be a difference between the two, simply because of the distance the glasses are away from the eyes, but how great that difference is seems to vary. I used to have contact lenses which were -7, and I was beginning to feel I needed readers to go with them. I can now see perfectly well with the reduced power contacts, and have, I hope, put off the readers for a little while yet.
glfc 13 Jan 2005, 07:45
Mary, your prescription is similiar to mine and your increase was similiar to my increase last summer. How old are you? I'm 19. My Rx is R:-5.25 L:-4.75 My Acuvue contacts I use to play sports are R:-5.00 and L-4.50. It probably depends on how well your vision is with your contacts. If you could see well with those contacts, then it's fine.
Best,
glfc
Mary 13 Jan 2005, 07:29
Oh yeah - forgot to mention! - I am going to get my prescription filled at Lenscrafters (Due to the fact that they have a 30-day return policy.). How can I tell if my prescription is slightly overcorrected (If it is!)?
Mary 13 Jan 2005, 07:20
I just got a new prescription: -5.25 in both eyes (no astigmatism). However, my contacts prescription is -4.50 in both. My previous glasses prescription was -4.25 in both eyes, while my contact prescription was -4.00.
I have yet to get my glasses prescription filled. Does this contrast in diopters, between glasses and contacts, seem a bit much? I've never had more than -.25 difference between glasses and contacts. My vision, with the contacts, seems perfectly fine. I also switched from Surevue to Acuvue Advance contacts, but would that make any difference?
Luke 13 Jan 2005, 06:02
Clare, Hollie -- Having been a person who wore contacts for years and was always self-conscious about wearing glasses, but then made the switch to (almost) full-time wear, I have to admit that situations like yours do sort of pain me. Because a month or so of full time wear pretty much allowed me to get over myself and grow up (that's how I see it for myself, looking back) a little. I'm definitely a lot more free now...I actually have a choice whether to wear glasses or contacts. I think that's the real point: if you're -3ish or more and you're not wearing correction most of the time, I think that means you do NOT feel like you have a choice -- you don't really feel free to make the choice that would be the most comfortable to you (because of what you think someone else might think - and there's no denying this is the case for you two, since you have no issue with wearing contacts all the time). Don't get me wrong...while I got over my issues about wearing glasses, I know I have other issues that are similar (worrying about what people think, even though I shouldn't care). I hope that as time goes on, I can get over those things too, but we'll see. But I guess I can sympathize with B.P's over-aggressive attitude because the gain to be had by getting comfortable wearing glasses all the time (the gain: a *real* choice) is really quite substantial - and the process to get there is (potentially) pretty simple. (Simple means 'not complex'; it does not necessarily mean 'easy'. I know.)
guest 12 Jan 2005, 13:58
Hollie what job do you do - do you find you really need them for work or do you already wear them there? Hope you get back into contacts soon. Best.
Clare 12 Jan 2005, 13:36
Some people here might groan as I enter this debate as I've whinged on about it for ages. They key words here are 'manage' and 'choice' both imply a strong degree of subjective interpretation. It's only when personal safety is at risk that that choice should be removed. I could 'manage' okay, as long as I didn't drive, no doubt I'd get to where I needed to go - not comfortably maybe - but it certainly would be possible. Then again I might choose not to put up with it but to be 'sensible' and wear my glasses, that'd certainly be the best and easiest option. I admire people who can accept it on terms this simple, Hollie, Phil and I probably wish we could too!
no name 12 Jan 2005, 10:33
actually, PF makes a valid point about people who don't wear their glasses and constantly rely on thier friends to read or see things for them. I always respond politely and helpfully, but after a couple of times, I begin to resent it, just as I do when friends ask me to carry extra things for them because they assume I am stronger (I might be because I don't expect others to carry my load), or pay more because they think I am richer (I'm not, I'm just more careful with my money) After a couple of times I feel resentful that they have assumed that I should continually cater to thier needs.
Of course, they probably don't realise (or care) that I feel this way, they just laugh or say "I'm so blind" when I sugggest that they should get or wear glasses. Sorry, but it's true.
Phil 12 Jan 2005, 09:57
Bespectacled Professor. You are being far too hard on Hollie. Who are you to tell her what she "should" do? Adoption of an affected title does not legitimise your inconsiderate tone. Do you not realise that for most of us here whether or not to wear glasses fulltime is a difficult decision, not necessarily to be determined only by reference to how well we can see without them?
Bespectacled Professor 12 Jan 2005, 09:46
Hollie,
With your astigmatism, your prescription is effectively -4. That's a strong prescription to go without glasses. Look at what you have said in the last few days. First, you say that you need to wear glasses for reading depending on the size type. If you are nearsighted and have to wear your glasses for reading, then you should be wearing them fulltime.
Second, you have to have people act as your eyes while you are out. I'm sure your boyfriend (and other friends) point stuff out for you because they care for you. On the other hand, they would be doing you more of a favor if they told you to put your glasses on.
You say you are able to manage without your glasses. I think you are just fooling yourself.
Hollie 12 Jan 2005, 07:31
Its not getting used to glasses I have a problem with- I've worn them for 5 years. And the only reason I'm wearing them now is because I can't wear contacts for about 6 months because I have a problem with my eyes.
Clare, yes it is very annoying out and about- especially after getting used to having correction full-time when I wore contacts. I must admit that even I will put my glasses on when I go shopping- I have to get too close to the price tages for it to be practical without. I can imagine, since you're nealy at -3, that you have similar problems too. I usually manage on nights out- but then I will ask my boyfriend and friends where stuff is! Wearing glasses to go shopping is one thing, but i know I would never wear them on a night out- it feels wrong to wear them when I know I can manage without.
Clare 11 Jan 2005, 11:43
There are plenty of people who feel the same and I'm one of them. It's horrible when people make you feel embarrassed, I had that last week. Two occasions in fact on the same night - the first pointing to something in the garden, my friend said "you can see that can't you?", I said, honestly "no, not from here" and she made a comment, not meant unkindly though. Then later in the evening she was pointing out a large new family photo on the wall and I got up to take a closer look, my friend (who has 20/20 vision) said "you're eyesight must be bad". I know her well enough not to care really, her husband wears glasses and thinks his -1.75 is strong so she must be kind of used to it.
But Hollie, if you don't wear glasses even when you're out and about, you must find it pretty difficult?
11 Jan 2005, 09:18
Hollie,
It's pretty normal to be uncomfortable with glasses at first. I'm sure your boyfriend will gwet used to you in glasses (he might even really really like you in glasses, but doesn't want to appear too "eager" so he says he hopes you don't need to wear them all the time. At first its really odd to feel them and see them, but you get used to it! If you have pierced earrings, you can remember how wierd they felt at first! After a while your glasses will sort of feel like comfy slippers. Just wear them enough so that your eyes will be used to them and you can wear them without having to adapt to distance blur each time.
Or get contacts if you prefer. or both.
Bespectacled Professor 11 Jan 2005, 08:36
Hollie,
I understand your reluctance to wear glasses fulltime. But, if your eyes are bothering you because you are not wearing them, then you should wear them.
Hollie 11 Jan 2005, 07:00
Bespectacled professor
My boyfriend wears glasses fulltime, so he can't be hypocritical about it I suppose. The only negative comment h has ever made is that they get in the way of my 'pretty eyes' so he prefers it when I wear contacts. To be honest, I don't wear specs around him that much unless we are watching a DVD or I'm driving.
I'm not really sure why I don't want to go fulltime. Going back to my boyfriends dad, I was at their house last week, no correction, and he asked me what I thought of a new picture he had bought. I must have squinted to see it (it was pretty blurry) and he said, 'Put your specs on Hollie, honestly, its no good wandering around half-blind!' I was mortified, because his entire family was there, and it started a conversation about glasses, during which his dad took his glasses off and gave them to me, asking whether I could see now. I mumbled that I could, and his mum commented, 'You must have a strong prescription'. I said something about it not being very strong really and how I had left my glasses in the car, which seemed to end the embarrassing discussion. But, despite the embarrassment of that, that is the only time when I would feel more comfortable with my glasses on. most times, I feel much more comfortable bare-eyed. I think the whole not wanting to wear them fulltime thing is purely because I don't want to be seen to rely on glasses. With contacts, its a different story and no-one can see them in your eyes. I know its silly and vain, but I'm sure there must be other people who feel like this and not just me!
Neil 10 Jan 2005, 14:36
Katy it's -3. U?
Bespectacled Professor 10 Jan 2005, 11:45
Hollie,
I suspect you are realizing that despite your reluctance to wear glasses fulltime (when not wearing contacts) that your eyes are telling you something different. Would your boyfriend have a negative reaction if you decided to go to fulltime wear? Why do you think you are reluctant to go fulltime if everyone knows you wear glasses and that they already think the glasses are strong?
Hollie 10 Jan 2005, 02:46
A few people who are non-wearers have tried them on, but mostly people who have a weaker prescription than mine commenting that they're strong. I suspect it may be the astigmatism too which makes them seem strong. My boyfriends dad has a similar prescription to mine and when he tried my glasses on he couldn't believe I didn't wear them full-time as he said I must be 'blind' without them.
I agree with you about the looking over the top of your frames thing though, everything seems to 'jump' back into focus. Its been difficut for me to go from fulltime wearing back to part-time as my eyes were very used to the correction. The astigmatism bothers me quite a bit- headaches from concentrating on things etc.
Are you wearing your new glasses more Clare? Interestingly, when I got to -2.25 -0.75, the optician told me to wear full-time, I guess even with the atigmatism this is weaker than your prescription, so maybe all opticians think this type of rx is qute strong.
first time wearer 09 Jan 2005, 15:12
yes very relaxing i even seem to lose my place less when reading
VisitBoy 09 Jan 2005, 14:19
Interesting to read what Clare and Hollie have said about what is defined as strong. I'd have strong lenses by the Moorfields guy's definition, but I'd consider them mid-range.
The opticians will try anything to get you to pay more for lenses, though. I wanted standard lenses - not high-index - but was told that "they'll look ugly". It's difficult then to differ, as you'd be saying, in effect "I want to buy an ugly product". Well I got my standard lenses and they look fab!
09 Jan 2005, 14:08
Hollie & Clare
Gorgeous
-oo- 09 Jan 2005, 12:23
firt time wearer: you are not imagining it! The cyl correction makes this so. You will probably get a bit more next time - this doesn't mean your eyes will get worse, they usually don't prescribe it all the first time. it's kind of nice snd more relaxing isnt it?
first time wearer 09 Jan 2005, 12:19
just got glasses today - weak prescription - 0.25 sph 05 cyl in both eyes.
in terestingl even things close up look a bit sharper and more detailed or am i imagining it?
George1968 09 Jan 2005, 11:48
Clare,
Glad you were pleased with your updated glasses. I guess what you have learned in the past year is that if you have those times where you can't or don't want to wear contacts, wearing your glasses will be OK.
I'd agree with your eye doctor's advice, that if you are without contacts to wear glasses when walking around out of the house. After all, we don't want to lose your input around here ;)
Katy 09 Jan 2005, 10:04
Neil, what's your rx?
Neil 09 Jan 2005, 09:58
My cousin is an optician. He encouraged me to make the change to full time wear. His view was that if you arent seeing as well as you should, glasses can cure the problem so why wouldn't you want to wear them. He said to me that whether you wear them or not you won't make your eyesight worse. I have to trust him on that one as after just two months i'm struggling without them now. I don't have an issue with wearing them at all and hopefully people will get used to it in time.
Tammy 09 Jan 2005, 09:42
My eye exam has been rescheduled for January 14, 2005.
Clare 09 Jan 2005, 09:02
Surprised me too Hollie. It suprised me back in the summer, that's why I asked yesterday. I wonder whether the pros have a slightly different view? Those of us who visit this site though know that there are lots of people with higher scripts. Those people who say your glasses are strong, are they non-glasses wearers? When I went in for the CL check yesterday the new/old glasses were ready, the assistant suggested I put them on to try them; because I had contacts in though I got a sense of what they must be like for people with 20/20 vision who try them on. Everything's slightly out of focus! I guess if you're not used to that it comes as a bit of a shock. You must get a sense though of how strong they are if you look over the top? I can with -2.75 and your Rx is stronger than mine.
Hollie 09 Jan 2005, 07:07
Thats really interesting Clare. My prescription would be considered fairly strong in your opticians opinion, and other people who try on my glasses seem to think they are strong, but to me it doesn't seem that strong at all, if that makes any sense?
I mean, obviously I can tell the difference from when I was -0.75, but to me it doesn't seem as if my eyesight is horrendously bad, which several friends assume it must be after trying on my glasses.
Clare 08 Jan 2005, 15:02
I went to collect my old glasses with the new prescription today (-2.75) and I asked in a general sense how much he thought I should wear them. I told him that when I went to Moorfields (Eye Hospital) back in the summer they said my vision was 'quite bad' without my glasses. I said that I didn't think it was, was it? He said he thought it was and that -2.75 was quite strong, which surprised me. He reckons that 0 to -1.75 is low, -2 to -3.75 is quite strong and over -4 strong. That surprised me. I told him that, when not wearing contacts, I'm inclined to go without except for driving and matters of personal safety and he patiently explained that he had to recommend that I should wear them for driving, tv, movies etc, that I don't need them around the house or for reading (he must know I already know that!) but he thought it would be a good idea to wear them when I was out, like walking down the street. Sure I understand what he means but concur with Andrew that it's possible to get about even if you don't.
Anyway, that was an interesting conversation and my old/new glasses look just great. I was so pleased with them I wore them to Sainsbury's. And I didn't see anyone I knew, at least to talk to.
Andrew 08 Jan 2005, 14:12
"I'm -2.75 and would struggle in the outside world without them but could get by of course."
I suspect you've hit the nail on the head, Mal. When you are outside, it is more likely that the things you need to focus on are beyond arm's length. Thus, it is helpful to wear some form of correction.
Indoors, however, much of what we do is at much closer range, so it is possible to function without glasses in these circumstances. At work, it rather depends on the type of work as to whether we need them or not, and those with uncomplicated journeys to work may not need them at all. At -7.5, I could easily walk to the bus stop, catch the bus to the station (they all go to the station), and catch the train to London (I think there is only one train a day which does not go to London from the up platform) without any correction at all. If my job involved entirely close work, I could do it, but it is rather uncomfortable holding paper so close to my nose that I can see it clearly. It's a bit like sitting in the front row at the cinema, and you have to keep moving your head to see what's going on!
Tammy 08 Jan 2005, 09:42
BB, thanks for your well wishes as far as my eye exam and vision are concerned.
-oo- 08 Jan 2005, 09:15
I think that is quite common. I started wearing glasses most of the time (and always at work) when I started a new job - now when I see people from the old job, they don't comment on me wearing glasses at all, even though they've never seen me wear them before.
Also, if your first glasses have any power to them, and you are older than student age, then people will generally assume that you have stopped using contacts for the time being.
Whats fun is when people suddenly see you WITHOUT glasses, especially when you haven't worn them for very long. I got more comments the day I showed up without my (fairly new) glasses at the new job (it was snowing hard that morning) than I ever did from poeple who'd never seen me wear them before.
However, if YOU bring it up, people usually are pretty eager to discuss the situation (I guess there are a lot of people out there who are either facinated by glasses, or secretly think they need them!) I've also found that when friends or co-workers show up suddenly wearing glasses and I make a small comment (like "cool glasses") I find that they really want to talk about it! Just never never say something like "You don't really need to wear those!" That is the worst possible thing to hear!
Hollie 08 Jan 2005, 08:44
I always thought when I first started wearing glasses, that most people would comment. But it turns out, hardly any did! I was quite surprised at this. Does this mirror other people's experiences, or have you more comments than me?
Elaine 08 Jan 2005, 02:41
I went to my first eye test, not on my own accord, but because my mum dragged me after my teacher spoke to her.
I was 10 years old at the time, and knew I couldn't see properly cause I had problems seeing the board from the back of the class but I used to lie and tell my teacher I'd better sit in the front cause I was short and had to crane my neck to see behind the taller girls' heads. Well finally I couldn't even see properly from the front row any more (my eyesight had really deteriorated) and I failed a maths test because all the problems I copied from the board were copied wrongly (I had worked them out correctly) and so my teacher spoke to my mum. And off we went to the opticians. And I was given a -4.75 prescription in both eyes!
Julian 08 Jan 2005, 01:27
Andy: you have me slightly puzzled. You got your first glasses at 15. You wore them part time for two years before going for another test - by which time your vision with them was worse than your unaided vision was when you first got them. Getting a new, and more than doubled, prescription, you have cheerfully, not to say enthusiastically, taken to full time wear. Why did you wait so long? You certainly aren't alone; I know other people tell the same kind of story. And, by the way, what made you go for a test and get glasses in the first place? I only ask because I want to know!
Neil 07 Jan 2005, 22:50
I used to hate the comments people made. You must be able to see that/your eyes must be bad/can't you see it? You get comments when you go full time but at least the comments stop then.
Clare 07 Jan 2005, 11:29
Sounds like there are lots more people out there like me after all! Can't say that if I couldn't wear contacts that I'd never wear glasses though.
Maverick 07 Jan 2005, 05:52
Phil, Ive never, that I can recall, avoided driving / sport etc through not wearing correction. All I was saying is that apart from those sort of activities I could function perfectly Ok without glasses. I do wear full time by the way - its just easier and more convenient !
Phil 07 Jan 2005, 05:29
Mal,
I don't ever wear in the house: don't know why. Means I can't really see tv but otherwise ok. Wear out at weekends but not often at work. Bit of an embarrassment thing: can't really explain it.
Mal 07 Jan 2005, 04:07
Maverick do you mean that you've avoided driving and sport because you choose not to wear glasses or just that you wouldn't be able to do them without?
Phil do you venture out without glasses or do you mean that you're happy around the house without them?
I'm -2.75 and would struggle in the outside world without them but could get by of course.
Hollie 07 Jan 2005, 03:38
Until very recently, I would have been one of the people who said you needed correction fulltime at this level. But very recently I found out I can't wear contacts very often for a while, and daft as it may sound, I couldn't face fulltime glasses wearing! So now I wear glasses part-time, probably nealy half the time actually, as my prescription is -3.25 -1.25 and -3.50 -1, which is strong enough to need for lots of things- sometimes I even read with them on, as the book has to be fairly close to me if the type is small!
So yes, she wouldbe able to cope at this rx, its quite surprising that she doesn't wear though as most full-time wearers I know have lower (and some much lower) prescriptions than mine.
Maverick 07 Jan 2005, 01:47
I agree Phil. I'm -2.75 and can function quite happily without correction. Just means things like driving, watching TV / sports etc get put on the back burner.
Its a myth that around these levels you HAVE to wear correction full time. It is probably more convenient to do so but at the end of the day its still personal choice, not necessity.
Phil 07 Jan 2005, 01:04
Phill, I'm -3.5 and -3.25 and I often go without my glasses!
Phill 06 Jan 2005, 23:18
A girl at work says her prescription is -2.25 and -2.75. I've never seen her wear glasses. Is it possible to go without them at this prescription do you think? She says she can't wear contacts.
Andy 05 Jan 2005, 13:04
Hi guest. In terms of the change in my prescription it was two years since I last had an eye test. I am now 17, so perhaps a reasonable jump is normal? Yes, the optician did advise full time wear.
BB 04 Jan 2005, 06:05
Hi Tammy good luck for the incoming year, lets hope your eyes settle down and you have a lot less worry.
jennifer hope your enjoying being a mum, and baby is doing well miss our little chats.
Mari from Spain hope you had a wonderful festive season, hope your final exam results brought you joy, regards to your sister.
I do pray and hope you ll have a well earned new year and may you allbe blessed with happiness. Love to all my friends in eye scene, miss you all.
Bb with Love. xx
Tammy 03 Jan 2005, 14:08
Hi. Just thought i would pop in and let you folks know that i have scheduled an eye exam for January 27th.
guest 03 Jan 2005, 14:06
Andy that's a reasonable increase. How old are you and was wear full time the recommendation from your eye doc?
Andy 03 Jan 2005, 12:25
Neil, I know what you mean. This summer my prescription went up from (left eye) -1.00; -1.25 (right) to -2.50, -0.25, 10 (left eye), -2.75, -0.25, 5 (right) and I started wearing my glasses all the time. I can’t imagine doing without them anymore. I like the clear vision and think I look really good in my glasses.
Over the Christmas and New Year I’ve been doing the round trip of my relatives, loads of whom I haven’t seen since last Easter. I’ve had a variety of different reactions: most of them have made some comment about my glasses. As I tend to forget that I have them on these days, this usually surprises me and makes me feel self-conscious. Some of the comments are fine, such as "I like your glasses" or "You didn't wear glasses before, did you?"; but some have loads of questions some of them can be a bit stupid - along the lines of "Do you really need to wear them?".
I have to say that a few people haven’t actually said anything (I assume that they are either unobservant or do they just accept that getting glasses is a part of the growing up process and doesn’t deserve a comment.
One old aunt was quite rude about them and said that I was young so must be able to see properly and will damage my eyes if I keep wearing them.
Neil 03 Jan 2005, 10:29
What is it about someone wearing glasses for the first time that makes for so many comments I wonder. I went fulltime at the end of last year and was surprised at how many comments I got. And from people who knew I wore them too. What's the problem or perhaps more like why are people so interested? Why do people have to ask so many questions, is it really suich a big deal. Anyone else share this experience at all?
Dom 03 Jan 2005, 05:37
Charlie, I believe that if Anne wanted you to know, she would have told you the last time you asked her that question.
Charles 03 Jan 2005, 05:30
Anne, what about you ? Tell us...
Brian-16 25 Dec 2004, 21:12
Royboy-Yes I believe it is due to my asitgmatism and perhaps weak eye muscle.
royboy 25 Dec 2004, 19:48
sorry filthy
--- i should know how to spell keratoconus considering that i was plagued with it since age 12 and had a corneal graft in my right eye at age 20.
brian --- why r u not fully correctible in your right eye? --- is it due to your astigmatism? i mentioned my right eye prescription is -6.50 cyl -- i cant read close up or distance [even with the correction]. with a -10 cyl i kindve improve distance --- but due to the angle everything is very stretched and my eyes dont fuse --- -6.50 is the most i can tolerate. ive followed your postings about your prism and tri's would actually like to talk to u sometime [email royboy246@mac.com] --- contemplating tri's for my left eye [-8.00 x -1.25 cyl]
Brian-16 25 Dec 2004, 11:14
Royboy-I too am interested if Anne has 20/20 with all the cyl.I have -2.50 cyl in my right eye and have 20/25 vision in my right eye.My doctor (she) says that eye does not "focus"...
"Merry Christmas to one and all !
Filthy McNasty 25 Dec 2004, 11:14
"Keratoconus."
royboy 25 Dec 2004, 10:48
anne --- i am curious with such high astigmatism do glasses give u perfect vision? i have a minus 6.50 cyl in my right eye and am only able to see with a hard lens or 'softperm' [hard lens with soft skirt] i have a condition called 'keraticonis' --- curious if u may have the same condition. if u wish to write me i am at royboy246@mac.com
Charles 24 Dec 2004, 06:21
Anne, agree with Andrew.
But tell us why do you want to wear contacts ? How old are you ?
Thanks.
Andrew 23 Dec 2004, 13:59
Your request may prove tricky, Anne, as the high degree of astigmatism means that you would need toric lenses. In addition, the fit of contacts is much more important to the longer term health of your eyes. I would suggest a proper optician's assessment of what sort of contacts you require (base curve, power, and anything required for the astigmatism) before you attempt to shop around to get the best deal you can. Sorry it's not the answer you want to hear, but I hope it's still good advice.
Anne 23 Dec 2004, 12:33
My prescription is
R sphere +5.50 cyl-2.50 axis 172
L sphere +5.00 cyl -2.75 axis 3
What power contact lens should i order as i want to order them off the net
PLEASE HELP
leelee 15 Dec 2004, 06:44
Since the drug store glasses don't seem to be effecive, then it would point to the cylindar - I just got my prescription increased +.50 for distance and just -.25 for cyl and I was amazed at what a difference it made - I too was having trouble seeing very sharply for distance and close had gotten annoying. Stronger reading glasses were not at all usefull. So it sounds like its time for an exam.
Can you describe how the close material looks blurry? does it slip out of focus completely, or do the letters run together, or are there regions of blur? Or something else? just curious.
How long have you had these glasses? How old are you?
Brian-16 15 Dec 2004, 06:12
Jane-Not sure of your rx,but you might try going to a mall or drug store and buying a pair of reading glsses.Start with a pair you feel comfortable with.
John 15 Dec 2004, 06:06
Jane - It depends *how* hard it is to get your eyes to focus. It's OK if it takes a mental effort. But it shouldn't be a struggle. Reading glasses - probably +2-ish, +3 at the most - would pretty much take away any struggle to focus up close.
Unless the cylinder in your Rx has changed a LOT - which would make things in the distance very blurry - this would not account for difficulty focusing on things up close.
An eye test isn't a bad idea, but if you want to try something on your own, try on some reading glasses at a drug store or grocery store. If you "need" them, you'll find that they help. If they don't help, you don't need them. (You will only be able to see up close with them; things in the distance will be blurry.)
Julian 15 Dec 2004, 00:24
Jane: How long have you had those glasses? it could be that the cylinder component of your prescription needs updating; that could account for blur at all distances. Why not have an eye test and see?
Love and kisses, Jules.
Jane 14 Dec 2004, 17:19
I have been onthis website a few times reading lots of posts. I seem to get quite addicted to it. Anyway, I have a question about my vision. I have glasses (but don't wear them all the time). I think the prescription is: Left +.25, +.25 and Right: -.5, +(?).5. I know they aren't very strong, but I do have trouble seeing long distance with my right eye.
Anyway, my question is about close up work. When I read or do other close up stuff, I often find that it is really hard to make my eyes focus (whether I wear my glasses or not). I printed out some web-based reading charts from websites that sell reading glasses and found that when I don't concentrate on making my eyes focus, even the biggest lines (for prescriptions of +3.5 and +4.) are blurry. DOes this mean that I should be wearing reading glasses even stronger that these?
Nancy 06 Dec 2004, 06:44
Andrew:
My prescription has crept up a little, but not too much, about 1.5 dpt.
Filthy McNasty 25 Nov 2004, 14:57
The most interesting part of that post was the search terms you used (first link).
25 Nov 2004, 14:35
http://umanitoba.fitdv.com/new/articles/article.html?artid=58
25 Nov 2004, 14:34
VisitBoy 24 Nov 2004, 14:14
See http://www.vnunet.com/News/1159455
"Prolonged PC use may cause glaucoma"
Brian-16 21 Nov 2004, 11:01
filo-Personally I have never done it,but may next time.My brother (age 14)is going for his annual eye exam this week and he is going to cheat because he says he wants to get an rx like mine.Right now he is not all that far off from my rx.He may be able to get away with it because come to think of it he is at least 3 months overdue for the exam.
filo 21 Nov 2004, 00:20
Does anyone get embarrassed when they're doing this? /When I've tried it I always feel like they know I'm bluffing. To keep saying you can't quite read it when you know you can is a real test.
Katy 20 Nov 2004, 15:25
Hi Andrew :-)
The test is called 'The +1.00 DS check'- from textbook: 'Visual acuity should drop about 4 lines when a +1.00 DS is placed over the final refraction. Visual acuity should drop to 6/12 or 6/18 in a patient with 6/5 in the final Rx. If the visual acuity only drops to 6/6 or 6/9, then it is likely that the subjective refraction is overminused and should be rechecked.' That's where they catch you! I don't think they would use another lens as they know exactly how far it should drop with the +1.
Andrew 20 Nov 2004, 13:10
Good to hear from you again, Nancy. Is it my memory, or is your plus Rx increasing and if so, why?
Katy, I've never heard of the blur test. How sure can you be that the lens will be a +1, rather than just the first plus lens that comes to hand?
Nancy 20 Nov 2004, 06:48
As an update since I have not posted in a while, my most recent scrips is +15 with a +4 add. My peripheral vision has deteriorated to 22deg. left and 18 deg. right. I am only corrected to around 20/50-60.
This past summer I learned braille. I am still in law school and mostly use a cctv system and screen magnifiers as most law texts are not in braille. I did get a guide dog over the summer so now really look like the blind girl with the thick glasses (usually dark glasses) and a dog.
Katy 19 Nov 2004, 10:58
Steven - if you say that the rings on the red look clearer they will give you more minus. Keep saying red until the green is clearer, and then say they are the same. They might also do a blur test, where they put a +1 lens in front of the correction and check that your acuity drops by 4 lines - so you have to make sure you don't read down any further than 4 lines from the bottom of the chart :-)
Brian- 18 Nov 2004, 11:36
Steven-Yes there is a way or two to do it.One is move your head back a little from the machine he puts in front of your eyes with all the lenses.Or just say you can not read the bottom or 20/20 line clearly.Also some doctors will give you the red / green test.I am not sure which one you tell them is clearer,but some folks on this site know and will proably read and respond to this post.
Luke 18 Nov 2004, 06:16
Andrew,
I totally disagree about 3rd, 4th generation phones. Perhaps they need to find a way to make the towers more visually appealing (or tolerable). But these systems have the potential to offer real benefits...not silly ones like watching a movie (one a 1-inch screen? Come now!), but big things like buying movie tickets while someone is pumping your gas when you're on your way to the theater, or, of course, helping induce more myopia in the young users of these devices...an effect that will be much enhanced if people have to look at them rather than holding them to their ears!
steven 17 Nov 2004, 17:21
i am a low myope with a prescription of L-0.5 -0.5 R -0.5 -0.25 and i am wanting to increase it by at least another -0.5 in each eye. is there any way to fool the optician or any things i things i can do at my eye exam to make me appear slightly more myopic?
Andrew 16 Nov 2004, 14:20
Totally off topic, but I cannot let Puffin's comment pass. The rapid rise in the number of phone masts in my area to cope with 3rd generation phones is alarming. The thought of even more for 4th generation phones is disturbing. I'm more than happy with my first, or is it second, generation phone which does what I need it to do - allow me to make phone calls when and where I need to. Perhaps in this matter, it would be a step forward to take a step backward, and return to the primary purpose of phones, and cut out all the gimmicks.
Sorry everyone, but I had to get that off my chest!
Puffin 16 Nov 2004, 10:33
Yes, there was something about this on the radio news last week, about the 3rd generation phones becoming more widely available. There were doubts whether people would really want to watch a film on such a tiny screen. Surely easier to get it on DVD? And it was pointed out that those who use the 3rd generation phones only did so because the phone calls were cheap.
I found myself idly wondering what the 4th generation phones would do, make toast, for instance? I remember the days when people had phones just to talk to one another. It seems like so long ago - I must be getting old.
squinty 16 Nov 2004, 08:43
I just got some marketing spam from Sprint announcing a new service where you can get TV on your cell phone. I can only imagine the visual impact of watching your cellphone screen for (how many hours a day does the typical westerner watch the boob tube?)
what do you all think the refractive impact of this will be?
"Doc, between the hallogen headlights and the cell phone tv i'm damn near blind!"
Phil 15 Nov 2004, 01:29
Great story Anne. What sort of bifocals do you have in your rimless frames?
hooked 14 Nov 2004, 23:10
Interesting story, Anne.
You should bear in mind:
Boys do like girls in glasses.
Anne 14 Nov 2004, 15:37
As I left the opticians I was about to take my new glasses off when my boy friend said remember what you were told you have to wear them ALL the time now I pulled a face and said ok I will try. As I walked out I could not believe the difference I could see so clear, we then went into a book shop wow I could read without having to get my pocket magnifying glass out. I had no problems getting used to wearing my bifocals and kept wearing them all the time to the delight of my boyfriend he liked my BIG blue eyes.
Two months ago I went for my check up as I was having problems reading again. The same thing was happing at the test more and more lens wear added this time I could see much further down the chart when the optician had finished he then gave me the reading chart to hold and started to add more lens .
When he had finished he said that my sight had got a lot worse and he had decided to try me with my full strength prescription.
R sphere +5.50 cyl-2.50 axis 172 ADD +3.00
L sphere +5.00 cyl -2.75 axis 3 ADD +3.00
I said I wanted to have rimless glasses this time he said that it would not be a good idea as they would be very thick I would not listen and insisted he have them made.
Two days later we went back to collect them I got a great shock when I first saw them they were so thick 10 mm at the out side edge and more in the centre but when I put them on it was as if I were in a different world I could see so much I turn to my boy friend expecting to say they were terrible but to my surprise he said WOW you look fab your eyes are so sexy.
So now I am a permanent bifocal wearer I am now thinking of trying trifocals for work , and getting a pair of rimless reading glasses for reading in bed
Anne 14 Nov 2004, 13:00
Phil.
you will have to wait for part two later tonight
Phil 14 Nov 2004, 12:57
ANNE, YOU ARE A RARE EXAMPLE OF A "YOUNG" BIFOCAL WEARER IN THE UK. wHAT IS YOUR RX? HOW DO YOU GET ON WITH LINED BIFOCALS?
Anne 14 Nov 2004, 09:41
I am 32 years old. I started wearing glasses when I was 8 years old but never wore them as much as I should have as I hated them.
Four years ago I met my present partner he was shocked at how little I could see.
He kept going on and on at me to go for an eye test he said the glasses that I wore where no good they were L1.50 R + 1.75 single vision .We had a big row in the car when I could not see to read the map. I said it was because of the bad light, but to shut him up I said I would let him take me to have a new eye test.
BIG SHOCK I sat looking at the letters or should I say the blur I could just see the second row down with my left eye more and more lens were added but could still not see all the rows of letters .Now he said he was going test my right eye so he covered the other eye. I can still remember the shock Total blur I could not even see the first letter more and even more lens were added then the stopped and asked me if I had had my right eye patched when I was young .no I said Ah you have a lazy right eye he replied I will tell you more when I have finished. He then gave me a hand held chart to read could only make out the top two rows more lens were added could then manage two more lines. I think we will stop now he said.
He said I was hyperopic had a astigmatism and presbyopia and needed new glasses and must wear them ALL the time it was all to much to take in at once so he said chose some new frames I he would get them ready for the next week I he would tell me more about my sight then. BUT I must not drive until I got my new glasses.
The following week I returned with my boy friend for support I was not looking forward to getting my new glasses. What a shock I got when I first saw them the lens were very much thicker than I had been wearing and they had a line through them BIFOCIALS at my age what a shock I got when they were placed on my nose I could see more than I could ever remember then he said read this book wow I said I can see it ( yes he said you are meant to) .I ask what the prescription was L +3.50 R +4.00 with an ADD of 1.50 I was told I would need to come back in 6 months time and to expect a further increase in my prescription.
I will tell you more later, time for tea in UK
Brian-16 14 Nov 2004, 05:18
Cass- The eye doctor would probably write it like this.. 20/30-3
Or if it was only 2 letters you missed it would be 20/30-2.
Your vision is not bad at all.How was your friends vision? How old are the both of you? I know,I am nosy...My right eye corrected is 20/25-1.While my left eye is 20/20.I do not think they make an eye chart big enough for me to see even the top letter..
Charles 14 Nov 2004, 03:10
Anne, if you want reading glasses, your prescription is
+8,50 cyl-2.50 axis 172
+8 cyl -2,75 axis 3
Quite strong prescription. How old are you ? What can of glasses do you wear ?
D-W-V 14 Nov 2004, 02:06
Anne:
The usual add for intermediate distance for trifocals would be half the near add, so for you it would be +1.50. That'll give clear vision up to 66.7 cm from your eyes.
Rather than getting trifocals, you could get a pair of bifocals made up specially for the computer. They'd have the intermediate prescription in the top part, and your reading (near) prescription in the lower segment. This gives the advantage of a really big area to see the screen through, much more than you'd get with any trifocal or progressive lens.
If you were ordering these bifocals online, you could specify:
R sphere +7.00 cyl-2.50 axis 172 ADD +1.50
L sphere +6.50 cyl -2.75 axis 3 ADD +1.50
Cass 13 Nov 2004, 19:14
Good point. The idea for the bet was mine though.
probably 20/40 13 Nov 2004, 17:46
Cass 13 Nov 2004, 17:33
Hi I'm new. My friend has had one of those eyecharts hanging in his room as a decoration forever. The other day he and I made a bet to see who's eyes were better. So we hung the chart on the fridge in the kitchen because it was the only way we could get 20 feet away. His sister was the judge while the other of us left the room. The test delt a double wammy first I lost $5 in a bet and second I found out I need glasses.
So would my eyes be considered. I could only see half the letters on the 20/30 line so am I considered 20/30 or 20/40?
Anne 13 Nov 2004, 16:36
specs4ever.
Thanks thats a great help.one more question.
I am having problems with seeing the computer i thought trifocals might help what ADD for midd distance and what ADD for close should I need.
Thanks
13 Nov 2004, 14:27
Acuity and Prescription I got all filled up a while ago. I guess it got removed.
specs4ever 13 Nov 2004, 10:42
Anne, what you would need to order to give you your full reading correction in a pair of single vision glasses would be +8.50 x -2.50 x 172 and +8.00 x -2.75 x 3. Hope this helps.
Anne 13 Nov 2004, 09:55
Please can you help i want to order a pair of READING glasses online.
I wear bifocals all the time
My prescription is
R sphere +5.50 cyl-2.50 axis 172 ADD +3.00
L sphere +5.00 cyl -2.75 axis 3 ADD +3.00
What prescription should i order for just reading glasses
# 12 Nov 2004, 19:15
dear !, one thing you can try is once in a while when you are out, if you see someone who doesn't look bad but not awesome with glasses, point them out to her and tell her that her glasses look so much better on her than that persons.
And also, of course, compliment her all the time when she wears them, and be a little out of control sexy when you see her wearing them. Tell her how hot she is and show her how drawn you are to her - not over the top, but honestly. She might protest, but inside, it will give her more confidence. You will need to do this repeatedly.
Let us know if this works.
! 07 Nov 2004, 09:57
I just mentioned over on Vision about my girlfriend's shyness about wearing glasses. She got them over the summer, no particular reason that she's said but it was pretty obvious to me that she needed them. I don't know what her prescription is but she's wearing them for driving, ought to wear them for tv but won't and I'm pretty certain she struggles with recognising people in the distance and out shopping. She really looks great. How can I convince her that she does and help her with getting used to wearing them - she's convinced they make her look unattractive and 'impaired'. Frankly I think that's nuts but she's convinced about it.
Bart 06 Nov 2004, 11:09
Nita
if you or someone else can read 1 or 2 lines out of 10, you have an rx of about -5.
Naomi 04 Nov 2004, 12:21
Hi Tod, thanks for your post. I will. Naomi
Dave 02 Nov 2004, 15:21
It's fairly accurate for me.
Right sph +.25, cyl -1.75, 20/70
Left sph +.25, cyl -1.25, 20/40
I don't have to but I wear glasses all the time for comfort. My eyes are declining about -.25 of cylinder every 2 - 4 years.
Philosifer 02 Nov 2004, 14:37
This may be sort of interesting to some members of the ES community. It isn't precise of course; note that it says "IF myopia is the only problem" these numbers are indicative. Astigmatism can reduce acuity by a lot more.
http://lpf.com/source/rk/20something.html
Tod 31 Oct 2004, 14:36
Naomi, I would see another eye doctor, an opthomologist and make sure to make an appointment this week. Be sure to bring your new glasses as well as your older pair with you.
This is the best advice I can give you, here.
Naomi 31 Oct 2004, 14:13
This may sound like a stupid question but it is genuine. I wear -2 for both eyes but my eye dr wanted to give me a diopter stronger in one eye. Somehow she settled on this prescription. Now I'm having quite a bit of discomfort in that eye and I can tell I can't see so well through it. Fortunately the weaker eye is my non-dominant one so I guess the other is doing all the work but when I'm not wearing my glasses I'm getting what I'd describe as pain behind my eye. Could it be that its sinusitis as someone said or was the eye dr really right in their diagnosis? And if it is because one eye has a higher prescription than the other is ths what would be expected to happen? Thanks to anhone who can help me. I'll probably get a test anyway it's been so uncomfortable without my specs lately.
Val 30 Oct 2004, 11:53
Nita, here is another link, where you cand read a lot about visual acuity: http://www.mdsupport.org/library/acuity.html
Also, Wurm, our host, explained this very simple in the FAQ: http://wurm.laughingsquid.net/es/ES_FAQ.htm (Q.10)
Philosifer 30 Oct 2004, 10:38
Nita
Go to this site, and check it out for yourself
http://www.optometrist.com.au/eyetest.htm
nita 29 Oct 2004, 22:29
Thanks Antonio, I'm sure you're right! But does anyone have any clue what someone's prescription might be if they can only read the top letter/2nd letter on the chart?
antonio 25 Oct 2004, 09:21
hi Nita,
once again,
I think if a person sees only one or two letters of the eye chart or none of it at all, it's time he/she puts some lenses in front of these eyes
at least for special situations where
good eyesight is necessary, what do you think ?
best regards, antonio
antonio 25 Oct 2004, 07:13
Hi Nita,
about how to test eyes:
If it's your problem, do the following
or ask the person with possible eye problems to do the following:
Look at these lines without glasses and
measure at what distance from the screen they first become a little blurry for you without squinting.
If your eyes are both - 2.25,
the farest point of total sharpness for you should be at 44 cm = 17.5 inches.
Hide each of your eyes with a hand there and test it.
If you have to go nearer with your weaker eye to make it clear, then it is a little worse. -3.5 would mean it becomes sharp for this eye at about 28.5 cm distance from the screen, if you approach, that is at 11 inches.
Please tell us what you measure for both of your eyes, then we can estimate your prescription.
best regards, antonio
Nita 24 Oct 2004, 12:42
What are the prescriptions likely to be when someone can only read the first or second letter on the eyesight chart?
And for those people who can't even see that, how are their eyes tested and their prescription measured?
Thanks
20 Oct 2004, 08:42
R Vitrum Spher. -0.25, Vitrum Cylindr. -0.25, Axis 030
L Vitrum Spher. -0.25, Vitrum Cylindr. -1.00, Axis 170
Age 42
Do I need to wear glasses?
Brian 14 Sep 2004, 10:10
Has anyone tried reading glasses in order to slow down their progression of myopia?? I was talking to my friend the other day that is an optometry student and was telling her how I got my first pair of glasses my senior year of high school and am 25 now and my prescription is -4.50 and -4.00... I wear contacts about 75% of the time and glasses the rest of the time. But my optometry friend said I should try reading glasses over my contacts while reading or using the computer. She said it should help my eyes from getting worse. I guess she got her first pair of glasses when she was real young and got reading glasses when she started college and her prescription has been stabilized in the -2 to -3 range for some time now. I was just wondering if anyone tried this and if so how it has worked for them.. She said it would probably be good to get a pair in the +1.00 range. Thanks.
D-W-V 29 Aug 2004, 00:37
maybe you saw an optometrist one time and an ophthalmologist the other time? Each flavour of eye doctor tends to write the cylinder portion of the prescription a different way, so that the axis is different by 90 degrees. (sign and sphere are also affected).
http://www.tedmontgomery.com/the_eye/glasses.html
Dan 28 Aug 2004, 20:21
I just got a new Rx -.75,-1.0@97 and -1.25,-1.25 @83. last time (different doctor) my axis was 180/180. what does this mean?
Tommy 25 Jul 2004, 20:16
Guest, I would think more like -6.25.
Guest 25 Jul 2004, 18:38
My friend - 23 years old - told me his contacts prescription is -5.75. Should I expect his glasses have the same prescription.
Pinkspecs 02 Jul 2004, 11:35
JUST STARTED A NEW YAHOO GROUP
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/plus_eyes/
PLEASE JOIN
REGARDS
WILLIAM
Plus Crazy 02 Jul 2004, 07:48
Sue,
well, you asked what's more didnt you?
The below one you posted is a kind of a description i want.
Thanks.
Keep posting.
Sue 30 Jun 2004, 08:54
Natalie.
Nice to hear from you. Yes was just 14 when first told that I had to start wearing glasses. It’s the end of the world at that age isn’t it. Please do no let it scare you, you will cope with any change. And to be honest, I would expect you to need stronger glasses at your next check up. Not trying to upset you, but that is usually the case with scripts like ours. Did not have any really big jumps, they just seem to have crept up at each appointment I had. My biggest upset was at age 19, was told would need reading add for my glasses. Had been having difficulty with close work. Started with R+1.50 L+1.00 and am now up to R+2.50 L+2.00. I wear progressive lenses, have found them very good. Have a separate pair of reading glasses for any really detailed close work. They are quite thick at R+10.00 L+9.00. You are lucky Natalie, being able to wear contacts, I had no joy with them. Try wearing your glasses when you go clubbing, get lots of compliments about mine. A lot of guys like us girls with big eyes. Had to experiment a lot with my eye make up as my glasses got stronger, have you found a problem with this. Sheila mentioned this, with her difference in magnification she must reach a fine balance. Think the golden rule, the more they magnify, the less makeup to use. Agree with you about Sheila, she sounds a real nice lady. Keep me posted about how you get on at your next check up.
Natalie 30 Jun 2004, 08:22
Hi Sue. I read your posting on the other thread.
So you started R+3.75 L+3.00 when you were 14 and now youre R+7.50 L+7.00 at 22 ?? Well this scares me just a little since I got my glasses at 12 (they were +3 also) and I'm younger than you. Did you have any big jumps in your prescription ?
I like contacts (coz I'm vain :)) but they aren't as comfortable to wear as when I first got them (less than a year ago). Sometimes they feel like sand in my eyes and I just have to take them out. But contacts are better for me when I play netball or go out clubbing.
I don't know why Sheila ever put up with that situation at all. Some guys can be real jerks.
Guest1 30 Jun 2004, 05:16
I have pondered why i am attracted to lovely spectacled ladies, its not a fetish, looks have never been an attraction, I don,t wear glasses myself, yet I constantly pondered why I feel so comfortable dating a lady wear glasses. I have concluded its away back in my childhood when my first recal of a ladies face was a warm friendly spectacled one, so I suppose I associate glasses worn by a lady as a friendly kind face, my second reason ladies who are very long or very short sighted have the most beautiful eyes, please don,t take my word for this ask any optician, and I relate lovely eyes to a lovely personality.I wonder if any other posters have reasoned why glasses worn by a lady are a focal point for being attracted to the lady. So to all you lovely spectacled wearing ladies there are guys who admire you for who you are, and your glasses bring back happy childhood memories.
Guest1 30 Jun 2004, 05:04
Sue 30 Jun 2004, 03:59
Plus Crazy. What more can I tell you about them ?
Jan 30 Jun 2004, 03:20
Plus Crazy. Not really a high plus, only R+2.50 L+2.75. Only really started wearing them full time when my youngest girl was told she would need to wear glasses. At least, if her mum wore them, thought it would help her. I'm 26 and have had glasses since 19 after suffering from eyestrain and headaches.
Plus Crazy 30 Jun 2004, 02:54
Hi Sue,
Thanks for the update. Please update us more about them.
I'll post again later!
Sue 30 Jun 2004, 02:44
Plus Crazy. Sorry should have addressed this post to yourself as well.
Sue 30 Jun 2004, 02:43
Natalie, Hi, You and I are lucky our boyfriends like us in glasses. Have you read the thread from Sheila, it made very interesting reading. I really felt for the lady, having a perscription like hers, and being told to leave them off. I'm fairly high plus like yourself. Have posted in another thread but if you didn't see it, it is
R+7.50 Add +2.50 L+7.00 Add +2.00.
Sounds like you need an update in your glasses, you appear to be suffering all the usual signs. You say your lenses are thick, my perscription is quite a bit stronger than yours, and I wear high index lenses, they really are very good. Tried contacts, but could not get on with them. Quite to wear glasses full time, have about 6 pairs I swap between, depending on mood/clothes
Natalie 30 Jun 2004, 01:44
This sure is a strange site, but pretty cool too I think. Didnt know so many guys got off on girls wearing glasses but who's complaining :)
So my prescription is +5.5 left and +6.0 right, but I need to go to the optometrist soonish coz I'm gettin headaches when I read and watch tv.
Mostly I wear my glasses, which look good on me (so everyone says) and because my boyfriend doesn't mind. But I think the lenses are too thick so I have contacts for when I go out.
Plus Crazy 26 Jun 2004, 23:41
Hello guts & girls,
Its nice to see some + glasses wearers around. Ladies, please keep updating about your life with +glasses as i'm interested in studying how it affects the life style of a person.
Please mention your age as well.
Bye, with hopes that you'll respond to this post.
Susanne A 26 Jun 2004, 07:21
Hi+Girl:
I also wear very high + lenses, due to congenital cataracts. E-mail me at susanneablondi at hotmail dot com.
Phoebe 25 Jun 2004, 10:50
I'm a new wearer as of last week (and new to ths site). I have a prescription of -1.25 with -0.75 astigmatism left and -1.50 with -0.25 astigmatism right. Optician was a bit vague and said wear glasses when I feel I need them but definately when driving (apparrently I'm over the legal minimum for distance vision when driving - I'm going to start driving lessons soon). I know they're not that strong but they've made a difference. I decided to go 'full-time' as I loved the clarity. I can manage ok without glasses I just prefer to wear them all the time.
One thing I did notice was that the lenses looked stronger than I thought they would be - things looked quite small looking through them at arm length. The stretching and squashing effect the lenses have on things as you turn them is quite interesting - I presume that's caused by the astigmatism correction.
Vic 24 Jun 2004, 22:44
Yep Gran wears glasses not sure of the RX she wears bifocals but it would be pretty high I think all my family wears glasses except my brother
Guest 24 Jun 2004, 21:10
Vic, Hi long time no post. Does your Gran wear glasses, and if so what's the Rx.?
Vic 24 Jun 2004, 19:53
As my gran said glasses are coming back in fashion ;p
Tod 24 Jun 2004, 15:14
Clare, with all the various attractive frames available, yes it is becoming more desireable. More celebs ect. are wearing their's and people would like to take a break from contacts while enjoying clear vision.
Clare 24 Jun 2004, 14:44
I'm noticing many more low minus prescriptions, and full time at that. When I say low minus I mean even less than my -2.50. Wonder why that is. Wouldn't think they need them. Hey you guys, does that mean it's becoming an even more desirable attribute?? :)))
Phoropter 22 Jun 2004, 13:30
JJ: You can try Proclear Torics made by Coopervision or Biomedic Toric. I've had fairly good success with these on patient's with drier eyes.
21 Jun 2004, 18:34
I mean
It reads:
It reads:
OD. Cil +27,75 Cil -1,75 Eix 180* pris 14* bs ext
OE. Cil +28,50 Cil -2,00 Eix 17* pris 14* bs ext.
Sorry
4eyes 21 Jun 2004, 18:31
Recently I got prescription with "Top" & "Bottom" numbers.
Today my Ped Oph. decided to give a glasses for reading only instead of bifocals, since I can hardly control my eyes movements with them.
It reads:
OD. Cil +27,75 Cil -1,75 Eix 180* pris 14* bs ext
OE. Cil =28,50 Cil -2,00 Eix 17* pris 14* bs ext.
He says since I can't tolerate bifocal I'll have to use them at school and to use computer. So I will have to wear a glasses for normal use and another to read.
Have anybody listen something like that?
Thank you.
Vic 19 Jun 2004, 18:43
Just an observation there is some lady at my gym who has the thickest lenses ive ever seen im pretty sure they are minus but wow
Tod 19 Jun 2004, 12:53
My Rx in my glasses was too strong for my right eye. My glasses are bifocials but my contacts are for monovision so as I wont need reading glasses when wearing them. They put my contact lens Rx in my glasses. The Dummies! I could actually read through the upper segment of my left eye and the lower reader segment for that eye was way too strong.
With hyreropia, your contact lens Rx will be stronger than for eyeglasses. With myopia, its just the opposite.
guest#8 17 Jun 2004, 22:57
jj: Like you i have tried many different brands of torics. I have had a pretty good outcome with sunsoft multiples div.2 lenses. my cylinder correction is -3.75 and -4.00. I do still have the problem of having to turn the lenses especially in my right eye to keep it in focus, but it's the best i've tried so far..good luck
Tod 17 Jun 2004, 22:08
JJ, you may want to consider RGP lenses. They do take a while to get used to but they offer astagmats excellent correction. One draw back is after switching back to glasses for a time, they do require a break in period all over again.
JJ 17 Jun 2004, 21:50
Phoropter: I tried three different brands of Toric CL's. Softlens (felt too thick), UltraFlex and Acuvue Toric. The Acuvue's were the most comfortable but the vision in my left eye was blurry. Which brand of toric CLs do you find is better for vision acuity and dry eyes?
Phoropter 17 Jun 2004, 07:20
JJ: You have too much astigmatism in your left eye for aspheric contacts to mask. How many different brands of toric lenses have you tried? Sometimes different lens materials can make a significant difference in comfort.
me 12 Jun 2004, 09:40
interesting ihave symptoms close to those described by posh.
When i went to geteyes tested about a year ago i saw they had written down fromm the machine cylinder off 0.25 in one eye and and 0.5 in the other
got a feeling it has got worse in one of my eyes so i might pay a visit to the opticians. dont know though
JJ 10 Jun 2004, 08:19
DelDoc--
My eyeglass RX is
OD -4.25 -.75 x 85
OS -3.00 -2.00 x 110
I currently have toric soft contact lenses but would aspheric contact lenses work in both eyes? I am not happy with toric contacts I have dry eyes and have to blink often to keep my vision in focus and only seem to keep one eye in focus at a time.
JJ 09 Jun 2004, 19:18
DelDoc: My orginial prescription for eyeglasses is from an ophthalmologist but my contact fitting is with an optometrist. Settled on UltraFlex Toric soft contacts. OS -3.00 -1.75 x 110, OD -4.00 -0.75 x 80. I was hoping for a regular contact in the right eye but the highest the Dr. would try was -4.25 and my distance vision was still blurry. What is the difference between an aspheric and toric lens?
Tod 07 Jun 2004, 22:19
I am 40+ and wear monovision correction. my reading eye has the astigmatism. My CL Rx is: OD +3.50 DS +1.25 (both aspheric) I have worn plus lenses for years.
DelDoc 07 Jun 2004, 17:53
Tod--
I see the question mark in your post, but I'm not sure what your question is. Without knowing your age or your prescription history, I don't know how to respond exactly, other than stating that everything you described seems perfectly plausible and not uncommon.
Tod 05 Jun 2004, 08:55
DelDoc, my old Rx had me in a toric lens on my left eye and spheric lens on my rifht eye. But now my new Rx is for aspheric lenses on both eyes with a slightly stronger power on my left. ?
DelDoc 05 Jun 2004, 08:41
JJ--
Assuming that you're talking about soft lenses, I'd start with a -4.25 spherical lens, possibly an aspheric design to mask the uncorrected astigmatism. Depending on the patient's age and sensitivity to blur, the power may need to be increased to -4.50 or a soft toric lens may be necessary to achieve 20/20 acuity.
With the spectacle prescription written in plus cylinder form, is the patient seeing an ophthalmologist for the contact lens fitting?
JJ 03 Jun 2004, 21:25
Question: With a -5.00 +0.75x175 RX what strength Spherical contacts would be prescribed? -4, -4.25, -4.5 or -4.75? Would it be better to prescribe toric contacts?
DelDoc 03 Jun 2004, 18:14
Brian--
Here's a decent rule of thumb for perfectly SPHERICAL corrections: Between plano and 4 diopters, there is no difference between spectacle power and contact lens power. Between 4 and 6 diopters, the contact lens power is 0.25 diopter less minus (or more plus) than the spectacle power. Between 6 and 8 diopters, the contact lens power is 0.50 diopter less minus (or more plus) than the spectacle power. Between 8 and 10 diopters, the contact lens power is 0.75 or 1.00 diopter less minus (or more plus) than the spectacle power.
Brian 02 Jun 2004, 19:54
Does anyone know of a website that converts how a contact lenses prescription compares to a glasses prescription once you start going into higher diopters over -3.00 and -4.00. I think awhile back there was a link posted that showed how focal distances differ between glasses and contact prescriptions, so if anyone knows the equation or the link could you post it, I'd be interested to read it.. Thanks..
Hollie 27 May 2004, 05:31
Are you sure you have got the rx right? Mine aren't that thick, and I have -3 sphere and -1 cylinder, and they certainly aren't flat at the front. It seems odd they would make flat lenses for such a low rx, they shouldn't look strong at all at this prescription I don't think. I have certainly never had anyone tell me mine look strong.
Maybe you could ask your optician about this?
Hollie
New Wearer 27 May 2004, 02:59
I posted on May10, regarding my new glasses.I have a question. Why are my lenses almost completely flat on the front, like I see on glasses of much higher Rx. A friend said the optician may have used this tpye of lens in anticipation of my Rx. getting quite strong in the future, and it would be easier to increase the Rx.when I'm used to this lens type.These lenses make my Rx. look alot stronger than it is, and I think they are thicker too. Is this something that is common with a first Rx.?Friends have ask how come they look so strong,when this is your first pair. They are both-.25 with-.75 cyl.
Steve 25 May 2004, 12:50
Posh & others
I just got my first pair of specs today and have a similar prescription to yours. Right eye -0.75 cyl @180 and Left eye -0.25D -0.50@180. When I put the specs on it takes a while until the slight blur goes away. The optician did say that it may take a while to adjust to lenses and that once adjusted vision may seem slightly poorer without glasses. Is this the case and if so is it because eyes are relaxed????
Dave 25 May 2004, 00:33
OD (right) +0.25 -1.75 x 162
OS (left) +0.25 -1.25 x 023
With this prescription I have good corrected vision in both eyes. I found that it's very difficult to take them off because there is always a few minutes of tug of war in my eyes trying to focus. Eventually it settles down and I can go bare eyed without much difficulty. I prefer to leave them on as much as possible to avoid the discomfort and for the better sight.
I first got glasses in my early 20's with astigmatism of -0.50 and -0.25 I wore them for driving and reading. Over the last 20 years the numbers have bounced around a bit as they crept upwards. I don't think how much I wore my glasses made a difference but I'll never know.
New Wearer 24 May 2004, 23:42
posh, The reason for blurring sometimes, and not at others, is due to the strain your eyes are going thru.Is there a pattern, such as after close work , or reading, or after a long day?
posh 24 May 2004, 10:29
prof,
so why is the blur worse on som days and not noticeable on others
Bespectacled Professor 24 May 2004, 10:06
Posh,
Your eyes don't get weaker if you wear glasses or don't wear them. For a prescription like yours, you won't notice a great deal of difference with them on and with them off. It will make things in the distance a bit sharper and take some strain off your eyes.
Once you start getting into the -2.0 to -2.5, the contrast between your vision without glasses and vision with them gets quite noticeable. A lot of people at that point choose to wear them all the time because 1) they are need to use them for so many activities that they are wearing them most of the time anyway and 2) they don't want to put up with the increasing blur. Still, some people choose to wear them part-time. Once past -3.0, it's pretty difficult to go without wearing glasses, so the vast majority of people with that prescription are fulltime wearers.
You certainly can wear these glasses all the time. Fulltime use won't hurt your eyes.
Bespectacled Professor 24 May 2004, 09:59
Posh,
With a prescription like yours, you'd want to wear them for driving, movies, watching TV. But, for most other activities, you'll do just fine.
posh 24 May 2004, 09:58
oops! i forgot to say, my eye doc said to wear them when needed, but as I previously will my eyes adapt so that I need full time wear with a weak prescription
posh 24 May 2004, 09:56
The thing is though that sometimes my vision seems fine and at others more blurred. My vision is at its worst when looking at white text on black background or fairly bright LED clock faces on videos etc. Should I wear glasses fulltime when i collect them.
New Wearer 23 May 2004, 12:30
Posh, Yes it is common to get glasses with a low Rx. See my earlier posts on this thread, mine are only slightly stronger than yours. Were you told to wear them full time?
posh 23 May 2004, 11:10
My eye doc just prescribed me lenses for astigmatism and no other vision problem. Very Weak though. -0.5 @ 180 both eyes. I had noticed slight blurring in one direction prior to getting test. Is it usual to be givens specs for such a weak prescription
Flash 21 May 2004, 20:10
Electra, if you don't mind my asking, how old are you?
Thanks
Dave 18 May 2004, 20:29
I meant to say also that I don't have the new glasses yet. I'm trying to find out if a frame that I liked comes in a wider size.
Dave 18 May 2004, 20:26
New prescription today:
OD (right) +.25 -1.75 x 162
OS (left) +.25 -1.25 x 023
Here's what I remember from my last Rx just over 2 years ago.
OD +.75 -2.0 x ?
OS +.50 -1.0 x ?
I wore trial lenses for a few minutes and they were very clear. When I compared them to my old glasses it was very noticable at a distance but not much close up.
Tod 17 May 2004, 20:43
New Wearer, my firtr Rx was +.05 anf +.075 its now +2.50 ans +1.75 with reading add but my early Rx's didn't have the astigmatism correction. That came a few years later. If i turned my head really quickl it was like the floor and ceiling would touch. and for about a week i was afraid to walk down but not up stairs or step off a curb. I wear my glasses all of the time except when wearing contacts which is not often. I can see without them but not enough to be fully functional. I cant read or see well enough in the distance because that too is blurry.
New Wearer 17 May 2004, 19:58
Tod, Thanks for the info. Havm't experienced the floor meeting the ceiling thing, but have the stepping off into space. What was your first Rx., and what is it now?Can you function without your glasses?
New Wearer 17 May 2004, 19:49
Was talking to a friend that started out with a Rx. similer to mine. She said the doctor gave her drops to put in her eyes for about a week, to help her get used to her new glasses.Before using the drops she could see quite well without the glasses, but the drops severely blurred her vision, unless she wore the glasses.After a week of the drops and full time wear of the glasses, she was unable to see anything without the glasses. So although the drops helped her adjust to the new glasses, they also made her totally dependent on them.Has anyone else experienced this?
Tod 15 May 2004, 16:28
New wearer, yes astigmatism correction does take a while to get used to. First time I was corrected for this the Dr. told me to wear them 100% of the time. And still at times the floor looked like rose up to meet the ceiling and stepping off a curb was like steping off into space. I was afraid to drive then too. It can take a week or longer to get used to things. Its your brain that is being reprogramed to see things as they really are.
New Wearer 15 May 2004, 12:37
Went back to the Dr. as I thought my prescription may be too strong. He left it as it was but now added a +1.50 for close work. So I've gone from no glasses to astimmatism correction, to bifocals in two weeks. How common is this for someone 37 years old? I've been wearing the astigmatism glasses almost full time tryig to get used to them, and use the bifocals for reading and computer.I can use the astigmatism glasses for the computer work but have to get much closer to the screen to see it clearly. The Dr. said astigmatism corrections are sometimes hard to get used to. Has anyone here had this difficulty?
Bespectacled Professor 12 May 2004, 06:04
New Wearer,
Part of the answer to your question is how old you are. If you are in your 20s/30s, then your prescription will likely not change that much. If you are in your teens, you could see significant changes in your myopia and astigmatism by next year.
Your prescription, even taking into account the astigmatism, is relatively weak, so you should wear them when they feel comfortable. Of course, given your prescription and being astigmatic, you will need them for driving, watching movies and sporting and for other activities that you need them for a distance, but also for reading/computer work. Depending on your job, that could be a majority of the day. If so, you will probably end up wearing your glasses all the time.
New Wearer 12 May 2004, 01:27
What can anyone tell me of their experiences with astigmatism.Does it increase to stronger lenses, as myopia does?Do doctors overcorrect for it so you grow into it?My corrected vison seem slightly clearer with each eye indivually, than with both eyes. Will this change as I get used to the glasses?Is this a fairly strong Rx for my first?Probably needed correction for a number of years. I think the Dr. said my vison is 20/70 uncorrected. I was surprised at the thickness of the lenses.
New Wearer 10 May 2004, 00:18
Just started wearing glasses OD-.25(-.75 CYL@175 OS-.25(-.75 CYL@165. For night driving they seem perfect, but in daylight almost seen too strong. Also are great for computer work, but have experimented with online eye tests, and found.Corrected vison is 20/20 each eye, and uncorrected is 20/50 each. However if I do a few hours of close work wearing the glasses,and do the test ,uncorrected vison is 20/200 each eye.Is this a sign that my Rx. will change in a few months, and if so about how much?Anybody else experience this?
Brian 08 May 2004, 10:56
I went for an eye exam yesterday and I don't need a prism correction as of yet. My eye doctor said its best to go without the correction until its fully needed because once I get the correction it will be hard to wear contacts.. He said my exotopia(I believe thats what its called).. Its obviously still present but he said my brain seems to be doing a fairly good job of making the two images one.. He said any stain or ability to focus might have been caused by the need or stronger glasses more than the exotopia.. My prescription increased -0.50 in each eye, i'm now -4.50 and -4.00.. I should have my new glasses by next week..
Electra 07 May 2004, 13:25
Yes, I come from a 20/20 family, at least prior to middle age.
Why my fetish then? Well I get asked that a lot. To be perfectly honest, I don't see the connection. There are plenty of things I look for in a man that I don't have myself!
I can't answer your question anyway, don't know. Spent a lifetime and a website trying to figure that out!
D-W-V 07 May 2004, 13:03
with an add of 1.75, things beyond about 57 cm (22.5") will become blurred. Measure the distance to your computer screen, expressed in meters, and take the reciprocal of it. That'll give you the maximum add in diopters with which you'll be able to see the monitor clearly, using no accomadation.
Bespectacled Professor 07 May 2004, 13:03
Electra,
How was the vision among people in your immediate family?
And, why do you suppose that you have a fetish about men who wear glasses?
Electra 07 May 2004, 13:00
You know, I often feel like a total fraud even being a 20/20 here, but at last I have something useful to offer.
I'm 42 years old. I learned to read in Kindergarten and I've been a bookworm ever since. 3 years of college. For 20 years I've done detailed artwork for a living. For the past ten years that's included a computer, and these days I spend 12 hours a day in front of a computer screen, at work and at home.
None of this has affected my eyesight. Use all that anecdotally at your whim!
DelDoc 07 May 2004, 11:11
guest--
Please post a link to research in a peer-reviewed journal that supports your claim that computer use worsens vision. I'm interested in reading it.
Pamela 07 May 2004, 03:04
I tried putting my mum's reading glasses, which are +1.75, to my eyes over my glasses but all I saw was a blur.
D-W-V 07 May 2004, 02:55
Pamela: if it does, and if the damage comes from the strain of accomodation, then reading glasses or computer glasses should reduce that strain and therefore the damage. Talk to your optometrist/ophthalmologist or forge an add of +1 to 2 or so to your prescription. ;) 1.5 should be about right for the computer with almost no accomodation.
Pamela 07 May 2004, 02:10
Too bad :(
guest, 07 May 2004, 01:40
Pamela,yes it does
06 May 2004, 17:54
this was so predictable
George1968 06 May 2004, 17:44
BTW, in case anyone is wondering, the new prescription is:
-3.25 OS, -3.0 OD. The world has another fulltime glasses wearer.
Pisser.
george1986 05 May 2004, 18:51
Let me preface this post by saying that I adhere to Clare's position about glasses -- resist wearing them as long as you can.
I'm myopic. My prescription is -2.75 OS, -2.25 OD. I first got glasses in high school when I went to get my license. I believe my original prescription was -1.00 in both eyes. My eyes got slightly worse each year until the end of college (about -2.25). Since high school, I wear glasses for driving, for watching movies and TV and little else.
I teach, and I admit that I don't see all my student faces clearly, but I've never thought of that as a serious problem.
About 6 months ago, my wife (who doesn't wear glasses) got mad when I called out to someone at a get-together, and it was the wrong person. Since then, she has been nagging me to wear my glasses fulltime, saying she is tired of seeing me squint, and missing things because I can't see them. And, when she gets on an issue, she stays with it.
She's probably right about my wearing glasses all the time, but I shudder at the thought. I'm not just comfortable wearing them fulltime.
I pretty much dug in my heels about this one. I asked my wife what she would think about my looks if I wore glasses all the time. She replied that she married me "for better or worse" (which was a real endorsement!). I told her that I would have to wear glasses the rest of our marriage as I had tried and failed to adjust to contacts. I got "better or worse" again. I finally argued that I can make do bare-eyed. She retorted that I was just kidding myself. She makes it sound as if I commonly walk into doors.
Anyway, I offered this -- if, after my next eye doctor appointment, my prescription became -3.00 or worse in both eyes, that I would relent and wear my glasses all the time. If not, she would quit nagging me.
The next morning, she made an eye doctor's appointment for me. Tomorrow is the day of reckoning. I'm nervous. I haven't had a checkup in about 3 years. I haven't noticed any change in my vision (it's been pretty stable since college -- I'm 36). But, it'll be just my luck. There's a real chance that by this time tomorrow, I'll be wearing glasses all the time for the rest of my life. Plus, there's a wedding this weekend with a lot of close friends. Talk about "coming out."
I think I'm going to have nightmares tonight :(
Pamela 05 May 2004, 02:45
Hello, does anyone think that reading for long periods of time and spending a whole in front of a computer worsen one's vision. I'm highly myopic : -10 in both eyes.
Electra 26 Apr 2004, 06:19
Phoropter: Well congratulations, and glad you're in it for the long haul, this place becomes like home after a while.
Phoropter 23 Apr 2004, 16:15
Electra: My wife and I are having our first baby really soon so I've had to limit my online time but I will do my best to try and keep up.
LongTimeLurker: The simple answer is yes to your question about ODs using finger counting and hand motion as measurement of acuity. There are a few ODs who would consider this a sin (low vision ODs and those working in a University/academic setting), but most of us do it due to lack of time and equipment. These poor techniques are used to access vision to get a "ballpark" idea.
You are correct that 20/400 is the worst vision on a Snellen chart, but I guess if someone can't see the "E", one could have then get up out of the chair and then measure the distace at which they can see it. For example, if they could see the "E" at 10 feet their vision would be 10/400 (test distance / letter size) or the equivalent to 20/800, but honestly I'm too lazy to do this.
Electra 23 Apr 2004, 04:28
Yes, I hope he comes back too. He sets things straight when we get wildly innacurate without once ever being condescending. Sometimes I'll read a comment here that strikes me as technically wrong, but I don't feel I have any right/credentials to challenge it. It's so nice to have a professional around to sort it out.
22 Apr 2004, 22:24
Phoropter: Where have you been? we miss you
LongTimeLurker 22 Apr 2004, 22:10
While this may seem an elementary question to some, after reading one of Electra's links, I hope some of the higher myopes on this board will answer this:
assuming an uncorrected visual acuity of 20/400 or worse (I think that's what the article said) how is vision tested? is it true that the good old Snellen chart is only good until around 20/400? Do OD's really make use of something as unscientific and imprecise sounding as counting fingers? if so, has anyone any idea about the correlations between finger counting/hand waving ability and level of myopia? any takers?
Electra 21 Apr 2004, 09:51
Well here's the thing guys, they can't seem to make their minds up. In one breath they say that over-correction does nothing, then we get comments like these (about eating minus) and how terrible it is to go over. Surely the solution is not to go over or under but get it right? Makes you wonder sometimes how much guesswork is involved.
Christy 20 Apr 2004, 00:09
I liked the bit that said - We all know that myopes like to "eat minus".
Daffy 19 Apr 2004, 16:29
Electra...that was good reading...I have the same treatment done. I always went out 'under-corrected', and always felt it the moment the glasses went on. And it remained that way. Distance was always not as clear as it could be. So that's when I took matters in my own hands and re-corrected the Rx. The doc would give me the undercorrected minus, the proper cylinder and axis, and away I went to the photocopier. I've never felt or seen better.
One thing that wasn't mentioned in that article was why he thought overcorrection was wrong. I would have like to know that. I'll see if I can contact him somehow.
Electra 19 Apr 2004, 08:49
I found this interesting:
http://www.westol.com/pfkod/doctors/prevent.html
Tod 17 Apr 2004, 18:05
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/corrective_contacts020412.html
Electra 17 Apr 2004, 13:11
bareyed: For lots of reasons I won't take you up on that (not wasting the money, not putting things in my eyes, dislike blur intently!) and while I agree that OTC readers are not exactly prescision opticals, it's a good enough guide for me to know I wouldn't like it. I think I may still be missing your point.
bareyed 17 Apr 2004, 12:39
Electra: I tried OTC readers, and the blur with these is quite different than that of CL. Could be related to the poor lens quality.
Perhaps you should try CL and see for yourself. (-four yourself.)
Not sure I like the blur,but it is very telling on what myopic people experience.
Electra 17 Apr 2004, 12:26
bareyed: I'm still not sure what you mean! OK, I have here some cheap OTC readers +3. If I put them on, and I'm in a small room, the stuff over the other side of the room is blurred. There's a green and white cylinder, a blue.....thing, and a.......well, there's something light, or several somethings, or is it a...I have no idea. Nothing has any writing on it.........No, I wouldn't put up with that. I'm sure I could cope, but what's the point? I guess my point being that I see no benefit in tolerating it. When I look at something I like to know what it is. Do you enjoy blur then? Is that what you are saying?
bareyed 17 Apr 2004, 12:04
... I am still amazed that people who truly need glasses, and therefore have many opportunities and occasions of a bare eye practice feel so dependent on their glasses.
bareyed 17 Apr 2004, 12:02
This morning I have made myself myopic at the -4.5 level from the time I woke up until around noon. I took a shower, fixed breakfast, cleaned the house and did all the daily chores with the blur. I became so used to the blur that I hardly noticed it at noon time. Making out what distant spots were was a bit of a challenge, but not too difficult.
Later on, I had to take the CL off since I had to drive, and did not want to be seen with glasses. I do not think I would have had any problems in being out of home being at this level of myopia. (I did that yesterday, and was even able to just barely recognize two friends in the street.)
I am still amazed
Tod 16 Apr 2004, 10:29
(meant to type) see the lenses on those beautiful myopic eyes of hers.
Tod 16 Apr 2004, 10:15
I went to my bank this morning. There is a very cute teller there named Jamie L. (I wont give her last name). I saw her a few weeks ago wearing plastic frame glasses with a fairly strong Rx. maybe -5.5. to -6.0 Lately she has been at the bank without glasses on. So today while depositing a check, I said to her: Excuse me, but you wear contact lens, right? She replyed "yes I do". I said, "Do you know of a good eye doctor for them. My Dr. messed me up on my Rx with them (which is true) and I need to see another. She said, "Oh, I go to my cousin. He is an eye doctor (same last name as hers) in Middletown. (a city about 24 miles from me) I said, "hey that must be great to have a cousin of yours as your eye Dr. She replied, "yeah it is"
PS: on top of being very qute as I said, She has these enormous bluish- green eyes, like looking at tropical seas. So typical of medium to high myopes having large eyes. When she turned her head at a certain angle I could actually see the lenses those beautiful myopic eyes of hers. Mmmm!
Electra 16 Apr 2004, 10:05
For some reason that link doesn't work, try this:
http://library.thinkquest.org/C005949/fun/eyechart.htm?tqskip1=1
Electra 16 Apr 2004, 10:03
On-line eye exam: http://library.thinkquest.org/C005949/fun/eyechart.htm
bareyed 16 Apr 2004, 09:45
it would be nice if there was thread dedicated to bare eyed experiences, either natural or with CL
16 Apr 2004, 09:40
Electra: Since I had 20/20 vision all my life, I did not think I would tolerate the blur, especially at this level.
I have a friend who is -4.5 in both eyes. This friend could not even sleep well if the glasses did not rest on the nite table, within a hand's reach, procmlaiming: "I feel naked without them."
bareyed 16 Apr 2004, 09:25
I do not normally wear glasses. My natural perscription is something like -0.25 in the right eye and about -0.50 in the left eye. There is also a bit of additional negative astigmatism in both eyes. I reckon that with these -3.75 CL I am about -4.25 in my right eye and -4.5 in my left eye.
Electra 16 Apr 2004, 07:15
I'm going to have to change my computer screen habits later on, and how. Although it depends what I'm doing. For artwork I tend to sit back to avoid pixelation, but for text I'm on top of it. Currently I'm 6" from the screen, level with it. Bad, bad, bad.
bareyed: I've commented on blur-intolerance before and I think it plays a major part, because indivudual's tolerances vary so much. Because I've had good vision all my life I have roughly zero blur-tolerance. One diopter out would drive me to distraction. Nothing short of a gun would persuade me to walk down a street in a blur. Some people find it fun, others find it tolerable. I would find it unbearably annoying.
Philosifer 16 Apr 2004, 05:23
Re Electra's post of April 14 ( the problem of personal video screens in some current versions of passenger aircraft) I have found one solution is to take my computer glasses with me, instead of leaving them on the desktop at home. They are +1.5 single-vision readers (as opposed to the 2.5 add in my regular progressive glasses) and they work just fine at the typical focal distance of the seat back ahead.
In fact, I am surprised that we have not had more discussion on ES around the use of dedicated computer specs. Comfortably focussing on a desktop monitor must be a hugely more common problem these days than watching an in-flight movie ? Not everybody can arrange their chair and desk so that they look down on the monitor, as required for comfortable vision through trifocals or progressives ?
Reluctant GWG 16 Apr 2004, 03:43
To Bareyed,
P.S. Another thought - do you just do GOC and have normal vision otherwise? If you really can still read quite a lot of distant writing with these contacts then maybe you're slightly hyperopic. Have you had an eyetest recently?
Reluctant GWG 16 Apr 2004, 03:41
I can remember when I was about that prescription (-3.75) and I used to cope fine(ish) without wearing glasses. They certainly would have helped me to perform all sorts of tasks but that doesn't mean I couldn't function without them. I really think it's down to an individual's feelings about how much blur they'll accept (although for me it wasn't about accepting blur but about rejecting glasses and ludicrously trying to pretend I didn't need them).
Even now though, with a prescription of about -5, I can still go to the bathroom without glasses and wander around the house. I feel more comfortable and relaxed with them on (I finally got over the whole spectophobia and learned to love them) but I could do things like cook dinner without them... although if I was making a salad or something there might be a few worms and flies getting in there that I didn't see to wash off so it's best not to!
bareyed 16 Apr 2004, 03:25
Just got a pair of +3.75 dailywear CLs, and have been with these for 14 hours or so now.
I expected a much greater deal of blur, since these correspond to -4.25 glasses. I have a matching -4.25 glasses, which I used occasionally, but I was able to move around, walk the streets, and even go to an optic store to have a screw tightened.
I even met two people I know on the street, and I was able to recognize them, mostly by the way they dress and look, and less by their facial features which were a bit blurry.
I was also suprised to be able to see the larger street signs. It is really a mystery to me why people in this perscription range seem so utterly dependent on their glasses.
It is indeed a bit uncomfortable to walk without correction, but nothing that could not be tolerated. It is even possible (but not very smart) to venture driving at daytime with such an acuity...
So, what's the big deal? Why is it that almost all peopl