|
Home > Archive > Vision > June 2006 > Problem with prescription sunglasses
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Problem with prescription sunglasses
|
|
| Nachiketa Sahoo 2006-06-17, 4:25 pm |
| Hi,
I got a pair of prescription sunglasses from Costco recently. This is
the first time I am wearing any prescription glasses. And I am having a
lot of trouble right away. I am shortsighted. I was wearing -1.25
glasses. I got a new prescription for these glasses and they
recommended that I wear -1.5. Also, they said that I can keep wearing
my -1.25 regular glasses and use these -1.5 sunglasses, without any
problem. So, I got them made to -1.5. FYI I don't require any other
correction.
For the first couple of days I was wearing them for 10-15mins in sun
and they were great. They cut glare and harsh sunlight. They are gray
in color. These are polarised and claim UV protection. But, yesterday I
wore them for couple of hours in sun and my eyes hurt like hell. I was
not sure whether it was due to the sunglasses or something else. Then I
wore them today for some time, but, after an hour or so of wearing them
in sun, my eyes started hurting badly again. Once I reverted back to my
regular glasses, I was fine within minutes.
I took it back to Costco and they looked at both my glasses and told me
that it could be that the new glasses are not fitting well enough and
so, some light might be coming in around the edges. So, the person
there tried to reshape the frame a bit and hoped that it'll be fix the
problem. The other thing that he said might be the problem was that my
eyes might be struggling with the change of glass power from 1.25 to
1.5. My *guess* was that probably the sunglasses are not of good
quality, i.e., they don't block enough of sun ray and trick my pupil to
open up too much, leading to the above problem. Sort of another
hypothesis.
At least they have good return policy. He said I was welcome to return
them and get a refund if what he did does not solve my problems.
Does anyone ever had this kind of problem? Any thought as to what could
be causing problem?
Thanks,
N
| |
| Nachiketa Sahoo 2006-06-17, 4:25 pm |
|
> I got a pair of prescription sunglasses from Costco recently. This is
> the first time I am wearing any prescription glasses.
Small typo: this is the first time I am wearing any prescription
sunglasses. I have been wearing prescription glasses for 9 years.
| |
| Dick Adams 2006-06-18, 2:29 am |
|
"Nachiketa Sahoo" <nsahoo@gmail.com> wrote in message =
news:1150577134.588919.125210@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> ... wore them for couple of hours in sun and my eyes hurt like hell =
....=20
> Does anyone ever had this kind of problem? Any thought as to what =
could
> be causing problem?
Sometimes stylish eyeglasses, particularly sunglasses, are made =
according
to a "wrap-around" design. So your eyes looked slantedly through the
lenses. There could be a question of whether the optical centers of the
lenses are corrected for the tilt of the lenses.
It is surprising how frequently purveyors of eyeglasses are not aware =
that
eyeglasses perform best when they are flat to the eyes, as opposed to=20
tilted to achieve the appearance of being "streamlined".
--
Dicky
| |
|
| Dick Adams wrote:
> "Nachiketa Sahoo" <nsahoo@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1150577134.588919.125210@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> Sometimes stylish eyeglasses, particularly sunglasses,
> are made according to a "wrap-around" design. So your
> eyes looked slantedly through the lenses. There could
> be a question of whether the optical centers of the
> lenses are corrected for the tilt of the lenses.
>
> It is surprising how frequently purveyors of eyeglasses
> are not aware that eyeglasses perform best when they
> are flat to the eyes, as opposed to tilted to achieve the
> appearance of being "streamlined".
Not sure of your point here Dicky. Are you saying the
manufacturers make tilted sunglasses and don't account
for it? or that the sellers bend them and don't account for
it?
-Quick
| |
| Dick Adams 2006-06-18, 2:29 am |
|
"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com>=20
wrote in message =
news:OZ3lg.46151$fb2.39455@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> Not sure of your point here Dicky. Are you saying the
> manufacturers make tilted sunglasses and don't account
> for it? or that the sellers bend them and don't account for
> it?
I dunno if they could or should be held to account. They have
to make a living, and, with population exploding the way it does,
there's many more than one sucker born each minute.
We could oppose them on the grounds of good optical design,
but the answer will obviously be that people like the swept-back
lenses and one simply does one's best to supply what people want.
Quite likely it can be shown that the incremental accommodative load
for a 1.5D myope peering though lenses toed out by 15 degrees is
substantially within the bounds of reason, with prismatic, chromatic,
astigmatic, and pincushional distortion remaining entirely unaffected,
essentially.
Notwithstanding, the OP might continue to be affected by headaches.
Well, vergence stresses could be obviated by using only one eye at a
time. He could try that.
--
Dicky
| |
| Nachiketa Sahoo 2006-06-18, 4:26 pm |
| These sunglasses are almost exactly like my glasses. No wrap around
nothing. Just like a pair of glasses but gray. I am not sure why that
might cause problem.
N
Dick Adams wrote:
> "Nachiketa Sahoo" <nsahoo@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1150577134.588919.125210@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> Sometimes stylish eyeglasses, particularly sunglasses, are made according
> to a "wrap-around" design. So your eyes looked slantedly through the
> lenses. There could be a question of whether the optical centers of the
> lenses are corrected for the tilt of the lenses.
>
> It is surprising how frequently purveyors of eyeglasses are not aware that
> eyeglasses perform best when they are flat to the eyes, as opposed to
> tilted to achieve the appearance of being "streamlined".
>
> --
> Dicky
| |
| Mike Tyner 2006-06-18, 4:26 pm |
|
"Dick Adams" <bad.addr@nonexist.com> wrote
>It is surprising how frequently purveyors of eyeglasses are not aware that
>eyeglasses perform best when they are flat to the eyes, as opposed to
>tilted to achieve the appearance of being "streamlined".
So would flat lenses work better than curved lenses?
Seems to me wraparound lenses would be better at approximating Tscherning's
ellipse in extreme gaze.
-MT
| |
| Dick Adams 2006-06-18, 4:26 pm |
|
"Nachiketa Sahoo" <nsahoo@gmail.com> wrote in message =
news:1150642777.660820.181210@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> These sunglasses are almost exactly like my glasses. No wrap around
> nothing. Just like a pair of glasses but gray. I am not sure why that
> might cause problem.
Then I dunno. I am only an amateur optometrist, and, though I have
several merit badges in opthamology, I am not actually medically
qualified.
Perhaps you are overcorrected by the additional -0.25D. Maybe
the centers do not fit the distance between your pupils. Maybe the
gray lets through some distress-causing UV or infra-red.
Me, I always wear a baseball cap with sunglasses. Even then, the=20
sun finds its way around the tinted plastic in many mysterious ways.
The sun is bad for your skin anyway. Maybe you should just stay
out of it?
--
Dicky
| |
| Dick Adams 2006-06-18, 4:26 pm |
|
"Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring.com> wrote in message =
news:BsidnecBj9_K4AjZnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>=20
> "Dick Adams" <bad.addr@nonexist.com> wrote
>=20
that[vbcol=seagreen]
>=20
> So would flat lenses work better than curved lenses?
>=20
> Seems to me wraparound lenses would be better at approximating =
Tscherning's=20
> ellipse in extreme gaze.
Certainly you should know that extreme gazing is what makes people =
bug-eyed.
--
Dicky=20
> -MT
>=20
>=20
>
| |
| Nachiketa Sahoo 2006-06-18, 4:26 pm |
|
> The sun is bad for your skin anyway. Maybe you should just stay
> out of it?
You just don't say that to someone in pittsburgh, where, sun is so
rare.
I guess I'll keep using my normal glasses in sun and let my pupil do
the adjustment to protect my eyes from to sun.
N
| |
|
| Dick Adams wrote:
> Then I dunno. I am only an amateur optometrist, and,
> though I have several merit badges in opthamology, I
> am not actually medically qualified.
What does this mean? Are you a certified optometrist
and just not practicing professionally? What are "merit
badges in opthamology"?
Someone might easily construe this to mean that you
do, in fact, have some medical qualifications. Is that
the case?
-Quick
| |
|
| On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 18:23:48 GMT, "Quick"
<quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>Dick Adams wrote:
>
>
>What does this mean? Are you a certified optometrist
>and just not practicing professionally? What are "merit
>badges in opthamology"?
>
>Someone might easily construe this to mean that you
>do, in fact, have some medical qualifications. Is that
>the case?
You should always assume on here that nobody has anything. They might
say they do when they don't anyway. Just read what they say and take
the advice if you like depending on what it is, and/or do more
research.
Ann
| |
| Dick Adams 2006-06-18, 9:25 pm |
|
"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com>=20
wrote in message =
news:USglg.46474$fb2.24472@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> Someone might easily construe ... that you
> do, in fact, have some medical qualifications. Is that
> the case?
I have no qualification to practice any kind of medicine.
The Boy Scout organization is not authorized to issue
merit badges in opthomology. Optometry is not a field of
medicine, so amateur optometrists do not so frequently
go to jail.
I hope this helps.
--
Dicky
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2006-06-19, 2:30 am |
| On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 01:44:51 GMT, "Dick Adams" <bad.addr@nonexist.com>
wrote:
[snip]
>I have no qualification to practice any kind of medicine.
Then why do you attempt to be an "amateur Optometrist"?
>Optometry is not a field of medicine
Yes, Optometrists are not MDs.
However, Optometrists like many other allied health care
professionals, can render medical care in accordance with state law.
And Optometrists should be, and in many cases are, held to the same
standard of care as OMDs for the care they do deliver.
In fact, Optometrists should be held to a greater standard of care
than non OMD MDs when it comes to the eye.
>so amateur optometrists do not so frequently go to jail.
Neither do amateur medical doctors.
| |
| Dick Adams 2006-06-19, 8:26 am |
|
"Anon E. Muss" <anonymous@example.org> in message =
news:kk5c92lpq3iidd4356g6if34l0cdppomib@4ax.com said to me:
> ... why do you attempt to be an "amateur Optometrist"? ...
Does the anonymous poster feel I may be unqualified for that?
> ... And Optometrists should be, and in many cases are, held to the =
same
> standard of care as OMDs for the care they do deliver ...
In all cases should be. But who has time to check up on 'em all?
(I have pointed out that the opthamologists very frequently rely upon
in-house trained phoropter jockeys. Theoretically, one might expect
that photopter operators who have received institutional training
would do better refractions.)
> ... In fact, Optometrists should be held to a greater standard of care
> than non OMD MDs when it comes to the eye ...
For instance, one can hope that they are proficient in the use of the =
basic
tools of their trade, like the phoropter, for instance, and are =
competent
to write scripts for eyeglasses.
=20[vbcol=seagreen]
> Neither do amateur medical doctors ...
"Amateur medical doctor" is undefined. Quack doctors frequently get
busted.
Several examples of amateur optometrist are seen here at sci.med.vision.
Even the most notorious of them has never done a day of jail time.
It is my hope to set a shining example for the amateur optometrists of
sci.med.vision. I will start with good posting style and use of the =
spell
checker. Maybe one day I will work up to an eBay phoropter and=20
lens checker so I can help people figure out why their eyeglasses are
not working out.
--
Dicky
| |
| sceptborg 2006-06-19, 4:28 pm |
|
Nachiketa Sahoo wrote:
>
> For the first couple of days I was wearing them for 10-15mins in sun
> and they were great. They cut glare and harsh sunlight. They are gray
> in color. These are polarised and claim UV protection. But, yesterday I
> wore them for couple of hours in sun and my eyes hurt like hell. I was
> not sure whether it was due to the sunglasses or something else.
Does the polarising work?
My test is to look out to sea, (or at a shiny road).
The water should look darkish.
If you keep your head still and rotate the lens 10 degrees either way you
start to see shine.
Or in the office look at the light reflected off a piece of white paper and
rotate another correctly polarised lens in front of your lens.
The paper should go very dark when the other lens is at 90 degrees.
I have had a case of one lens being OK and the other eye being off by 20
degrees, giving a weird affect when looking at road reflections.
However the manufacturer just dismissed this as manufacturing tolerances.
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2006-06-19, 4:28 pm |
| On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:37:03 GMT, "Dick Adams" <bad.addr@nonexist.com>
wrote:
>"Anon E. Muss" <anonymous@example.org> in message
>news:kk5c92lpq3iidd4356g6if34l0cdppomib@4ax.com said to me:
>
>
>Does the anonymous poster feel I may be unqualified for that?
No.
>"Amateur medical doctor" is undefined.
Then so is "amateur Optometrist" necessarily according to you.
If "amateur Optometrist" is in fact definable, then just replace the
definition of "Optometrist" with the defintion of "medical doctor" and
you have the definition for "amateur medical doctor".
| |
| Dick Adams 2006-06-19, 4:28 pm |
|
"Anon E. Muss" <anonymous@example.org> wrote in message =
news:epfd929hbmau2beb7ls5lc2kd46cp7tmmg@4ax.com...
> If "amateur Optometrist" is in fact definable, then just replace the
> definition of "Optometrist" with the defintion of "medical doctor" and
> you have the definition for "amateur medical doctor".
For one thing, "optometrist", like "doctor", is a generic category, and =
does
not take capitalization unless it is a title, like Dr. as in Dr. Smith, =
for instance.
This seems to me to be a political rather than a semantical =
consideration.
It is a fact of life that medical doctors have very strong unions and =
can, with
magnificent adeptitude, destroy any person, corporate body, or =
governmental
entity which threatens to usurp the smallest fragment of their thunder.
On the other hand, optometrists are advanced technicians who have =
recently=20
risen from the mundane task of measuring refractive error and =
prescribing
eyeglasses.
Now that they have left all that behind, business is quite good with =
contact
lenses, referrals to eye surgeons, and the management of the aftermaths =
and
complications of such things, not to mention cosmetic counseling and the
elevation of eyeglasses to aristocratic accoutrements and beauty aides. =
The=20
eyeglass customer who, years ago, with a competent refraction, might not =
return for a decade or more, is now a "patient" who will probably be =
back=20
within three weeks, and has need of a steady supply of after-market =
necessities,=20
accessories, and replacement items.
An amateur optometrist, on the other hand, has nothing to sell, and is =
just
trying to figure out what is going on. He may wonder, from time to =
time, if
he could get some eyeglasses which would provide sharper vision. Some
have wondered if there is any way to improve bad vision other than =
eyeglasses
and similar stuff, and if there is any hope for the prevention of =
ruining one's eyes
before it is too late.
--
Dicky
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2006-06-19, 9:25 pm |
| On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:04:25 GMT, "Dick Adams" <bad.addr@nonexist.com>
wrote:
[snip]
You "answered" the question here with another question:
| > ... why do you attempt to be an "amateur Optometrist"? ...
|
| Does the anonymous poster feel I may be unqualified for that?
I defined "amateur Optometrist" and you didn't follow-up with anything
relevant:
| > If "amateur Optometrist" is in fact definable, then just replace the
| > definition of "Optometrist" with the defintion of "medical doctor" and
| > you have the definition for "amateur medical doctor".
"Amateur optometrist", by definition, is a non-professional
optometrist -- ergo, one who practices optometry without a O.D.
I don't think that is what you are doing, as I don't see you
performing eye exams, prescribing glasses, etc.
Perhaps you are merely interested in optometry and are just making
guesses here rather than trying to be an "amateur optometrist".
| |
| The Real Bev 2006-06-20, 2:28 am |
| sceptborg wrote:
> Does the polarising work?
> My test is to look out to sea, (or at a shiny road).
Or at a VW bug rear window -- a lovely pattern will emerge if the
glasses are polarized.
--
Cheers, Bev
=========================================================
"I believe that forgiving [terrorists] is God's function.
Our job is to arrange the meeting."
- Norman Schwartzkopf
| |
| Dick Adams 2006-06-20, 4:26 pm |
|
"Anon E. Muss" <anonymous@example.org> wrote in message =
news:mj0e92h3va9fclkp5m5su8691vqp5ifs7e@4ax.com...
> You "answered" the question here with another question:
>=20
> | > ... why do you attempt to be an "amateur Optometrist"? ...
Yes, I did. I learned that ploy from attempting to converse=20
with Professional People.
> I defined "amateur Optometrist" and you didn't follow-up with anything
> relevant:
Well, try this, then:
I am one;
Otis is one;
Ace is one;
Bev is a rather good one;
Then there are the sci.med.vision watchdogs who are deciding
what is appropriate for folks to post -- why not include them?
Obviously, there are considerable ranges of proficiency and
competence.
> "Amateur optometrist", by definition, is a non-professional
> optometrist -- ergo, one who practices optometry without a O.D.
Yes, to varying degrees. Sometimes quite benignly, even usefully
on occasion.
> I don't think that is what you are doing, as I don't see you
> performing eye exams, prescribing glasses, etc.
I do a lot of work on myself. With wall charts and diagrams, and
particularly with signs and neon displays at night, I can figure out
what is wrong with my prescription. Check my work with a pair
of Zennis. It is an incremental thing. Last time I got it right by the
third pair. Also I have some uncut lenses -.25D and -.50D, but
they are no longer useful since I am no longer progressively myopic
due to recent IOL installation.
Also I can give some good advice to my wife but she cannot take
me seriously because she knows I am unprofessional. I am a=20
pretty good plumber, too, but we just paid $300 to a professional
plumber to fix a faucet, on account of lack of trust. We pay a lot
for eyeglasses, for the same reason.
> Perhaps you are merely interested in optometry and are just making
> guesses here rather than trying to be an "amateur optometrist".
Another thing us amateur optometrists do is to check out the phoropter=20
operators. Ophthalmologists are the worst. Optometrists can be quite =
good,=20
but they frequently have agendas, particularly if they have fancy =
eyeglasses
and contact lenses to sell (and little time if they are busy managing =
the
trials and complications of contact lenses) or if they have relatives or
in-laws who are eye surgeons. Among 6 or 7 phoroptrists who have=20
done me in the last several decades, the best two were ladies who's =
training=20
was on-the-job.
--
Dicky
| |
| drfrank21@gmail.com 2006-06-20, 4:26 pm |
|
Dick Adams wrote:
> Another thing us amateur optometrists do is to check out the phoropter
> operators. Ophthalmologists are the worst. Optometrists can be quite good,
> but they frequently have agendas, particularly if they have fancy eyeglasses
> and contact lenses to sell (and little time if they are busy managing the
> trials and complications of contact lenses) or if they have relatives or
> in-laws who are eye surgeons. Among 6 or 7 phoroptrists who have
> done me in the last several decades, the best two were ladies who's training
> was on-the-job.
That kills me. I think that proctologists could also use your
"expertise" to
check out the procto operators. Maybe you could report back and
let us know who performed the best procto exams, who gave you the
"best finger" so to speak. Because you sure do seem to be multi-
talented.
frank
| |
| Dick Adams 2006-06-20, 4:26 pm |
|
<drfrank21@gmail.com> wrote in message =
news:1150824693.345956.228420@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> That kills me. I think that proctologists could also use your
> "expertise" to check out the procto operators. Maybe you=20
> could report back and let us know who performed the best=20
> procto exams, who gave you the "best finger" so to speak.=20
> Because you sure do seem to be multi-talented.
Actually, Doctor, the urologist is the more usual finger tester. =20
(They call it a "digital" test, but it is a very low-tech procedure.)
After you pass 50 (years of age), you can start checking 'em out.
Or you can avoid them altogether. Sooner or later they will/would
start sticking needles up your XXX and recommending unmentionable
procedures.
--
Dicky
| |
| drfrank21@gmail.com 2006-06-20, 4:26 pm |
|
Dick Adams wrote:
> <drfrank21@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1150824693.345956.228420@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Actually, Doctor, the urologist is the more usual finger tester.
> (They call it a "digital" test, but it is a very low-tech procedure.)
> After you pass 50 (years of age), you can start checking 'em out.
> Or you can avoid them altogether. Sooner or later they will/would
> start sticking needles up your XXX and recommending unmentionable
> procedures.
>
> --
> Dicky
See. You're already an expert! Now go play amateur proctologist along
with Otis (you're both good at bull shitting). I'm sure they are in
need
of some groupies.
frank
| |
|
| Dick Adams wrote:
> <drfrank21@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1150824693.345956.228420@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Actually, Doctor, the urologist is the more usual finger
> tester. (They call it a "digital" test, but it is a very low-tech
> procedure.) After you pass 50 (years of age), you can
> start checking 'em out. Or you can avoid them altogether.
> Sooner or later they will/would start sticking needles up
> your XXX and recommending unmentionable procedures.
Aren't they just ripping you off? Can't you get much less
expensive fingers on the internet?
-Quick
| |
| Dick Adams 2006-06-20, 9:25 pm |
|
"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message=20
news:FGYlg.47344$fb2.34296@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Aren't they just ripping you off? Can't you get much less
> expensive fingers on the internet? (Quipped by "Quick")
I am sorry to have confused you. It was not about fingers,
but a kind of a test performed with a finger. And nothing that
can be done over IP, so far, at least.
After a while, if you are attentive, you may get to know what the=20
various kinds of doctors are up to. A urologist, for instance, can
bill a 15-min. visit simply for sticking his finger up a person's XXX.
It does not get much better than that.=20
--
Dicky
(And then there was the one about the patient who suddenly realized=20
that the doctor held him by the right shoulder, as well as the left,
for the DRE.)
(And the one that ends "What's this thermometer doing behind my ear? --
where's my pencil?)
| |
| The Real Bev 2006-06-21, 9:26 pm |
| Dick Adams wrote:
> "Anon E. Muss" <anonymous@example.org> wrote:
>
> Well, try this, then:
> I am one;
> Otis is one;
> Ace is one;
> Bev is a rather good one;
I still haven't figured out exactly how this is a compliment...
--
Cheers,
Bev
---------------------------------------------
"The primary purpose of any government entity
is to employ the unemployable."
|
| |
|
|