degarb
Flashlight Enthusiast
Per Semiman's points on the fixed lighting threads, and my resulting research, I purchased my first pair of pin hole glasses.
Yes, these work. But, I do not see the logic in the argument that they will force you to use more eye muscles and strengthen you eyes. I also read eye doctors want these banned.
However, I think they are perfect for watching tv at night, as they slightly dim and correct the vision. They also make a great beach pair of glasses, where one would not need to worry about scratching lenses of sunglasses or eyeglasses. They would make great pressure washing glasses, or even safety glasses where dust, sparks, or tiny debris is not a concern.
Semimans argued that more light allows the eye to constrict to a small dot which allows focus on distant objects, as in photography. I see this to a large extent when painting. I do see too much side light when photographing a person to darken the face--light needs to be from behind the photographer and not the subject, neither to the side. I could not see into my neighbors garage because of too much light off to the side; while at night with a 100 lumen light, I would see everything. Also, I can only go up to about 1,400 lux inside with fixed lighting behind me when painting before I cannot see ghosts and skips. While I can go over 10,000 lux with head lamp. I feel too much constriction, when not needed for the sharp center vision, hurts vision. I admit, I have only read for a little more than an hour on depth of field, and can use more tutorials on the subject, until I can get a intuitive understanding (mathmatical explanations are fleeting in the memory and practice).
The depth of field argument goes against years of demonstrated vastly more accute vision using only a headlamp. Though, probably at distances over 6 foot, it's principle kicks in. Then there is the issue of slightly uncorrected vision issue of the viewer to deal with: far sightedness and astigmatism, which just more light from any source might help, or not.
Yes, these work. But, I do not see the logic in the argument that they will force you to use more eye muscles and strengthen you eyes. I also read eye doctors want these banned.
However, I think they are perfect for watching tv at night, as they slightly dim and correct the vision. They also make a great beach pair of glasses, where one would not need to worry about scratching lenses of sunglasses or eyeglasses. They would make great pressure washing glasses, or even safety glasses where dust, sparks, or tiny debris is not a concern.
Semimans argued that more light allows the eye to constrict to a small dot which allows focus on distant objects, as in photography. I see this to a large extent when painting. I do see too much side light when photographing a person to darken the face--light needs to be from behind the photographer and not the subject, neither to the side. I could not see into my neighbors garage because of too much light off to the side; while at night with a 100 lumen light, I would see everything. Also, I can only go up to about 1,400 lux inside with fixed lighting behind me when painting before I cannot see ghosts and skips. While I can go over 10,000 lux with head lamp. I feel too much constriction, when not needed for the sharp center vision, hurts vision. I admit, I have only read for a little more than an hour on depth of field, and can use more tutorials on the subject, until I can get a intuitive understanding (mathmatical explanations are fleeting in the memory and practice).
The depth of field argument goes against years of demonstrated vastly more accute vision using only a headlamp. Though, probably at distances over 6 foot, it's principle kicks in. Then there is the issue of slightly uncorrected vision issue of the viewer to deal with: far sightedness and astigmatism, which just more light from any source might help, or not.
Last edited:
